Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab for treatment of US patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer

Cost-effectiveness analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with targeted therapy and chemotherapy for HPV/HIV-related cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

To systematically assess the cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to the current standard therapy for human papillomavirus (HPV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-related cervical cancer.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model spanning a 20-year period was created to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab and chemotherapy (ABC), and pembrolizumab combined with bevacizumab and chemotherapy (PBC) vs bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy (BC), based on clinical data from the BEATcc and KEYNOTE-826 trials. Royston-Parmar models were used for survival estimation. Costs and health state utilities were sourced from existing literature and publicly accessible databases. Cumulative costs (in US dollars), life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured and compared. The evaluation was from the US healthcare payer perspective, with the willingness-to-pay threshold set at $100,000 to $150,000. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA), probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis showed QALYs of 2.05 for BC, 3.18 for PBC, and 2.85 for ABC. PBC increased life-years by 1.76 and ABC by 1.18, with PBC showing the highest effectiveness. Total costs were $272,377 for BC, $715,472 for ABC, and $694,239 for PBC; severe adverse event (SAE) costs were $6189 for BC, $7603.31 for ABC, and $13,640 for PBC, indicating BC had the lowest SAE costs. The ICERs compared to BC were $372,151/QALY for PBC and $553,995/QALY for ABC. Given that the willingness-to-pay threshold was $100,000 to $150,000/QALY, both PBC and ABC exceed this threshold and were not considered cost-effective. BC had the lowest QALYs and the lowest costs, making it the least expensive option and the most cost-effective choice. DSA results indicated that drug prices and utility values were the main factors affecting cost-effectiveness. PSA confirmed BC as the most cost-effective option within a willingness-to-pay threshold of $0 to $300,000, primarily because it was the least costly.

CONCLUSIONS

Immune checkpoint inhibitors significantly improve survival benefits for patients. However, their addition is costly and unlikely to be cost-effective for HPV/HIV-related metastatic cervical cancer.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy as first-line therapy for cervical cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the US

Objective

Medication is the predominant therapy for advanced cancers. However, the use of novel anticancer medications is a major contributor to disease-related financial hardships. Recently, numerous countries have mandated the pharmacoeconomic assessments of novel oncological agents to mitigate patient financial risks and optimize resource allocation. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to standard therapy (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab [BC]) for metastatic, persistent, and recurrent cervical cancer from the perspective of US healthcare payers, with the aim of supporting policymaking and promoting the rational use of healthcare resources.

Methods

Using clinical efficacy and safety data from the BEATcc clinical trial, in addition to cost and utility values from publicly available databases and published literature, a partitioned survival model over a 20-year lifetime horizon was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy (ABC) versus BC. The primary output of the model was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess its robustness.

Results

At both 20 and 4.5 y of time horizon, ABC therapy showed poor cost-effectiveness, with ICER of $193926.48/QALY and $168482.26/QALY, respectively, which were higher than the $150,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the price of atezolizumab had the most significant impact on the model results. When the price of atezolizumab was reduced by 10%, ABC changed from being not cost-effective to cost-effective (ICER = $121531.24/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 32.6% probability that ABC would be cost-effective, which increased to 58.6% when the price of atezolizumab was reduced by 10%.

Conclusions

For patients with metastatic, persistent, and recurrent cervical cancer in the US, ABC was not as cost-effective as BC. Appropriate price reduction (10%) is recommended for atezolizumab to improve cost-effectiveness of ABC therapy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab as First-Line Treatment in Patients with Persistent, Recurrent, or Metastatic Cervical Cancer in the United States

INTRODUCTION

First-line treatment of persistent, recurrent, or metastatic (advanced) cervical cancer in patients who have a combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1 with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus standard-of-care chemotherapy provides meaningful improvements in overall survival. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from a US payer perspective. A societal perspective scenario was also considered, including productivity gains.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was assessed using a state-transition model comprising the health states "pre-progression," "post-progression," and "death," with a 1-week cycle length and 50-year time horizon. Patient-level KEYNOTE-826 data informed the efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy at first-line and subsequent treatments. Real-world data were sought to cost subsequent treatments according to US clinical practice. Transition probabilities were derived from parametric survival models fit to time-to-progression, progression-free survival, and post-progression survival patient-level KEYNOTE-826 data. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact on outcomes from variables such as bevacizumab use.

RESULTS

According to the state-transition model, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy extended mean life expectancy versus chemotherapy from 1.8 to 6.7 life-years. The mean gain of 4.9 life-years/patient was mostly caused by pembrolizumab delaying progression. Total discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were 5.0 and 1.3 per patient for pembrolizumab + chemotherapy and chemotherapy, respectively (mean gain: 3.7 QALY/patient). Pembrolizumab + chemotherapy had comparable safety outcomes to chemotherapy alone. Total costs incurred were US $320,247 (pembrolizumab + chemotherapy) versus US $105,446 (chemotherapy; mean incremental costs: US $214,801/patient). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was US $58,446/QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed results were insensitive to bevacizumab use. Including productivity gains led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $58,385 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model-based analysis suggests that first-line treatment of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in advanced cervical cancer with a CPS ≥ 1 offers a substantial clinical benefit over standard-of-care chemotherapy alone and is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $150,000. The approximate doubling of life-years and QALYs associated with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy represents a step improvement in the treatment of advanced cervical cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identification Number: NCT03635567.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer (BEATcc)

BACKGROUND

The addition of atezolizumab to bevacizumab plus platinum regimen has demonstrated notable improvements in treating metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer, but its cost-effectiveness requires further investigation. From a US payer perspective, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy vs. standard chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model based on the data from the BEATcc trial was used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), using cost and health utility information obtained from literature and publicly accessible databases. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model's responsiveness to variations in parameters.

RESULTS

The addition of atezolizumab resulted in an additional 0.839 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) at an additional cost of $458,237, leading to an ICER of $545,943/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost of atezolizumab had the greatest impact on the ICER, followed by the utility value of progression-free survival (PFS) and follow-up costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 0% cost-effectiveness probability at the current willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy is cost-prohibitive in the US and may not be cost-effective for patients.

First-Line Treatment With Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy for US Patients With Metastatic, Persistent, or Recurrent Cervical Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The BETAcc clinical trial demonstrated that chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab plus atezolizumab (CBA) significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer. However, to the best of our knowledge, the economic value of using this new therapy for this indication is currently unknown. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CBA for the first-line treatment of metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer from the United States healthcare payers perspective.

METHODS

A state-transition Markov model over a 10-year lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of CBA with that of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (CB). The primary outcomes of our study included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

CBA was associated with an additional 0.58 QALY at an extra cost of $172 495.90 compared with CB. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $295 972.43/QALY, significantly higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold value of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that results were most sensitive to the progression-free disease utility, the unit cost of atezolizumab, and progressed disease utility. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that CBA achieved a 4.3% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $150 000/QALY threshold. To achieve cost-effectiveness, the unit price of atezolizumab must be reduced by approximately 56.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

CBA treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with CB for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer in the United States.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy for metastatic cervical cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Aim

The objective of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis in order to evaluate the economic advantages of incorporating atezolizumab into a standard bevacizumab plus platinum regimen for the treatment of metastatic cervical cancer from the Chinese medical system perspective.

Method

We developed a partitioned survival model based on data obtained from the recently published BEATcc clinical trial and economic cost data. Our model utilized a tree-based decision analysis approach to simulate two different treatment strategies for metastatic cervical cancer: the standard bevacizumab plus platinum regimen, and the addition of atezolizumab to the standard treatment regimen. The economic assessment data included the costs of the drugs, costs related to treatment-induced adverse events. The cost-effectiveness metrics used in the analysis were quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The robustness of our model was assessed through sensitivity analysis.

Result

The total costs of the atezolizumab group were $128179.56, while the costs of chemotherapy group were $42065.89. The atezolizumab group gained 3.52 QALYs, whereas the chemotherapy group gained 2.35 QALY. The atezolizumab regimen resulted in an increase of 1.17 QALYs at an incremental cost of $86113.67. This led to an ICER of $73601.43, which exceeds the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $39855.79 in China. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated none of the parameters within a margin of ±25% result in significant alterations to the analysis findings.

Conclusion

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy was not to be a cost-effective option for the treatment of metastatic cervical cancer compared to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of tisotumab vedotin as a second- or third-line therapy for cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tisotumab vedotin to treat recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in second- or third-line from the U.S. payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model with three-state was employed to simulate recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients who were administered either tisotumab vedotin or investigator's choice of chemotherapy based on the phase III, open-labeled innovaTV 301 randomized clinical trial. The data on cost and health preferences were collected from the literature.

RESULTS

Tisotumab vedotin generated an additional 0.25 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared to chemotherapy, but at an additional cost of $206,779. This results in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $839,107.88 per QALY. The results of the univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that cost of tisotumab vedotin, utility of progressive disease and progression-free survival had the greatest impacts on the outcomes. Probability sensitivity analysis showed that tisotumab vedotin had a 0% chance of being considered cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

Tisotumab vedotin was unlikely cost-effective compared to chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY from the perspective of a U.S. payer. Lowering the prices of tisotumab vedotin could potentially enhance its cost-effectiveness.

RETRACTED: Cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy and dostarlimab for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Authors. The authors have independently identified an error in the formula that was utilized to calculate the Quality Adjusted Life Years which invalidates the data and the conclusion of the paper. The authors have contacted the journal requesting to retract the article. Apologies are offered to the readers of the journal for any confusion or inconvenience that may have resulted from the publication of this article.

Clinical practice guidelines for cervical cancer: the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines

This fifth revised version of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer incorporates recent research findings and changes in treatment strategies based on version 4.0 released in 2020. Each key question was developed by focusing on recent notable insights and crucial contemporary issues in the field of cervical cancer. These questions were evaluated for their significance and impact on the current treatment and were finalized through voting by the development committee. The selected key questions were as follows: the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as first- or second-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer; the oncologic safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer; the efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer; and the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to pelvic lymph node dissection. The recommendations, directions, and strengths of this guideline were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and were finally confirmed through public hearings and external reviews. In this study, we describe the revised practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Optimisation with Biomarkers for Immunotherapy in Solid Tumours: A Systematic Review

This study investigated the health economic evaluations of predictive biomarker testing in solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from June 2010 to February 2022, 58 relevant articles were reviewed out of the 730 screened. The focus was predominantly on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (65%) and other solid tumours (40%). Among the NSCLC studies, 21 out of 35 demonstrated cost-effectiveness, notably for pembrolizumab as first-line treatment when preceded by PD-L1 assessment, cost-effective at a threshold of $100,000/QALY compared to the standard of care. However, for bladder, cervical, and triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs), no economic evaluations met the affordability threshold of $100,000/QALY. Overall, the review highlights a certain degree of uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of ICI. In particular, we found PD-L1 expression associated with ICI treatment to be a cost-effective strategy, particularly in NSCLC, urothelial, and renal cell carcinoma. The findings suggest the potential value of predictive biomarker testing, specifically with pembrolizumab in NSCLC, while indicating challenges in achieving cost-effectiveness for certain other solid tumours.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone in persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer

Background

Treating persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer remains challenging. Although pembrolizumab, combined with chemotherapy and bevacizumab, offers a promising first-line option, its cost-effectiveness within the Chinese healthcare system has not been established.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed using patient data from the KEYNOTE-826 trial. Efficacy, safety, and economic data from both trial and real-world practices were utilized to determine the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the treatment strategies. Comprehensive insights were gained through the sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

Results

Over five years, the combination of pembrolizumab, chemotherapy, and bevacizumab offered an additional 1.18 QALYs compared to that provided by standard treatments. This regimen increased the costs by US$ 134,502.57, resulting in an ICER of US$ 114,275.67 per QALY, relative to traditional treatment costs. The ICER for the pembrolizumab regimen was further calibrated to be US$ 52,765.69 per QALY. Both ICER values surpassed China's established willingness-to-pay threshold. Importantly, subgroup analysis revealed enhanced cost-effectiveness in patients presenting with a programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score (PD-L1 CPS) ≥10.

Conclusion

Introducing pembrolizumab alongside chemotherapy and bevacizumab may not be a cost-effective primary strategy for advanced cervical cancer against current standards. However, for patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥10, the therapeutic and economic outcomes could be improved by adjusting the pembrolizumab price.

The anti-PD-1 era of cervical cancer: achievement, opportunity, and challenge

Cervical cancer is one of the three major female gynecological malignancies, becoming a major global health challenge. Although about 90% of early-stage patients can be cured by surgery, advanced-stage patients still need new treatment methods to improve their efficacy, especially for those with recurrence and metastasis tumors. Anti-PD-1 is currently the most widely used immune checkpoint inhibitor, which has revolutionized cancer therapy for different types of cancer. Pembrolizumab has been approved for second-line treatment of R/M CC but has a modest overall response rate of about 15%. Therefore, multiple types of anti-PD-1 have entered clinical trials successively and evaluated the efficacy in combination with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. At the same time, the dual specific antibody of PD-1/CTLA-4 was also used in clinical trials of cervical cancer, and the results showed better than anti-PD-1 monotherapy. In addition, anti-PD-1 has also been shown to sensitize radiotherapy. Therefore, understanding the current research progress of anti-PD-1 will better guide clinical application. This review summarizes ongoing clinical trials and published studies of anti-PD-1 monotherapy and combination therapy in the treatment of cervical cancer, as well as discusses the potential molecular biological mechanisms of combination, aiming to provide the basic evidence for support anti-PD-1 in the treatment of cervical cancer and new insights in combination immunotherapy.

Recent advancements in tumour microenvironment landscaping for target selection and response prediction in immune checkpoint therapies achieved through spatial protein multiplexing analysis

Immune checkpoint therapies have significantly advanced cancer treatment. Nevertheless, the high costs and potential adverse effects associated with these therapies highlight the need for better predictive biomarkers to identify patients who are most likely to benefit from treatment. Unfortunately, the existing biomarkers are insufficient to identify such patients. New high-dimensional spatial technologies have emerged as a valuable tool for discovering novel biomarkers by analysing multiple protein markers at a single-cell resolution in tissue samples. These technologies provide a more comprehensive map of tissue composition, cell functionality, and interactions between different cell types in the tumour microenvironment. In this review, we provide an overview of how spatial protein-based multiplexing technologies have fuelled biomarker discovery and advanced the field of immunotherapy. In particular, we will focus on how these technologies contributed to (i) characterise the tumour microenvironment, (ii) understand the role of tumour heterogeneity, (iii) study the interplay of the immune microenvironment and tumour progression, (iv) discover biomarkers for immune checkpoint therapies (v) suggest novel therapeutic strategies.

Cemiplimab as Second-Line Therapy for Patients with Recurrent Cervical Cancer: A United States-based Cost-effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of cemiplimab in recurrent cervical cancer has been demonstrated in the clinical trial EMPOWER-Cervical 1. However, its high price makes patients and clinicians hesitate to use it. Therefore, we designed a study to evaluate its cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model based on phase III clinical trials to calculate the cost, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 20 years with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. The economic data included were obtained from official US government websites and published literature. Sensitivity analysis was used to determine the uncertainties associated with the model, and a subgroup analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy, cemiplimab produced an additional 0.597 QALYs (0.751 LYs), resulting in an ICER of $111,211.471/QALY in the United States. The cost of cemiplimab is the most influential factor in the model. The results of these models were robust in all sensitivity analyses. From the American public payers' perspective, subgroup analysis showed cemiplimab was a cost-effective regimen in patients with squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 1%.

CONCLUSION

From the American public payers' perspective, cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment option for second-line treatment of recurrent cervical cancer. Meanwhile, cemiplimab was a cost-effective treatment for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1 and all histological types.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to various therapy combinations in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer from the Chinese perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical data for our model was taken from the KEYNOTE-826 trial. The direct costs and utilities were collected from local price databases or previously published literature. A three-state partitioned survival model was designed to simulate the disease process of patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. All costs were estimated in US dollars, with an annual RMB exchange rate of $1 to 6.45 Yuan in 2021. The willingness to pay threshold (WTP) was set at US$37,663.26/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the influence of variables on the model parameters.

RESULTS

For patients with a programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score greater than 1,compared to the chemotherapy group, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy contributed an incremental 1.12 Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALYs) with an incremental cost of US$71,884.42, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$64,338.19, which is beyond the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China. According to sensitivity analyses, the ICERs were most sensitive to the utility of progressive disease and the cost of pembrolizumab. However, those parameters had no significant impact on the model's outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of pembrolizumab to various therapy combinations chemotherapy is exorbitant and may not be cost-effective for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in China.

Sequential Targeted Therapy for Advanced, Metastatic, and Recurrent Cervical Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Patient Journey

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate outcomes and cost-effectiveness of targeted therapy sequencing for metastatic and recurrent cervical cancer.

METHOD

Models were simulated based on phase II and III trials on bevacizumab (bev) from GOG-240, cemiplimab (cemi) from GOG 3016, pembrolizumab (pembro) from KEYNOTE-826, and tisotumab vedotin (tiso) from GOG 3023. Costs were based on IBM Micromedex RED BOOK™ and company listed costs.

RESULTS

For [chemo + bev → chemo], total cost was $125,918.04, with median overall survival (mOS) of 21.8 months, and cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of $119,835.79. For [chemo + bev → cemi], total cost was $187,562.99 with mOS of 28.5 months and CER of $162,039.16. For [chemo + bev + pembro → chemo], total cost was $319,963.78 with mOS 32.9 months and CER of $249,930.10. For [chemo + bev + pembro → tiso], total cost was $455,204.45, with mOS 36.5 months and CER of $320,072.99.

CONCLUSION

The combination of immunotherapies and biologics have significantly increased overall survival, but with associated higher costs, primarily related to drug costs.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for patients with mismatch repair-proficient advanced endometrial cancer: A United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

In 2022, the KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) study showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (PL) has more benefits than traditional chemotherapy as a first-line regimen to treat patients with mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) advanced endometrial cancer (aEC). However, given the high cost of immuno-targeted therapy, the widespread use among patients remains uncertain. Therefore, we conducted a cost-effectiveness comparison between PL and chemotherapy.

METHODS

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PL versus chemotherapy over 7 years by developing a comprehensive Markov model, included 697 patients, that calculated total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The robustness of the model was evaluated by one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In addition, we also performed subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy yielded a mean survival of 0.705 QALYs (0.901 LYs) per patient and was associated with a mean cost of $163,777. PL was associated with an incremental cost of $38,582 and an additional 0.349 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $110,401 per QALY as compared to chemotherapy. The cost of pembrolizumab had a significant impact on ICER. At the assumed WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, approximately 79.2% of simulations show cost-effectiveness occurs in PL. Results of the subgroup analysis showed that PL was the most cost-effective regimen for patients who had previously received 1-line of therapy.

CONCLUSION

For patients with pMMR aEC, the PL strategy may be the most cost-effective strategy at a WTP of $150,000 from the economic perspective of the United States.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy Alone as First-Line Treatment in Patients With Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or More

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to analyze the economics of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and programmed cell death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of 10 or more in China.

METHODS

Based on the advanced ESCC of the KEYNOTE-590 clinical trial data, a Markov model was performed to simulate the clinical course and evaluate the patient's total lifetime, total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) vs. chemotherapy alone in first-line treatment of ESCC and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more. Utility values and direct costs related to the treatments were gathered from the published literature data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the stability of the model.

RESULTS

The baseline analysis indicated that the incremental effectiveness and cost of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone added 1.23 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $51,320.22, which had an ICER of $41,805.12/QALY, higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($37,663.26/QALY). The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICERs were most sensitive to the cycle of pembrolizumab used and the cost of pembrolizumab.

CONCLUSION

The result of our present analysis suggests that the addition of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment might not be cost-effective for patients with ESCC and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more in China.

Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Esophageal Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In 2021, KEYNOTE-590 (NCT03189719) showed that pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (PPF) has more benefits than 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (PF) as a first-line regimen to treat individuals with advanced esophageal cancer. However, given that it is expensive, controversies over the value of using this compared to competitive strategies remain. Hence, we conducted a cost-effectiveness evaluation of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy.

METHODS

A Markov model was applied in evaluating the efficacy and cost of PPF and PF over a 7-year horizon and measured the health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The economic data included were relevant to patients in the USA and China. We also performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to determine the uncertainties relevant to the model. Willingness to pay thresholds (WTP) of $150,000/QALY (USA) and $35,673/QALY (China) were used to calculate a probability for the cost-effectiveness of PPF.

RESULTS

PPF yielded 0.386-0.607 QALYs (0.781-1.195 LYs) compared with PF. In our analysis, compared with receiving PF, patients with advanced esophageal cancer receiving PPF had an ICER of $577,461/QALY in the USA and $258,261/QALY in China, those for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were $550,211/QALY in the USA and $244,580/QALY in China, and a programmed cell death ligand 1 combined positive score (PD-L1 CPS) ≥ 10 was associated with a cost of $479,119/QALY in the USA and $201,355/QALY in China. Sensitivity analysis found the price of pembrolizumab to be the biggest influence.

CONCLUSION

From the economic perspectives of the USA and China, a first-line regimen of PPF for esophageal cancer therapy may not be as cost-effective as PF. However, patients with esophageal cancer and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 may gain the most LYs from initial PPF treatment.