Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy in the US for women with previously treated deficient mismatch repair or high microsatellite instability unresectable or metastatic endometrial cancer

A Narrative Review of the Clinical, Humanistic, and Economic Value of Pembrolizumab-Based Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Breast and Gynecologic Cancers

Breast and gynecologic cancers are common across the world and are associated with substantial societal and economic burden. Pembrolizumab was among the first immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death protein 1 to be approved for the treatment of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, cervical cancer, and endometrial cancer. Recent clinical trials have established pembrolizumab regimens as a standard of care treatment for these tumor types. Clinical data are further supported by patient-reported outcome, cost-effectiveness, and real-world evidence. Pembrolizumab monotherapy and combination regimens do not negatively influence health-related quality of life and are cost-effective relative to comparators. Ongoing phase 3 studies with pembrolizumab will expand the current understanding of its use in breast and gynecologic cancers. Several of these studies are in patients with early-stage disease with the hope of curing patients. The main objective of this review is to summarize the clinical, humanistic, and economic value of pembrolizumab in these settings and to describe the future challenges for patients, caregivers, clinicians, and payers.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for patients with advanced endometrial cancer: a network meta-analysis and cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations show significant survival advantages compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of different immunotherapy combinations for clinician and patient decision-making.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science Databases were reviewed from January 1, 2010 to October 30, 2023, for phase III randomized controlled trials of first-line immunotherapy combinations in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival and progression-free survival, relative risks (RRs) of adverse events, and corresponding p value. The lifetime Markov model of cost-effectiveness analysis was developed to summarize the cost, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios at the US$150 000/QALY of willingness-to-pay of six first-line treatment strategies.

RESULTS

Four trials were identified, involving 2577 patients. Dostarlimab plus chemotherapy or durvalumab plus chemotherapy with olaparib was associated with more survival benefits than other immunotherapy regimens and chemotherapy in the mismatch repair-deficient microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) and mismatch repair-proficient microsatellite-stable (pMMR/MSS) population, respectively. Further, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy increased efficacy (cost) by 3.76 QALYs and US$540 817, which yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$143 894/QALY in the dMMR/MSI-H population.

CONCLUSION

First-line durvalumab plus chemotherapy with olaparib, and dostarlimab plus chemotherapy, were more beneficial for survival in the pMMR/MSS and dMMR/MSI-H populations, respectively. Only pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was cost-effective for patients with dMMR/MSI-H endometrial cancer in the USA.

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in combination with chemotherapy for patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) from the U.S. payer's perspective.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness study was conducted using a Markov model based on ENGOT-en7/MaNGO/AtTEnd clinical trials. The population consisted of patients with EC, stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups. The model simulated patients receiving either atezolizumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated using a Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy in dMMR EC resulted in an incremental gain of 3.31 QALYs but at an additional cost of $855,042, leading to an ICER of $258,391.07/QALY compared to chemotherapy alone. In pMMR EC, there was a gain of 0.50 QALYs with an additional cost of $140,502, resulting in an ICER of $279,239.72/QALY. The overall ICER for EC was $216,459.34/QALY. Scenario analysis indicated that administering atezolizumab for a maximum of 2 years improved cost-effectiveness in dMMR EC, with an ICER of $70,695.96/QALY falling within the predetermined WTP threshold.

CONCLUSION

For patients with advanced or recurrent EC, the combination of atezolizumab and chemotherapy may not prove cost-effective. However, administering atezolizumab for a limited period of maximum 2 years could improve cost-effectiveness in dMMR EC.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer

Objective

In the double-blind, phase III, placebo-controlled RUBY randomized clinical trial, dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel significantly increased survival among patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of dostarlimab in combination with chemotherapy in these patients stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups from the perspective of a United States payer.

Materials and methods

A Markov model with three states was employed to simulate patients who were administered either dostarlimab in combination with chemotherapy or chemotherapy based on the RUBY trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to explore the robustness of the model.

Results

In dMMR EC, the combination of dostarlimab and chemotherapy achieved an additional 5.48 QALYs at an incremental cost of $330,747 compared to chemotherapy alone, resulting in an ICER of $60,349.30 per QALY. In pMMR EC, there were 1.51 additional QALYs gained at an extra cost of $265,148, yielding an ICER of $175,788.47 per QALY. With a 15.2% discount on dostarlimab, the ICER decreased to $150,000 per QALY in the pMMR EC. The univariate sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost of dostarlimab, utility of progression-free survival (PFS), and progressive disease (PD) had the most significant impacts on the outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that dostarlimab had a 100% likelihood of being considered cost-effective for patients at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY for dMMR EC, whereas this likelihood was only 0.5% for pMMR EC.

Conclusion

Dostarlimab in combination with chemotherapy was cost-effective for primary advanced or recurrent dMMR EC from the perspective of a United States payer at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, but not for pMMR EC. Lowering the prices of dostarlimab could potentially enhance the cost-effectiveness of treatment for pMMR EC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab vs. camrelizumab for the treatment of second-line locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Esophageal carcinoma is a type of cancer that occurs in the esophagus. For patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who have either experienced disease progression following first-line standard chemotherapy or are intolerant to it, the prognosis is typically poor. Additionally, these patients often bear a substantial economic burden during the course of their treatment. Tislelizumab is a selective PD-1 inhibitor with efficacy proven in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus camrelizumab as the second-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients in China.

METHODS

From the perspective of China's healthcare system, the partitioned survival model with three health states was established in a 3-week cycle and a lifetime horizon. Anchored matching adjusted indirect comparison was used for survival analyses based on individual patient data from RATIONALE 302 trial and the published ESCORT study due to the lack of head-to-head clinical trials. Only direct medical costs were included. Costs and utility values were derived from local charges, the published literature, and related databases. Sensitivity analyses and a scenario analysis were also performed to verify the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

Compared with camrelizumab monotherapy, tislelizumab monotherapy incurred a lower lifetime cost ($8,346 vs. $8,851) and yielded higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.87 vs. 0.63), which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$2,051/QALY. Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option over camrelizumab monotherapy in China. The three primary parameters upon which this result was most sensitive were the unit cost of camrelizumab, the unit cost of tislelizumab, and the duration of reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP). According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), tislelizumab monotherapy was 100% cost-effective when the WTP was 1-3 times GDP per capita in China($11,207/QALY∼$33,621/QALY). Scenario analysis showed that the result was consistent.

CONCLUSION

Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option compared with camrelizumab monotherapy as the second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States and in China

PURPOSE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) compared to chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer (EC) from the United States and Chinese payers' perspective.

METHODS

In this economic evaluation, a partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of the United States and Chinese payers. The survival data were derived from the clinical trial (309-KEYNOTE-775), while costs and utility values were sourced from databases and published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated. The robustness of the model was evaluated through sensitivity analyses, and price adjustment scenario analyses was also performed.

RESULTS

Base-case analysis indicated that LP wouldn't be cost-effective in the United States at the WTP threshold of $200 000, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an additional cost of $398596.81 (ICER $531392.20). While LP was cost-effective in China, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an increased overall cost of $62270.44 (ICER $83016.29). Sensitivity analyses revealed that the above results were stable. The scenario analyses results indicated that LP was cost-effective in the United States when the prices of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab were simultaneously reduced by 61.95% ($26.5361/mg for lenvatinib and $19.1532/mg for pembrolizumab).

CONCLUSION

LP isn't cost-effective in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer in the United States, whereas it is cost-effective in China. The evidence-based pricing strategy provided by this study could benefit decision-makers in making optimal decisions and clinicians in general clinical practice. More evidence about budget impact and affordability for patients is needed.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone, based on the results of the NRG-GY018 trial, in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC), stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to simulate patients receiving either pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of our findings.

RESULTS

The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to an incremental gain of 4.05 QALYs at an additional cost of $167,224, resulting in an ICER of $41,305.09/QALY compared to chemotherapy alone in dMMR EC. Additionally, there were 0.93 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $83,661, which resulted in an ICER of $90,284.80/QALY in pMMR EC. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the cost of pembrolizumab, utility of progressed disease, and utility of progression-free survival had the greatest impact on the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that pembrolizumab was considered cost-effective at a 100% probability at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Pembrolizumab, when combined with chemotherapy, was found to be cost-effective compared to chemotherapy alone both for patients with advanced or recurrent dMMR and pMMR EC from the perspective of a payer in the United States.

Cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib compared with chemotherapy for treating previously treated advanced endometrial cancer in Sweden

OBJECTIVE

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib was recently approved for the treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with disease progression on or following prior treatment with a platinum‑containing therapy in any setting, and who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation (KEYNOTE-775/Study-309; NCT03517449). The objective was to assess the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib compared with chemotherapy from a Swedish healthcare perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A lifetime partitioned-survival model with three health states (progression free, progressed disease, death) was constructed. Chemotherapy was represented by paclitaxel or doxorubicin. Overall survival, progression-free survival, time on treatment, and utility data were obtained from KEYNOTE-775 (database lock: March 1, 2022). Costs (in 2020 Swedish Krona [SEK]) included drug acquisition and administration, health state, end of life, adverse event management, subsequent treatment, and societal (scenario analysis). Outcomes were calculated as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and life-years. Model results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for all-comers, patients with proficient mismatch repair tumors, and deficient mismatch repair tumors. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is a cost-effective treatment when compared with chemotherapy, with estimated deterministic and probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of SEK 795,712 and 819,757 per QALY gained. Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib was associated with a large incremental QALY and life-year gain per person versus chemotherapy over the model time horizon (1.49 and 1.76).

LIMITATIONS

Time-to-event data were incomplete and semiparametric and parametric curves were utilized for lifetime extrapolation. Willingness-to-pay thresholds, costs, and utility weights vary by country, which would vary the treatment's cost effectiveness in different countries.

CONCLUSIONS

This partitioned survival analysis suggests that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is cost effective compared with chemotherapy in Sweden for women with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma following previous systemic therapy. Results were robust to mismatch repair status and to changes in parameters/assumptions.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for previously treated MSI-H/dMMR solid tumours in the UK

OBJECTIVES

Patients with previously treated microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) tumours have limited chemotherapeutic treatment options. Pembrolizumab received approval from the EMA in 2022 for the treatment of colorectal, endometrial, gastric, small intestine, and biliary MSI-H/dMMR tumour types. This approval was supported by data from the KEYNOTE-164 and KEYNOTE-158 clinical trials. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with standard of care (SoC) for previously treated MSI-H/dMMR solid tumours in line with the approved EMA label from a UK healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

A multi-tumour partitioned survival model was built consisting of pre-progression, progressed disease, and dead health states. Pembrolizumab survival outcomes were extrapolated using Bayesian hierarchical models (BHMs) fitted to pooled data from KEYNOTE-164 and KEYNOTE-158. Comparator outcomes were informed by published sources. Tumour sites were modelled independently and then combined, weighted by tumour site distribution. A SoC comparator was used to formulate the overall cost-effectiveness result with pembrolizumab as the intervention. SoC comprised a weighted average of the comparators by tumour site based on market share. Drug acquisition, administration, adverse events, monitoring, subsequent treatment, end-of-life costs, and testing costs were included. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed, including modelling pembrolizumab efficacy using standard parametric survival models.

RESULTS

Pembrolizumab, at list price, was associated with £129,469 in total costs, 8.30 LYs, and 3.88 QALYs across the pooled tumour sites. SoC was associated with £28,222 in total costs, 1.14 LYs, and 0.72 QALYs across the pooled tumour sites. This yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £32,085 per QALY. Results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This model demonstrates pembrolizumab provides a valuable new alternative therapy for UK patients with MSH-H/dMMR cancer at the cost of £32,085 per QALY, with confidential discounts anticipated to improve cost-effectiveness further.

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.

Association between financial toxicity and health-related quality of life of patients with gynecologic cancer

OBJECTIVES

Patients often struggle with their financial situation during cancer treatment due to treatment-related costs or loss of income. This resulting negative effect is called financial toxicity, which is a known as a side effect of cancer care. This study aimed to evaluate the association between financial toxicity and health-related quality of life among patients with gynecologic cancer using validated questionnaires.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, patients with gynecologic cancer receiving anti-cancer drug treatment for > 2 months were recruited. Patients answered the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool, EORTC-QLQ-C30, disease-specific tools (EORTC-QLQ-OV28/CX24/EN24), and EQ-5D-5L. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to determine associations.

RESULTS

Between April 2019 and July 2021, 109 cancer patients completed the COST questionnaire. The mean COST score was 19.82. Strong associations were observed between financial difficulty (r = - 0.616) in the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and body image (r = 0.738) in the EORTC-QLQ-CX24, while weak associations were noted between the global health status/quality of life (r = 0.207), EQ-5D-5L index score (r = 0.252), and several function and symptom scale scores with the COST score.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater financial toxicity was associated with worse health-related quality of life scores, such as financial difficulty in gynecologic cancer patients and body image in cervical cancer patients as strong associations, and weakly associated with general health-related quality of life scores and several function/symptom scales.

Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

The disutilities of adverse events (AEs) are important inputs for cost-utility analysis (CUA), reflecting the impacts of AEs on health outcomes. Health technology assessment institutions and scholars have proposed recommendations for applying disutility values in economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the current use of disutilities of AEs as model parameters in the CUA of cancer drug therapy and to compare the discrepancies between the use of disutilities and published recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the official websites of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) for CUAs of drug therapy for cancer published in English from January 2019 to April 2022. Information about the use of disutilities of AEs (whether and how disutilities were used, or why they were not used) in selected studies was extracted and compared with published recommendations. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize the results.

RESULTS

A total of 467 CUAs were included, 54% (254/467) of which included disutilities of AEs in their model. The proportion that included these disutilities increased from 2019 to 2021, ranging from 47% (51/107) to 61% (116/190). Only 6% (15/254) of the CUAs using disutilities of AEs considered all five recommendations about the justification for inclusion and exclusion, description of values and sources, grades of AEs, calculation, and uncertainty analyses. Only 15% (72/467) provided a clear justification for inclusion and exclusion of disutilities of AEs, and 7% (17/254) did not provide values or sources. In total, 69% (175/254) of the analyses focused on AEs of grade 3 or greater, and 11% (28/254) applied utility decrements for grades 1 and 2. Disutilities of AEs were generally calculated using the incidence rates, which were clearly stated in 49% (65/132) of the analyses. Uncertainty analyses were conducted in 84% (214/254) of the CUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of disutilities of AEs in CUAs shows some discrepancies with recommendations proposed in the literature. One is that detailed information about the use of disutilities of AEs was not reported and the other is that essential methods to analyze the impact of AEs on quality-adjusted life-years were not thoroughly conducted. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers should attach importance to the impact of AEs on health-related quality of life. Furthermore, an application process was developed for the disutilities of AEs to remind and guide researchers to correctly use the disutilities of AEs as parameters in the decision-analytic model.

Pembrolizumab with chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer

INTRODUCTION

Despite progress on prevention and treatment of cervical cancer, global morbidity and mortality remain high. Immunotherapy, in conjunction with standard chemotherapy, presents an opportunity for further benefit.

AREAS COVERED

Here we report the pharmacologic properties, evidence for clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pembrolizumab in addition to standard chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab for treatment of advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.

EXPERT OPINION

In patients with progressive, recurrent, or metastatic PD-L1 expressing cervical cancer, without contraindication to anti-VEGF therapy, the use of pembrolizumab with bevacizumab and standard chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel is warranted. There is no evidence to support the use of pembrolizumab for this population broadly, and no evidence to support its use in PD-L1 non-expressing tumors.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy for patients with previously treated mismatch repair proficient advanced endometrial cancer in China

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) vs. chemotherapy for patients with previously treated mismatch repair proficient advanced endometrial cancer in China. Methods: A lifetime of partitioned survival Markov was used to evaluate the overall lifetime, total costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) across a 10-years time horizon in the study 309-KEYNOTE-775 clinical trial. Direct costs and utility values were gathered from available literature. The willingness to pay (WTP) was defined at $37,663.26 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the model's uncertainty. Results: According to the baseline analysis, the LP group gained 4.02 total life years and 3.13 QALYs for $93,496.69, whereas the chemotherapy group gained 2.86 total life years and 2.24 QALYs for $30,578.04. LP versus chemotherapy resulted in an incremental cost of $62,918.65, with an ICER of $70,962.09/QALY, which was higher than China's WTP threshold ($37,663.26/QALY). The ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of pembrolizumab and the cycle of LP delivered, according to the sensitivity analysis. However, changing the range of those parameters has no influence on the model's results. Conclusion: Our present analysis suggests that LP treatment is not cost-effective for patients with previously treated mismatch repair proficient advanced endometrial cancer. However, LP treatment may be a cost-effective treatment option if the price is reduced.

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.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab vs. Chemotherapy in Pretreated Patients With Advanced Endometrial Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background

In the international, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study 309-KEYNOTE-775 trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy in pretreated patients with advanced endometrial cancer. This study aimed to investigate whether LP is cost-effective compared with chemotherapy.

Materials and Methods

The clinical data for this model was derived from the 309-KEYNOTE-775 trial. Costs and utilities were either derived from the standard fee database or extracted from previously published literature. A three-state Markov model was developed to simulate the disease process of patients with advanced endometrial cancer. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate the impact of variables in the analysis model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed based on 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations. A subgroup analysis was performed to test whether LP is cost-effective in patients with mismatch repair–proficient (pMMR) disease.

Results

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab provided an incremental 0.64 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with an incremental cost of $241,278.18, compared with chemotherapy, resulting in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $378,251.44/QALY, which exceeded the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. While in the pMMR subgroup, the ICER increased to $413,256.68/QALY. The variance of the utility of PFS state, the cost of LP, and the utility of the progressive disease state were the most influential factors in the sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion

Under the current WTP threshold, LP is not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in pretreated patients with advanced endometrial cancer.

Validity of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) in patients with gynecologic cancer

OBJECTIVE

Financial toxicity is a financial burden of cancer care itself, which leads to worse quality of life and higher mortality and is considered an adverse effect. The COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) tool is a patient-reported outcome measurement used to evaluate financial toxicity. We aimed to validate the internal consistency and reproducibility of the COST tool in patients with gynecologic cancer.

METHODS

In this multicenter study covering the period April 2019 to July 2021, using the COST tool in Japan, patients diagnosed with ovarian, cervical, or endometrial cancer receiving systemic anti-cancer drug therapy for more than 2 months were eligible. Patients with no out-of-pocket costs for direct medical costs were excluded. The patients answered the initial test and a retest, which was completed from 2 to 14 days after the initial test. Internal consistency and reproducibility were assessed using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Cronbach's alpha ≥0.8 indicates good internal consistency, and ICC ≥0.8 is highly reliable.

RESULTS

A total of 112 patients (ovarian: 50, cervical: 26, endometrial: 36) responded to the initial test, and 89 patients answered the retest from 2 to 14 days after the initial test. The median patient age was 58 (range, 28-78) years. The median COST score was 19. Cronbach's alpha showed good internal consistency at 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87). The ICC at 0.850 (95% CI 0.777 to 0.900) showed high reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

The COST tool has good internal consistency and reliable reproducibility in patients with gynecologic cancer in Japan. The COST tool quantifies financial toxicity in the insurance system, where patients have limited out-of-pocket direct medical costs. The results support the use of the COST tool in patients with gynecologic cancer.

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

OBJECTIVE

The effectiveness of pembrolizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness from the United States (US) healthcare payers perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model over a 30-year lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus placebo based on clinical data from the KEYNOTE-826 phase 3 randomized trial. Costs and health state utilities were obtained from literature and publicly available databases. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

For the Intention-to-Treat patients, pembrolizumab was associated with an additional 0.74 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at an additional cost of $182,271 when compared with placebo. The ICER was $247,663/QALY. For patients with a programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥ 1 and 10, the ICER was $253,322/QALY and $214,212/QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that pembrolizumab had the greatest impact on the ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of pembrolizumab being cost-effective was zero at the current willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. The price of pembrolizumab had to reduce at least to $28.336 (55.8% of the current price) for it to be cost-effective in a 50% of chance.

CONCLUSION

The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is costly and might not be cost-effective for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer at the current price in the US.