The effect of PD-L1 testing on the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the second-line treatment of NSCLC

Real-world data on efficacy/safety and economic impact of nivolumab administered every 2 and 4 weeks among Japanese patients

AIM

A new treatment interval for nivolumab administration at 480 mg every 4 weeks, in addition to 240 mg every 2 weeks, was approved in Japan in 2020. Using model-based evaluation, it was speculated that the effects or safety of nivolumab do not differ between the two treatment intervals; however, real-world data on nivolumab efficacy, safety, and economic impact are lacking. Accordingly, we aimed to examine the effects of nivolumab treatment intervals (2 weeks vs. 4 weeks) in terms of efficacy, safety, and economic impact in Japanese patients with cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 126 patients treated with nivolumab. The patients were divided into two groups depending on whether they received nivolumab at 240 mg every 2 weeks (2-week group) or 480 mg every 4 weeks (4-week group).

RESULTS

Efficacy results found no significant difference between the 4- and 2-week groups considering median overall survival (p = 0.70) and median progression-free survival (p = 0.57). The incidence of any grade and ≥  grade 3 immune-related adverse events did not differ between the 4-week and 2-week groups (any grade, p = 0.13; ≥  grade 3, p = 0.36). Excluding drug costs, the 4-week group had significantly lower medical costs than the 2-week group (2-week vs. 4-week: mean, 94,659 JPY [679.0 USD] vs. 58,737 JPY [421.3 USD]; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Collectively, our findings suggest that nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks may be more effective than nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks in terms of economic impact.

Combination tumor-treating fields treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tumor-treating field (TTFields) was a novel antitumor therapy that provided significant survival for previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). The consistency of the cost of the new treatment regimen with its efficacy was the main objective of the study.

METHODS

The primary parameters, derived from the Phase 3 LUNAR study, were collected to evaluate the cost and efficacy of TTFields plus standard-of-care (SOC) (immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs] and docetaxel [DTX]) or SOC in patients with mNSCLC by establishing a three-state Markov model over a 15-year time horizon. Primary outcome measures for this study included costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The total costs of TTFields plus SOC, TTFields plus ICI, and TTFields plus DTX were $319,358, $338,688, and $298,477, generating 1.23 QALYs, 1.58 QALYs, and 0.89 QALYs, respectively. The ICERs of TTFields plus SOC versus SOC, TTFields plus ICI versus ICI, and TTFields plus DTX versus DTX were $613,379/QALY, $387,542/QALY, and $1,359,559/QALY, respectively. At willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $150,000/QALY, the probability of combination TTFields being cost-effective was 0%. In addition, TTFields plus SOC exhibited similar efficacy (1.12 QALYs and 1.14 QALYs) and costs ($309,822 and $312,531) in the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and non-squamous cell carcinoma (NSCC) populations.

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States, TTFields plus SOC as second-line treatment was not a more cost-effective strategy for patients with mNSCLC. Of the analyzed regimens, TTFields plus ICI was associated with most significant health benefits.

Cost-effectiveness comparison between blood biomarkers and conventional tests in Alzheimer's disease diagnosis

Dementia management has evolved with drugs such as lecanemab, shifting management from palliative care to early diagnosis and intervention. However, the administration of these drugs presents challenges owing to the invasiveness, high cost and limited availability of amyloid-PET and cerebrospinal fluid tests for guiding drug administration. Our manuscript explores the potential of less invasive blood biomarkers as a diagnostic method, with a cost-effectiveness analysis and a comparison with traditional tests. Our findings suggest that blood biomarkers are a cost-effective alternative, but with lower accuracy, indicating the need for multiple specific biomarkers for precision. This underscores the importance of future research on new blood biomarkers and their clinical efficacy.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields plus standard therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer progressed after platinum-based therapy in the United States

Background: Tumor treating fields (TTF) was first approved for treatment of glioblastoma. Recently, the LUNAR study demonstrated that TTF + standard therapy (ST) extended survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This primary objective of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the United States healthcare payers' perspective. Methods: A 3-health-state Markov model was established to compare the cost-effectiveness of TTF + ST and that of ST alone. Clinical data were extracted from the LUNAR study, supplemented by additional cost and utility data obtained from publications or online sources. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were conducted. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was set to $150,000. The main results include total costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Subgroup analyses were conducted for two types of ST, including immune checkpoint inhibitor, and docetaxel. Results: During a 10-year time horizon, the costs of TTF + ST and ST alone were $431,207.0 and $128,125.9, and the QALYs were 1.809 and 1.124, respectively. The ICER of TTF + ST compared to ST was $442,732.7 per QALY, and the INMB was -$200,395.7 at the WTP threshold. The cost of TTF per month was the most influential factor in cost-effectiveness, and TTF + ST had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold compared with ST alone. Conclusion: TTF + ST is not a cost-effective treatment for advanced NSCLC patients who progressed after platinum-based therapy from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.

Cost-utility analysis of Pembrolizumab compared to other alternative immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatments for patients with advanced melanoma in Iran

OBJECTIVES

Immunotherapy drugs like Pembrolizumab have shown significant improvements in treatment outcomes of advanced melanoma. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of Pembrolizumab compared to other immunotherapy and chemotherapy drugs in the first-line treatment of advanced melanoma in Iran.

METHODS

A partitioned-survival model, based on data from a recent randomized phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006) and recent meta-analysis, was used to divide Overall survival (OS) time into Progression-free survival (PFS) and post-progression survival for Pembrolizumab, Nivolumab, Ipilimumab, Dacarbazine, Temozolomide, Carboplatin, and Paclitaxel combination. Quality Life Years (QALY) and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were considered as the final outcome.

RESULTS

The ICER of Ipilimumab, Nivolumab, Nivolumab & Ipilimumab, and Pembrolizumab compared to Temozolomide was calculated as $40,365.53, $19,591.13, $24,578, and $47,324.2 per QALY, respectively. Scenario analysis demonstrated if the price of one vial of Nivolumab 100 is $90.51, each vial of Pembrolizumab is $119.20, and each vial of Ipilimumab is $101.54, they will be cost-effective in Iran.

CONCLUSION

None of the immunotherapy drugs studied were found to be cost-effective when considering the cost-effectiveness threshold of $3,532. Therefore, a cost reduction of more than 90% in the prices of immunotherapy drugs would be necessary for them to be considered cost-effective in Iran.

Integrated budget impact model to estimate the impact of introducing selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment option for patients with RET-altered solid tumors in the US

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the potential budget impact on US third party payers (commercial or Medicare) associated with addition of selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment for patients with Rearranged during Transfection (RET)-altered solid tumors.

METHODS

An integrated budget impact model (iBIM) with 3-year (Y) time horizon was developed for 19 RET-altered tumors. It is referred to as an integrated model because it is a single model that integrated results across multiple tumor types (as opposed to tumor-specific models developed traditionally). The model estimated eligible patient populations and included tumor-specific comparator treatments for each tumor type. Estimated annual total costs (2022USD, $) included costs of drug, administration, supportive care, and toxicity. For a one-million-member plan, the number of patients with RET-altered tumors eligible for treatment, incremental total costs, and incremental per-member per-month (PMPM) costs associated with introduction of selpercatinib treatment were estimated. Uncertainty associated with model parameters was assessed using various sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Commercial perspective estimated 11.68 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 7.59 (Y1), 8.17 (Y2), and 8.76 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated (based on forecasted market share). The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (commercial) were estimated to be: $873,099 and $0.073 (Y1), $2,160,525 and $0.180 (Y2), and $2,561,281 and $0.213 (Y3), respectively. The Medicare perspective estimated 55.82 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 36.29 (Y1), 39.08 (Y2), and 41.87 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated. The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (Medicare) were estimated to be: $4,447,832 and $0.371 (Y1), $11,076,422 and $0.923 (Y2), and $12,637,458 and $1.053 (Y3), respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses across both perspectives identified drug costs, selpercatinib market share, incidence of RET, and treatment duration as significant drivers of incremental costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-year incremental PMPM cost estimates suggest a modest impact on payer-budgets associated with introduction of tumor-agnostic selpercatinib treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with adjuvant pembrolizumab for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Introduction

Perioperative (neoadjuvant and adjuvant) pembrolizumab has shown favorable efficacy in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.

Methods

We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of perioperative pembrolizumab with that of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 21-day cycles, utilizing data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-671 trial. Additional data were extracted from other publications or online sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was established. The main outcomes of this study were the measurement of QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB).

Results

During a 10-year time horizon, the total costs of perioperative pembrolizumab and the control treatment were $224,779.1 and $110,026.3, respectively. The QALYs were 4.19 and 2.97 for the two treatments, respectively, which led to an ICER of $94,222.29 per QALY gained. The NMB at the WTP threshold at $150,000 per QALY gained was $67,931.3. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the cost of pembrolizumab as the primary factor influencing cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 97.7% probability of perioperative pembrolizumab being cost-effective at the WTP threshold.

Conclusions

From the perspective of the United States healthcare payers, perioperative pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with early-stage NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sugemalimab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in Chinese patients with metastatic NSCLC

INTRODUCTION

Because of its low immunogenicity and associated risk of toxicity, sugemalimab is expected to reshape the first-line treatment landscape for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China. However, it remains unclear whether the use of expensive sugemalimab is cost-effective in this population.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed based on the GEMSTONE-302 study to assess the efficacy of sugemalimab in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Efficacy and safety data were entered, with costs and utility values derived from the literature, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated, and univariate sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. We also considered cost-effectiveness in two different treatment regimen scenarios after disease progression.

RESULTS

Compared with the placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy, patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with sugemalimab plus platinum-based chemotherapy saw an increase of 0.56 life-years (LYs) and 0.41 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and patients with squamous NSCLC resulted in an ICER per QALY of $45,280.02. Patients with nonsquamous metastatic NSCLC resulted in an ICER of $45,294.15 per QALY. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that disease-free survival utility had the greatest impact on the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for QALYs was $27,354/QALY, sugemalimab, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, was more cost-effective than the placebo.

CONCLUSION

From a Chinese health care system perspective, first-line treatment of squamous or nonsquamous metastatic NSCLC with sugemalimab plus platinum-based chemotherapy may have cost-effectiveness compared with placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy at a WTP threshold of $27,354/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant therapy with atezolizumab in Chinese patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC after adjuvant chemotherapy

Background

Atezolizumab was first shown to significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) after platinum-based chemotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the IMpower010 Phase 3 trial. However, the cost-effectiveness and potential economic impact of atezolizumab treatment in Chinese patients are unknown.

Methods

Markov models were constructed based on follow-up data from the IMpower010 trial and assessed separately in the programmed cell death receptor ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor cells (TC) ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the intention-to-treat (ITT) group (stage IB–IIIA). Efficacy and safety data were obtained from the IMpower010 trial, and costs and utility values were derived from the literature and local surveys to estimate their incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) compared with willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds in scenarios implementing patient assistance programs (PAP) or drug price negotiations. Univariate sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to investigate the stability of the model results.

Results

Compared with best supportive care (BSC), atezolizumab produced an additional 0.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), 0.04 QALYs, and -0.0028 QALYs in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the ITT group, and the ICERs were 108,825.37/QALY, 1,028,538.22/QALY, and -14,381,171.55/QALY, respectively. The ICERs all exceeded the WTP threshold of $27,354 per QALY (three times the per capita gross domestic product of China in 2022), and univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the price of atezolizumab played a crucial role in the model results. PSA showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the ITT group increased with the increasing WTP threshold.

Conclusion

From the perspective of China’s health care system, in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the ITT group, the use of atezolizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage NSCLC after platinum-based chemotherapy is unlikely to be cost-effective. The implementation of PAP or price reduction negotiations for atezolizumab might be among the most effective measures to improve its cost-effectiveness.

An immunogold single extracellular vesicular RNA and protein (Au SERP) biochip to predict responses to immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients

Conventional PD‐L1 immunohistochemical tissue biopsies only predict 20%–40% of non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that will respond positively to anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 immunotherapy. Herein, we present an immunogold biochip to quantify single extracellular vesicular RNA and protein (^AuSERP) as a non‐invasive alternative. With only 20 μl of purified serum, PD‐1/PD‐L1 proteins on the surface of extracellular vesicles (EVs) and EV PD‐1/PD‐L1 messenger RNA (mRNA) cargo were detected at a single‐vesicle resolution and exceeded the sensitivities of their bulk‐analysis conventional counterparts, ELISA and qRT‐PCR, by 1000 times. By testing a cohort of 27 non‐responding and 27 responding NSCLC patients, ^AuSERP indicated that the single‐EV mRNA biomarkers surpass the single‐EV protein biomarkers in predicting patient responses to immunotherapy. Dual single‐EV PD‐1/PD‐L1 mRNA detection differentiated responders from non‐responders with an accuracy of 72.2% and achieved an NSCLC diagnosis accuracy of 93.2%, suggesting the potential for ^AuSERP to provide enhanced immunotherapy predictions and cancer diagnoses within the clinical setting.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab for the treatment of Non–Small-Cell lung cancer: A systematic review

Introduction

Pembrolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor for treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), can impose a high financial burden. Several studies have explored the cost-effectiveness of this expensive agent. We conducted a systematic review and pooled analysis to evaluate the quality of the existing pharmacoeconomic studies on pembrolizumab strategies for NSCLC treatment as well as to conclude the cost-effectiveness of such strategies.

Methods

English and Chinese databases were searched to collect health economic studies on pembrolizumab therapies (monotherapy or a combination with chemotherapy) compared with chemotherapy for the treatment of NSCLC patients. The reporting quality, modeling methods, and results of incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of the included literature were descriptively analyzed.

Results

A total of 24 studies, 3 in Chinese and 21 in English, were selected. All reports satisfy a median of 31 out of 40 reporting quality assessment items based on a quality checklist for pharmacoeconomic evaluations. 12 studies used the Markov model and 11 used the partitioned survival model. A common problem identified in the modeling methods was the insufficient justification of the choices of model structure and data inputs. Pembrolizumab was found to be cost-effective in the United States and Switzerland, but not in China, France, the UK, or Singapore.

Conclusion

The current cost-effectiveness studies on pembrolizumab for the treatment of NSCLC are of moderate quality, and the relevant decision-analytic modeling methods have much scope for improvement. The cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab strategies for NSCLC varies across countries, warranting the need to pay more attention to the methodologies of pharmacoeconomic research in order to produce correct outcomes in terms of cost-effectiveness for different countries.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021250480

Cost-Effectiveness of PD-L1 Testing in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Using In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Versus Laboratory-Developed Test (LDT)

INTRODUCTION

Accurate PD-L1 testing for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) maximizes the benefits of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) drugs like pembrolizumab. False negative test results deny ICI treatments to eligible patients, worsening clinical and economic outcomes, while false positives increase costs by using ICI treatments without their benefits. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of PD-L1 testing with an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) compared to a laboratory-developed test (LDT) for allocating patients with NSCLC to treatment with either pembrolizumab or chemotherapy using the German healthcare system as a model.

METHODS

We developed a decision analytical model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PD-L1 testing with a regulatory body approved IVD compared to an LDT from the national German healthcare payer (statutory health insurance system) perspective. Accuracy of PD-L1 testing was based on data from two independent proficiency testing programs. The 1-year model was based on outcomes data from the KEYNOTE-024 clinical trial and treatment patterns reflecting current German practices.

RESULTS

IVDs produced accurate PD-L1 testing results in 93% (752/811) of tested cases compared to 73% (492/672) with LDTs. Most misclassifications concerned false negatives, occurring in 21% of LDTs vs 7% of IVDs. Total costs of the IVD group (48,878 €) were 196 € higher than the LDT group (48,682 €). These costs incorporate testing, first- and second-line therapy, managing treatment-related grade 3+ adverse events (AEs), and end-of-life costs for those who died within the year. Total effectiveness (percentage of patients successfully diagnosed and prescribed the correct therapy per German treatment guidelines) was 19 percentage points higher for the IVD group (88%) compared to the LDT group (69%). These differences in costs and effects lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 1057 €.

CONCLUSION

Compared to LDT technology, on-label IVD use for PD-L1 testing is only slightly more costly and substantially more effective for aligning patients with PD-L1-positive NSCLC with ICI therapy according to German practice guidelines. Given these findings, changes to testing and reimbursement policies may be considered to maximize patient outcomes in NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer as a second line in Taiwan

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the clinical outcomes and costs of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Clinical outcomes data were derived from randomized clinical trials. Drug acquisition cost and other health resource use were obtained from the claim data of a tertiary hospital and the National Health Insurance. The outcome was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty of the model parameters. Results: In the base case, patients treated with immunotherapies in the second line were associated with higher costs and higher mean survival. The incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year gained for pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab compared to docetaxel were NT$416,102, NT$1,572,912 and NT$1,580,469, respectively. Conclusion: The results showed that pembrolizumab was more cost effective than nivolumab and atezolizumab compared with docetaxel as a second-line regimen for patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer at willingness to pay threshold in Taiwan.

Durvalumab consolidation therapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer after concurrent chemoradiation: a China-based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in post-chemoradiotherapy patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

The study developed a five-health state Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab consolidation therapy in post-chemoradiotherapy patients based on the PACIFIC clinical trial. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Durvalumab consolidation therapy provided an additional 1.22 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with an incremental cost of $24,397 compared to no consolidation therapy in unselected patients. Durvalumab consolidation therapy was cost-effective as it yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $20,000 per QALY gained at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $31,494 per QALY. In the patient subgroup with PD-L1-expressing tumors (≥1%), durvalumab was associated with an ICER of $33,058/QALY, resulting in a slight skewing away from the given cost-effectiveness threshold. The sensitivity analysis showed that ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of durvalumab, the cost of pembrolizumab, and the body weight of patients, regardless of PD-L1 expression selection.

CONCLUSION

Durvalumab consolidation therapy is likely to be cost-effective in China, which indicates that expensive immunotherapies can gain clinical benefits at a justifiable cost in developing countries as well.

Cost-effectiveness of precision diagnostic testing for precision medicine approaches against non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review

Precision diagnostic testing (PDT) employs appropriate biomarkers to identify cancer patients that may optimally respond to precision medicine (PM) approaches, such as treatments with targeted agents and immuno-oncology drugs. To date, there are no published systematic appraisals evaluating the cost-effectiveness of PDT in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To address this gap, we conducted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses searches for the years 2009-2019. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards were employed to screen, assess and extract data. Employing base costs, life years gained or quality-adjusted life years, as well as willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for each country, net monetary benefit was calculated to determine cost-effectiveness of each intervention. Thirty-seven studies (50%) were included for analysis; a further 37 (50%) were excluded, having failed population-, intervention-, comparator-, outcomes- and study-design criteria. Within the 37 studies included, we defined 64 scenarios. Eleven scenarios compared PDT-guided PM with non-guided therapy [epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), n = 5; programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), n = 6]. Twenty-eight scenarios compared PDT-guided PM with chemotherapy alone (anaplastic lymphoma kinase, n = 3; EGFR, n = 17; PD-L1, n = 8). Twenty-five scenarios compared PDT-guided PM with chemotherapy alone, while varying the PDT approach. Thirty-four scenarios (53%) were cost-effective, 28 (44%) were not cost-effective, and two were marginal, dependent on their country's WTP threshold. When PDT-guided therapy was compared with a therapy-for-all patients approach, all scenarios (100%) proved cost-effective. Seven of 37 studies had been structured appropriately to assess PDT-PM cost-effectiveness. Within these seven studies, all evaluated scenarios were cost-effective. However, 81% of studies had been poorly designed. Our systematic analysis implies that more robust health economic evaluation could help identify additional approaches towards PDT cost-effectiveness, underpinning value-based care and enhanced outcomes for patients with NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of treatment optimisation with biomarkers for immunotherapy in solid tumours: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The combination of biomarkers and drugs is the subject of growing interest both from regulators, physicians and companies. This study protocol of a systematic review is aimed to describe available literature evidences about the cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or net-monetary benefit of the use of biomarkers in solid tumour as tools for customising immunotherapy to identify what further research needs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review of the literature will be carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. PubMed and Embase will be queried from June 2010 to June 2021. The PICOS model will be applied: target population (P) will be patients with solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the interventions (I) will be test of the immune checkpoint predictive biomarkers; the comparator (C) will be any other targeted or non-targeted therapy; outcomes (O) evaluated will be health economic and clinical implications assessed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net health benefit, net monetary benefit, life years gained, quality of life, etc; study (S) considered will be economic evaluations reporting cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, net-monetary benefit. The quality of the evidence will be graded according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review will assess the cost-effectiveness implications of using biomarkers in the immunotherapy with ICIs, which may help to understand whether this approach is widespread in real clinical practice. This research is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. We will disseminate this protocol in a related peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020201549.

A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Pembrolizumab Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Pembrolizumab monotherapy or combination therapy is an approved treatment for various advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) indications. We review published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of pembrolizumab as treatment for NSCLC and provide in-depth assessment of their methodologies. Fourteen studies were selected through searches of the PubMed database. Modeling approaches, survival and cost estimation, and utility analyses were compared and evaluated. These publications covered regulatory-approved pembrolizumab NSCLC indications based on the following randomized clinical trials: KEYNOTE-010 (one publication), KEYNOTE-024 (six), KEYNOTE-042 (four), KEYNOTE-189 (two), and KEYNOTE-407 (one). Differences were observed in health states (progression free, progressed disease, and death vs stable disease, progressed disease, death, and treatment discontinuation), modeling approaches (partitioned survival vs Markov), survival extrapolation/transition probability estimation, inclusion of additional costs to drug, disease management and adverse event costs (e.g., programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] testing, subsequent treatment, terminal care), treatment duration approaches (trial-based time on treatment vs treat to progression), utility sources (trial data vs literature), and utility analyses (time to death vs progression status). Certain aspects of variability across models were problematic, including deviation from observed treatment utilization within trials and predicted long-term mortality risks for pembrolizumab higher than historical real-world NSCLC mortality data prior to the availability of pembrolizumab. Consequently, results differed even among studies examining the same population and comparator within similar time intervals. Differences in methodology across CEAs may lead to distinct results and conclusions. Payers and policy makers should carefully examine study designs and assumptions and choose CEAs with greater validity and accuracy for evidence-based decision-making.

How are we evaluating the cost-effectiveness of companion biomarkers for targeted cancer therapies? A systematic review

Background

Despite the increasing economic assessment of biomarker-guided therapies, no clear agreement exists whether existing methods are sufficient or whether different methods might produce different cost-effectiveness results. This study aims to examine current practices of modeling companion biomarkers when assessing the cost-effectiveness of targeted cancer therapies. It investigates the current methods in modeling the characteristics of companion diagnostics based on existing economic evaluations of biomarker-guided therapies in cancer.

Methods

A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, EconLit, Cochrane library for economic evaluations of biomarker-guided therapies with companion diagnostics in cancer. Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Studies were selected using pre-specified eligibility criteria based on the PICO framework. To make the included studies more comparable, we qualitatively synthesized the data under nine domains of methods where consensus was deemed lacking.

Results

Only four of the twenty-two studies included in this review were found to be of good quality with respect to incorporating the characteristics of companion biomarkers in economic evaluations. However, many evaluations focused on a pre-selected patient group rather than including all patients regardless of their biomarker status. Companion biomarker characteristics captured in evaluations were often limited to the cost or the accuracy of the test. Often, only the costs of biomarker testing were modelled. Clinical outcomes and health state utilities were often not included due to the limited data generated by clinical trials. Methods of economic evaluation were not applied consistently in assessments of companion cancer biomarkers for targeted therapies. It was also shown that conflicting cost-effectiveness results were likely depending on what comparator arm was chosen and what comparison structure was designed in the model.

Conclusion

We found no consistent approach applied in assessing the value of companion biomarker tests and including the characteristics of biomarkers in an economic evaluation of targeted oncology therapies. Currently, many economic evaluations fail to capture the full value of companion biomarkers beyond sensitivity/specificity and cost related to biomarker testing.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08725-4.

The Position of EGF Deprivation in the Management of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has faced a therapeutic revolution with the advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) approved for first and subsequent therapies. CIMAvax-EGF is a chemical conjugate between human-recombinant EGF and P64, a recombinant protein from Neisseria meningitides, which induces neutralizing antibodies against EGF. In the last 15 years, it has been extensively evaluated in advanced NSCLC patients. CIMAvax-EGF is safe, even after extended use, and able to keep EGF serum concentration below detectable levels. In a randomized phase III study, CIMAvax-EGF increased median overall survival of advanced NSCLC patients with at least stable disease after front-line chemotherapy. Patients bearing squamous-cell or adenocarcinomas and serum EGF concentration above 870 pg/ml had better survival compared to control patients treated with best supportive care as maintenance, confirming tumors' sensitivity to the EGF depletion. This manuscript reviews the state-of-the-art NSCLC therapy and proposes the most promising scenarios for evaluating CIMAvax-EGF, particularly in combination with TKIs or ICIs. We hypothesize that the optimal combination of CIMAvax-EGF with established therapies can further contribute to transform advanced cancer into a manageable chronic disease, compatible with years of good quality of life.

An Arm and a Leg: The Rising Cost of Cancer Drugs and Impact on Access

Increasing cancer drug prices present global challenges to treatment access and cancer outcomes. Substantial variability exists in drug pricing across countries. In countries without universal health care, patients are responsible for treatment costs. Low- or middle-income countries are heavily impacted, with limited patient access to novel cancer treatments. Financial toxicity is seen across cancer types, countries, and health care systems. Those at highest risk include younger patients, new immigrants, visible minority groups, and those without private health coverage. Currently, cancer drug pricing does not correlate with value or clinical benefit. Value-based pricing of oncology drugs may incentivize development of higher-value medicines and eliminate excess spending on drugs that yield little benefit. Generics and biosimilars in oncology can also improve affordability and patient access, offering dramatic reductions in drug spending while maintaining patient benefit. Oncologists can promote value-based care by following evidence-based clinical guidelines that avoid low-value treatments. Researchers can also engage in value-based research that critically explores optimal cancer drug dosing, schedules, and treatment duration and defines patient populations most likely to benefit (e.g., through biomarker selection). Cancer Groundshot proposes that we improve outcomes for today's patients with cancer, including broader global access for high-value treatments, promotion of affordable cancer control strategies, and reduction of cancer morbidity and mortality through low-cost prevention and screening initiatives. Moving forward, major oncology societies recommend promoting uniform global access to essential cancer medicines and avoiding financial harm for patients as key principles in addressing the affordability of cancer drugs.

Medical costs of lung cancer care in Japan during the first one or two years after initial diagnosis

OBJECTIVES

Japan's healthcare expenditures, especially on oncology, are rapidly growing; however, there are scant data on actual costs and cost-effectiveness in the real world. The aim was to assess the medical costs and outcomes of patients with advanced lung cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated all patients who were diagnosed with advanced lung cancer at the Japanese Red Cross Medical Center between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2018. Patients were classified into three cohorts according to the year of diagnosis-Cohort 1: 2008-2010, Cohort 2: 2011-2014 and Cohort 3: 2015-2018-and assessed for medical costs and outcome. Medical costs were divided into outpatient and inpatient costs and were calculated on a monthly basis.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and 330 with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were included. There was a trend toward increased costs during the first two years after diagnosis in NSCLC patients, without changes in monthly costs, reflecting improved survival. Compared to Cohort 1, Cohort 3 patients with NSCLC had longer survival (median: 24 versus 12 months, P < 0.001), with a median incremental cost of Japanese Yen 6 million during the initial two years. The proportion of outpatient costs increased over time, especially for NSCLC patients (P < 0.001). No changes in costs or survival were observed in SCLC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In NSCLC patients, medical costs increased with prolonged survival during the last decade. The costs on a monthly basis did not change. The proportion of outpatient costs increased.

Cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab-Ipilimumab Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was found to improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the CheckMate 227 clinical trial. However, these drugs are substantially more expensive than chemotherapy and, given the high incidence of advanced NSCLC, the incorporation of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors into the standard of care could have substantial economic consequences.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation designed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy with platinum-doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC. The Markov model was created to simulate patients with advanced NSCLC who were receiving either nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and treatment toxic effects, were derived using data from the CheckMate 227 clinical trial. Costs and health utilities were obtained from published literature. Data analyses were conducted from November 2019 to September 2020.

EXPOSURES

Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary study outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost in 2020 US dollars. Cost-effectiveness was measured using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with an ICER less than $100 000 per QALY considered cost-effective. Model uncertainty was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was associated with an increase in overall cost of $201 900 and improved effectiveness of 0.50 QALYs compared with chemotherapy, yielding an ICER of $401 700 per QALY. The study model was sensitive to the cost and duration of immunotherapy. Treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy became cost-effective when monthly treatment costs were reduced from $26 425 to $5058 (80.9% reduction) or when the maximum duration of immunotherapy was reduced from 24.0 months to 1.4 months. The model was not sensitive to assumptions about survival or programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 status. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was less cost-effective than chemotherapy 99.9% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, first-line treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not found to be cost-effective at current prices despite clinical trial data indicating that this regimen increases overall survival among patients with advanced NSCLC.

Positron Emission Tomography Imaging of Programmed Death 1 Expression in Cancer Patients Using 124I-Labeled Toripalimab: A Pilot Clinical Translation Study

PURPOSE

Although anti-programmed cell death molecule-1 (PD-1)/PD-1 ligand therapy has achieved remarkable success in oncology field, the low response rate and lack of accurate prognostic biomarker identifying benefiting patients remain unresolved challenges. This study developed a PD-1 targeting radiotracer 124I-labeled toripalimab (124I-JS001) for clinical PET imaging and evaluated its biodistribution, safety, and dosimetry in human.

METHODS

Patients with melanoma or urologic cancer confirmed by pathology were enrolled. 124I-JS001 PET/CT and PET/MR were performed with or without coinjection of 5 mg unlabeled JS001, and 18F-FDG PET was undertaken within 1 week.

RESULTS

Eight melanoma and 3 urologic cancer patients were enrolled. No adverse events were noticed during the whole examination after the injection of 124I-JS001 and an acceptable dosimetry of 0.236 mSv/MBq was found. 124I-JS001 PET/CT showed high uptake in spleen and liver and slight uptake in bone marrow and lung. All primary and metastatic tumor lesions in 11 patients demonstrated different levels of uptake of 124I-JS001 with SUVmax ranging from 0.2 to 4.7. With coinjection of unlabeled JS001, the uptake in spleen was reduced significantly (P < 0.05), whereas tumor uptake and tumor background ratio increased significantly (P < 0.05). Four patients undertook regional 124I-JS001 PET/MR. All tumor lesions were detected effectively with abnormal MR signal on PET/MR, whereas PET/MR detected liver lesions more sensitively than PET/CT.

CONCLUSIONS

The first-in-human study demonstrated 124I-JS001 was a safe tracer for PET with acceptable dosimetry, and the PET/CT results showed a favorable biodistribution. PET/MR could detect liver lesions more sensitively than PET/CT.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sorafenib for Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma has been shown to improve overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, assessment of its value by considering both efficacy and cost is needed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation was performed from June through September 2020, with a 6-year investment time period. Hypothetical patients were male and female adults 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by histologic or clinical features.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Health care costs (adjusted to 2020 US dollars), life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib were examined using a partitioned survival model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. The model was also used to estimate price reductions of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab that would achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 424 patients, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with an increase of 0.623 life-years (1.840 vs 1.218 life-years) and 0.484 QALYs (1.412 vs 0.928 QALYs) and with an incremental cost of $156 210 per patient compared with sorafenib. The ICER was $322 500 per QALY (5th to 95th percentile, $149 364-$683 744 per QALY), with 0.6% and 5.1% chance of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never decreased below $150 000 per QALY in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. To achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness under the thresholds of $150 000 to $100 000 per QALY, the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 37% to 47%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this economic evaluation, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with clinical benefit but was not cost-effective compared with sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. A substantial reduction in price for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness for this new therapy.

Population-level changes in outcomes and Medicare cost following the introduction of new cancer therapies

OBJECTIVE

To examine the population-level impacts of the introduction of novel cancer therapies with high cost in the United States, using immunotherapies in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as an example.

DATA SOURCES

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data in 2012-2015 linked to Medicare fee-for-service claims until 2016.

STUDY DESIGN

We examined population-level trends in treatment patterns, survival, and Medicare spending in patients diagnosed with advanced NSCLC, the leading cause of cancer death in the United States, between 2012 and 2015. We estimated the percentage of patients who received any antineoplastic therapy within two years of diagnosis, including novel immunotherapies. We compared the trends in overall survival and mean two-year Medicare spending per each patient before and after the introduction of immunotherapies in 2015.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Not Applicable.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The percentage of patients treated with any antineoplastic therapy remained the same at 46.7% in 2012 and 2015, whereas the use of immunotherapies increased from 0% to 15.2%. The two-year survival rate and median survival increased by 3.3 percentage points (95% CI: 2.0, 4.5) and 0.4 months (CI: 0.0, 0.9), respectively, during the same period. The mean two-year total Medicare spending and outpatient spending per patient increased by $5735 (CI: 3479, 8040) and $7661 (CI: 5902, 9311), respectively, which were largely attributable to the increases in immunotherapy spending by $5806 (CI: 5165, 6459).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of lung cancer immunotherapies was accompanied by improvements in survival and increases in spending between 2012 and 2015 in the Medicare population. As novel immunotherapies and other target therapies continue to change the clinical management of various cancers, further efforts are needed to ensure their effective and efficient use, and to understand their population-level impacts in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients

Objectives

Recent studies showed prolonged survival for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)‐mutant non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with both monotherapies and combined therapies. However, high costs limit clinical applications. Thus, we conducted this cost‐effectiveness analysis to explore an optimal first‐line treatment for advanced EGFR‐mutant NSCLC patients.

Materials and Methods

Survival data were extracted from six clinical trials, including ARCHER1050 (dacomitinib vs. gefitinib); FLAURA (osimertinib vs. gefitinib/erlotinib); JO25567 and NEJ026 (bevacizumab +erlotinib vs. erlotinib); NEJ009 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib); and NCT02148380 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib vs. chemotherapy) trials. Cost‐related data were obtained from hospitals and published literature. The effect parameter (quality‐adjusted life year [QALY]) was the reflection of both survival and utility. Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER), average cost‐effectiveness ratio (ACER), and net benefit were calculated, and the willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) threshold was set at $30828/QALY from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the stability of results.

Results

We compared treatment groups with control groups in each trial. ICERs were $1897750.74/QALY (ARCHER1050), $416560.02/QALY (FLAURA), ‐$477607.48/QALY (JO25567), ‐$464326.66/QALY (NEJ026), ‐$277121.22/QALY (NEJ009), ‐$399360.94/QALY (gefitinib as comparison, NCT02148380), and ‐$170733.05/QALY (chemotherapy as comparison, NCT02148380). Moreover, ACER and net benefit showed that the combination of EGFR‐TKI with chemotherapy and osimertinib was of more economic benefit following first‐generation EGFR‐TKIs. Sensitivity analyses showed that the impact of utilities and monotherapy could be cost‐effective with a 50% cost reduction.

Conclusion

First‐generation EGFR‐TKI therapy remained the most cost‐effective treatment option for advanced EGFR‐mutant NSCLC patients. Our results could serve as both a reference for both clinical practice and the formulation of medical insurance reimbursement.

Current and Future Perspectives of PD-1/PDL-1 Blockade in Cancer Immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy, which reactivates weakened immune cells of cancer patients, has yielded great success in recent years. Among immunotherapeutic agents, immune checkpoint inhibitors have been of particular interest and have gained approval by the FDA for treatment of cancers. Immune checkpoint blockade through targeting programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) has demonstrated promising antitumor effects in cancer immunotherapy of many different solid and hematologic malignancies. However, despite promising results, a favorable response is observed only in a fraction of patients, and there is still lack of a single therapy modality with curative ability. In this paper, we review the current and future perspectives of PD-1/L1 blockade in cancer immunotherapy, with a particular focus on predictive biomarkers of response to therapy. We also discuss the adverse events associated with PD-1/L1/2 inhibitors, ranging from severe life-threatening conditions such as autoimmune myocarditis to mild and moderate reactions such as skin rashes, and explore the potential strategies for improving the efficacy of immunotherapy with PD-1/L1 checkpoint inhibitors.

DeePaN: deep patient graph convolutional network integrating clinico-genomic evidence to stratify lung cancers for immunotherapy

Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies have transformed the therapeutic landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, patient responses to IO are variable and influenced by a heterogeneous combination of health, immune, and tumor factors. There is a pressing need to discover the distinct NSCLC subgroups that influence response. We have developed a deep patient graph convolutional network, we call "DeePaN", to discover NSCLC complexity across data modalities impacting IO benefit. DeePaN employs high-dimensional data derived from both real-world evidence (RWE)-based electronic health records (EHRs) and genomics across 1937 IO-treated NSCLC patients. DeePaN demonstrated effectiveness to stratify patients into subgroups with significantly different (P-value of 2.2 × 10-11) overall median survival of 20.35 months and 9.42 months post-IO therapy. Significant differences in IO outcome were not seen from multiple non-graph-based unsupervised methods. Furthermore, we demonstrate that patient stratification from DeePaN has the potential to augment the emerging IO biomarker of tumor mutation burden (TMB). Characterization of the subgroups discovered by DeePaN indicates potential to inform IO therapeutic insight, including the enrichment of mutated KRAS and high blood monocyte count in the IO beneficial and IO non-beneficial subgroups, respectively. Our work has proven the concept that graph-based AI is feasible and can effectively integrate high-dimensional genomic and EHR data to meaningfully stratify cancer patients on distinct clinical outcomes, with potential to inform precision oncology.

Recent advances and future perspectives in adjuvant and neoadjuvant immunotherapies for lung cancer

The superior efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer has inspired many clinical trials to use immune checkpoint inhibitors in earlier stages of lung cancer worldwide. Based on the theoretical feasibility that neoantigens derived from a tumor tissue are present in vivo, some clinical trials have recently evaluated the neoadjuvant, rather than the adjuvant, use of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Some of these trials have already produced evidence on the safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in a neoadjuvant setting, with a favorable major pathologic response and few adverse events. In the most impactful report from Johns Hopkins University and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the programed death-1 inhibitor nivolumab was administered to 21 patients in a neoadjuvant setting. The authors reported a major pathologic response rate of 45%, with no unexpected delay of surgery related to the adverse effects of nivolumab. The adjuvant as well as the neoadjuvant administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors has also been considered in various clinical trials, with or without the combined use of chemotherapy or radiotherapy. The development of appropriate biomarkers to predict the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors is also underway. The expression of programed death ligand-1 and the tumor mutation burden are promising biomarkers that have been evaluated in many settings. To establish an appropriate method for using immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with surgery, the Lung Cancer Surgical Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group will manage clinical trials using a multimodality treatment, including immune checkpoint inhibitors and surgery.

Number needed to treat analysis applied to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

AIMS

Considering that healthcare systems' financial resources are limited, we aimed to analyze the number needed to treat (NNT) and cost of preventing an event (COPE) related to drug use from Supplementary Health System (SSS) perspective.

METHODS

Data from KEYNOTE-189 (NCT02578680) were considered, comparing pembrolizumab + chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone. A cost-per-responder model was developed considering the 24- and 12-month time horizons for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) endpoints, respectively. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) and restricted mean time-on-treatment (ToT) were determined for NNT and COPE calculation. Costs were reported in American dollars (USD) and reflect those related to drug use. The analysis was conducted for the total indicated population, and an exploratory assessment was carried out for subgroups with different programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels.

RESULTS

Considering PFS data, the overall population NNT_RMST to prevent a progression event with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was 2.63 (95%CI: 1.90-4.02) with an estimated COPE of 251,038 USD (95%CI: 181,359-383,717) in the 12-months follow-up. Regarding OS endpoint, overall NNT_RMST and COPE were 3.18 (95%CI: 2.20-5.31) and 414,163 (95%CI: 286,528-691,573) USD respectively, in the 24 months follow-up. The PFS NNT was lower with higher levels of PD-L1 expression (1.71, 3.22 and 5.53 for PD-L1 ≥ 50%, PD-L1 1%-49%, and PD-L1 < 1% groups, respectively), while there was no such apparent relationship for OS (3.23, 4.37 and 2.80 for PD-L1 ≥ 50%, PD-L1 1%-49%, and PD-L1 < 1% groups, respectively). The 95%CIs overlapped for PFS and OS NNT across the PD-L1 subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The magnitude of benefit of the pembrolizumab combination used for first-line non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment to improve survival compared to chemotherapy alone was confirmed. The exploratory analysis from the SSS perspective suggests no differences among the PDL-1 subgroups in terms of clinical benefit or economic impact.

Response evaluation after immunotherapy in NSCLC: Early response assessment using FDG PET/CT

The present study aimed to evaluate the role of early F-18 2-deoxy-2-[fluorine-18] fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) in non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment.Twenty-four non-small cell lung cancer patients who received nivolumab or pembrolizumab and underwent FDG PET/CT as an interim analysis after 2 or 3 cycles of ICI treatment were retrospectively enrolled. Tumor response was assessed using the PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0 (PERCIST) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria after 2 or 3 cycles of ICI treatment (SCAN-1) and after an additional 2 cycles of ICI treatment (SCAN-2). The best overall response was determined by FDG PET/CT or chest CT at ≥ 3 months after therapy initiation, and the clinical benefit was investigated. progression-free survival was investigated, and its correlation with clinicopathologic and metabolic parameters was examined using a Cox multivariate proportional hazards model.In the interim analysis, 4 patients achieved a complete metabolic response (CMR), 1 patient exhibited a partial metabolic response (PMR), and 14 patients had Progressive metabolic disease (PMD) according to the PERCIST and EORTC criteria. Four patients showed stable metabolic disease (SMD) according to the PERCIST criteria, and 2 patients showed different responses (i.e., PMR) according to the EORTC criteria. Patients with a CMR or PMR at SCAN-1 had a clinical benefit. Among the 4 patients with SMD at SCAN-1, only 1 experienced a clinical benefit regardless of the percent change in the peak standardized uptake value. Two patients with discordant response assessments between the PERCIST and EORTC criteria showed conflicting clinical benefits. Among the 14 patients with PMD, none experienced any clinical benefit. Only metabolic parameters were significant factors for predicting progression in the multivariate analysis (peak standardized uptake value and metabolic tumor volume, HRs of 1.18 and 1.00, respectively).Based on early F-18 FDG PET/CT after ICI treatment, metabolic parameters could predict post-treatment progression. Responses after ICI treatment were correctly assessed in patients with a CMR, a PMR, and PMD, but patients with SMD required a meticulous follow-up because of varying clinical benefits.

The effect of PD-L1 categories-directed pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for newly diagnosed metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

The effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy improve outcomes in newly diagnosed metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to evaluate the economic outcomes of first-line treatment by adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with and without the use of PD-L1 testing for patient selection.

Methods

A decision-analytic model was adopted to project the disease course of newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous and squamous NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations. The efficacy and toxicity data were gathered from the KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-407 trials. Transition probabilities were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in each group. Cost and health preference data were derived from published economic evaluations. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured, and subgroup, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed for exploring the model uncertainties.

Results

In the US context, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is projected to increase quality-adjusted-life year (QALY) by 1.168 and 0.988 in comparison with chemotherapy and the ICERs were $122,248 and $121,375/QALY in the whole nonsquamous and squamous patients with unconfirmed PD-L1 tumor proportion scores (TPS), respectively. After the selection of patients by PD-L1 TPS by PD-L1 testing, the ICERs of adding pembrolizumab treatment for patients with confirmed PD-L1 TPS >1% and ≥50% were $143,282 and $127,661/QALY in nonsquamous disease, and $131,495 and $121,554/QALY in squamous disease, respectively. The ICERs of adding pembrolizumab treatment for Chinese patients were higher than $40,000/QALY regardless of the histology and TPS subgroups, which highly exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $29,196/QALY (three times of per capita gross domestic product of China in 2018) in China.

Conclusions

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for untreated metastatic NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations is a cost-effective option regardless of PD-L1 expression status in the US context, and not cost-effective in the Chinese context. However, PD-L1 categories-directed pembrolizumab could not increase the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy.

Economic evaluations of cancer immunotherapy: a systematic review and quality evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Scientific advances in the last decade have highlighted the use of immunotherapy, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors, to be an effective strategy in cancer therapy. However, these immunotherapeutic agents are expensive, and their use must take into account economic criteria. Thus, the objective of the present study was to systematically identify and review published EE related to the use of ipilimumab, nivolumab or pembrolizumab in melanoma, lung cancer, head and neck cancer or renal cell carcinoma, and to assess their quality.

METHODS

The systematic literature research was conducted on Medline via PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify economic evaluations published before July 2018. The quality of each selected economic evaluation was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Drummond checklist.

RESULTS

Our systematic review was based on 32 economic evaluations using different methodological approaches, different perspectives and different time horizons. Three-quarters of the economic evaluations are full (n = 24) with a Drummond score ≥ 7, synonymous of "high quality". Among them, 66% reported a strategy that was cost-effective. The most assessed immunotherapeutic agent was nivolumab. In patients with renal cell carcinoma or head and neck cancer, it was less likely to be cost-effective than in patients with melanoma or lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether or not these findings will be confirmed remains to be seen when market approval to cover more indications is extended and new effective immunotherapeutic agents become available.

Anti-human PD-L1 Nanobody for Immuno-PET Imaging: Validation of a Conjugation Strategy for Clinical Translation

Immune checkpoints, such as programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), limit T-cell function and tumor cells use this ligand to escape the anti-tumor immune response. Treatments with monoclonal antibodies blocking these checkpoints have shown long-lasting responses, but only in a subset of patients. This study aims to develop a Nanobody (Nb)-based probe in order to assess human PD-L1 (hPD-L1) expression using positron emission tomography imaging, and to compare the influence of two different radiolabeling strategies, since the Nb has a lysine in its complementarity determining region (CDR), which may impact its affinity upon functionalization. The Nb has been conjugated with the NOTA chelator site-specifically via the Sortase-A enzyme or randomly on its lysines. [68Ga]Ga-NOTA-(hPD-L1) Nbs were obtained in >95% radiochemical purity. In vivo tumor targeting studies at 1 h 20 post-injection revealed specific tumor uptake of 1.89 ± 0.40%IA/g for the site-specific conjugate, 1.77 ± 0.29%IA/g for the random conjugate, no nonspecific organ targeting, and excretion via the kidneys and bladder. Both strategies allowed for easily obtaining 68Ga-labeled hPD-L1 Nbs in high yields. The two conjugates were stable and showed excellent in vivo targeting. Moreover, we proved that the random lysine-conjugation is a valid strategy for clinical translation of the hPD-L1 Nb, despite the lysine present in the CDR.

Cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been rapidly evolving. ICIs are likely to be more effective but also lead to escalating healthcare costs.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing the cost effectiveness of ICIs for NSCLC. Potential studies identified were independently checked for eligibility by two authors, with disagreement resolved by a third reviewer. Quality of the included studies was evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklists.

Results

A total of 22 economic studies were included. Overall reporting of the identified studies largely met CHEERS recommendations. In the first-line setting, for advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, pembrolizumab appeared cost-effective compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the US and Hong Kong (China), but not in the UK and China. The cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of NSCLC in PD-L1 ≥ 1% patients remained obscure. Regardless of PD-L1 expression status, pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy could be a cost-effective first-line therapy in the US. On the contrary, addition of atezolizumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy was not cost-effective for patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC from the US payer perspective. In the second-line setting compared with docetaxel, pembrolizumab was cost-effective; though nivolumab was not cost-effective in the base case, it could be by increased PD-L1 threshold. Results of the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab second-line treatment remained inconsistent. In addition, the adoption of durvalumab consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy could be cost-effective versus no consolidation therapy for patients with stage III NSCLC.

Conclusions

Immunotherapy can be a cost-effective option for treatment of NSCLC in several scenarios. A discount of the agents or the use of PD-L1 expression as a biomarker improves the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy.

Economic Burden of Checkpoint Inhibitor Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in US Clinical Practice

PURPOSE

The efficacy of checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) immunotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is limited by a lack of strongly predictive response markers, subjecting patients to potential underutilization of alternative effective treatments, increased risk for futile care, and unnecessary costs. Here, we characterize the extent to which basic molecular tumor-marker testing has been performed for NSCLC therapy selection in the United States, and compare medical resource utilization and costs in CPI-treated patients versus CPI-eligible patients treated with other therapies.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of CPI-treated patients with NSCLC and a propensity score-matched cohort of CPI-eligible patients with NSCLC treated with non-CPI therapies (3095 patients in each group), using US administrative claims data covering the pre- and postinitial FDA-approval period for nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab (October 2012 to September 2017). We describe the utilization of recommended baseline molecular testing for CPI selection (pre-index date for CPI or other anticancer therapy), including programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry, ALK rearrangement and EGFR mutation testing, and pre- and postindex treatment patterns. All-cause medical resource utilization and semiannual total reimbursement (costs) were compared between CPI-treated and non-CPI-treated patients.

FINDINGS

At baseline, in the propensity score-matched CPI- and non-CPI-treated patient cohorts, mean PD-L1 immunohistochemistry test utilization for CPI selection was moderate (0.6 vs 0.7 per patient, respectively). However, we observed much lower mean utilization of testing for EGFR mutations (0.1 vs 0.1 per patient) and ALK rearrangements (0.1 vs 0.2 per patient). Postindex, the use of both chemotherapy and ALK- and EGFR-targeted therapies were decreased in both cohorts. The CPI-treated group had significantly higher mean medical resource utilization in nearly all categories in the postindex period, and total per-patient semiannual costs, than did the CPI-eligible patients who received other therapies (141,537 vs 75,429 US dollars [USD]; P < 0.0001), driven by CPI drug reimbursement. Median (interquartile range) time on CPI was longest with pembrolizumab (113 [106-127] days), followed by nivolumab (105 [97-106] days) and atezolizumab (64 [50-85] days). Despite being associated with the lowest drug cost and the shortest treatment duration, atezolizumab was associated with the highest mean total per-patient semiannual costs (160,540 USD) compared with pembrolizumab (153,003 USD) and nivolumab (138,542 USD).

IMPLICATIONS

The advent of CPI treatment for NSCLC has added substantial care-related costs for patients and payers, concurrent with underutilization of minimum recommended molecular testing for therapy selection. Broad uptake of panel-based comprehensive targeted-therapy and immunotherapy profiling can promote optimal treatment selection and sequencing, reduce the likelihood of futile treatment, and further improve patient outcomes.

Do Research Groups Align on an Intervention's Value? Concordance of Cost-Effectiveness Findings Between the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and Other Health System Stakeholders

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) employs fixed cost-effectiveness (CE) thresholds that guide their appraisal of an intervention's long-term economic value. Given ICER's rising influence in the healthcare field, we undertook an assessment of the concordance of ICER's CE findings to the published CE findings from other research groups (i.e., "non-ICER" researchers including life science manufacturers, academics, and government institutions). Disease areas and pharmaceutical interventions for comparison were determined based on ICER evaluations conducted from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017. A targeted literature search was conducted for non-ICER CE publications using PubMed. Studies had to be conducted from the US setting, include the same disease characteristics (e.g., disease severity; treatment history), incorporate the same pharmaceutical interventions and comparison groups, and present incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the healthcare sector or payer perspective. Discordance was measured as the proportion of unique interventions that would have had more favorable valuations (i.e., low, intermediate, high value-for-money) if the CE findings from other research groups had been used for decision making instead of ICER's findings. More favorable valuations were defined as transitioning from low value (as determined by ICER) to intermediate or high value (as determined by other researchers) and from intermediate value (as determined by ICER) to high value (as determined by other researchers). Among the 13 non-ICER studies meeting inclusion criteria, six disease areas and 14 interventions were assessed. Of the 14 interventions, a more favorable valuation would have been recommended for ten therapies if the CE ratios from other research groups had been used for decision making instead of ICER's findings, representing a 71.4% (10/14) discordance rate. Moreover, these discrepancies were found in each of the evaluated disease areas, with the largest number of discordant valuations found in rheumatoid arthritis (five out of six interventions were discordant) followed by one valuation each in multiple sclerosis (one out of three), non-small cell lung cancer (one out of two), multiple myeloma (one out of one), high cholesterol (one out of one), and congestive heart failure (one out of one). Our findings indicate high discordance when comparing ICER's appraisals to the CE findings of non-ICER researchers. To understand the value of new interventions, the totality of evidence on the CE of an intervention-including results from ICER and non-ICER modeling efforts-should be considered when making coverage and reimbursement decisions.

BMI1-Mediated Pemetrexed Resistance in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cells Is Associated with Increased SP1 Activation and Cancer Stemness

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide and the therapeutic strategies include surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) account for around 85% of cases of lung cancers. Pemetrexed is an antifolate agent that is currently used as the second line chemotherapy drug in the treatment of advanced NSCLC patients with a response rate of 20–40%. The search for any combination therapy to improve the efficacy of pemetrexed is required. The existence of cancer stem cells (CSCs) is considered as the main reason for drug resistance of cancers. In this study, we first found that pemetrexed-resistant NSCLC cells derived from A549 cells displayed higher CSC activity in comparison to the parental cells. The expression of CSC related proteins, such as BMI1 or CD44, and the epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) signature was elevated in pemetrexed-resistant NSCLC cells. We next discovered that the overexpression of BMI1 in A549 cells caused the pemetrexed resistance and inhibition of BMI1 by a small molecule inhibitor, PTC-209, or transducing of BMI1-specific shRNAs suppressed cell growth and the expression of thymidylate synthase (TS) in pemetrexed-resistant A549 cells. We further identified that BMI1 positively regulated SP1 expression and treatment of mithramycin A, a SP1 inhibitor, inhibited cell proliferation, as well as TS expression, of pemetrexed-resistant A549 cells. Furthermore, overexpression of BMI1 in A549 cells also caused the activation of EMT in and the enhancement of CSC activity. Finally, we demonstrated that pretreatment of PTC-209 in mice bearing pemetrexed-resistant A549 tumors sensitized them to pemetrexed treatment and the expression of Ki-67, BMI1, and SP1 expression in tumor tissues was observed to be reduced. In conclusion, BMI1 expression level mediates pemetrexed sensitivity of NSCLC cells and the inhibition of BMI1 will be an effective strategy in NSCLC patients when pemetrexed resistance has developed.

Cost-effectiveness of real-world administration of chemotherapy and add-on Viscum album L. therapy compared to chemotherapy in the treatment of stage IV NSCLC patients

Background

For stage IV lung cancer patients receiving add-on Viscum album L. (VA) treatment an improved overall survival was detected. Information regarding cost-effectiveness (CE) for comparisons between chemotherapy (CTx) and CTx plus additive VA in stage IV lung cancer treatment is limited. The present study assessed the costs and cost-effectiveness of CTx plus VA (V) compared to CTx alone (C) for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treatment in a hospital in Germany.

Methods

In the observational real-world data study, data from the Network Oncology clinical registry were utilized. Enrolled stage IV lung cancer patients received the respective therapy (C or V) in a certified German Cancer Center. Cost and cost-effectiveness analyses from the hospital’s perspective were investigated on the basis of overall survival (OS) and routine financial controlling data. In addition, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. The primary result of the analysis was tested for robustness in a bootstrap-based sensitivity analysis.

Results

118 patients (C: n = 86, V: n = 32) were included in the analysis, mean age 63.8 years, the proportion of male patients was 55.1%. Adjusted hospital’s total mean costs for patients from the C and V group were €16,289, 95%CI: 13,834€-18,744€ (over an adjusted mean OS time of 13.4 months) and €17,992, 95%CI: 13,658–22,326 (over an adjusted mean OS time of 19.1 months), respectively. The costs per additional OS year gained (ICER) with the V-therapy compared to C therapy were €3,586.

Conclusion

The findings of the present study suggest that the combined use of chemotherapy and VA was clinically effective and comparably cost-effective to chemotherapy alone in our analysed patient sample from the hospital’s perspective. Further randomized and prospective cost-effectiveness studies are necessary to complement our findings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab in advanced triple-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The IMpassion130 trial demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel improved the survival of patients with untreated, advanced, programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In view of the high cost of immunotherapy, it is important to examine its value with respect to both benefits and costs. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy relative to nab-paclitaxel monotherapy was evaluated for the first-line treatment of advanced, PDL1-positive TNBC, from a healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of treatment with atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced TNBC. Clinical data were obtained from the IMpassion130 trial and extrapolated to 5 years. Health state utilities were retrieved from the literature, while direct costs (in Singapore dollars, S$) were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. The primary outcomes of the model were life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of specific assumptions and uncertainties.

RESULTS

Adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel resulted in an additional 0.361 QALYs (0.636 LYs) at an ICER of S$324,550 per QALY gained. The ICER remained high at S$67,092 per QALY even when atezolizumab was priced zero. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the cost of atezolizumab and the time horizon. Scenario analyses confirmed that the ICERs remained high even under extremely favourable assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the exceedingly high ICER, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel was unlikely to represent good value for money for the treatment of advanced PDL1-positive TNBC. Our findings will be useful in informing funding policy decisions alongside other considerations such as comparative effectiveness, unmet need and budget impact.

Cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer

Background:

The effectiveness of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness on advanced TNBC from the US payer perspective.

Methods:

A Markov model was adopted to project the disease course of newly diagnosed advanced TNBC. The clinical data were gathered from the IMpassion130 trial. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed for exploring the model uncertainties.

Results:

Our results demonstrated that atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel augmented versus nab-paclitaxel therapy cost $104,278 and $149,465 and yielded an additional 0.371 and 0.762 of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in in all patients with unknown PD-L1 status and subpopulation with PD-L1-positive, respectively, which led to an ICER of $281,448 and $196,073 per QALY gained. In all patients with unknown PD-L1 status, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel treatment guiding by PD-L1 expression testing resulted in an ICER of $183,508 per QALY gained. Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel could maintain a trend of positive incremental net health benefits and >50% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $200,000/QALY in more than half of subgroups with PD-L1-positive. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel versus nab-paclitaxel treatment.

Conclusion:

The atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel treatment is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy based on nab-paclitaxel for the patients with PD-L1-positive advanced TNBC.

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus docetaxel and nivolumab in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer as a second line in France

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel and nivolumab for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as a second-line treatment, in a French setting.Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, death) based on the phase IIIOAK trial on a 10-year time horizon. The comparison between nivolumab and atezolizumab came from a network meta-analysis. Utilities were estimated from the OAK trial EQ-5D applying the French utility tariffs. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment duration were estimated using parametric models selected using Akaike and Bayesian information criterion. Extrapolation beyond the trial duration followed NICE DSU TSD 14. Economic perspective was the one of all payers, discount rate fixed at 4% on benefits and costs. This analysis was aligned with French Haute Autorité de Santé recommendations. Results were expressed in total cost (2019) and €/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year). Model robustness was checked through sensitivity analyses, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.Results: In comparison to docetaxel, atezolizumab costs 49,429€ more and increased life expectancy by 8 months, generating 0.47 QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 104,835€/QALY. When comparing nivolumab to atezolizumab, a cost minimization analysis was conducted since no clear evidence supporting a difference in terms of survival benefit was reported. Using list price, and the Market Access Authorization regimens, atezolizumab saved approximately 6,000€, 9.5% of its total costs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings.Conclusion: Atezolizumab is more efficient and more costly than docetaxel in the second-line treatment of NSCLC of stage IIIB or IV, in France, with results consistent to previous French authorities' evaluation of immunotherapies in similar indication. Lastly, atezolizumab is a cost saving alternative to nivolumab, based on list price.

Racial and Insurance-related Disparities in Delivery of Immunotherapy-type Compounds in the United States

Racial and/or socioeconomic factors affect the type of therapies delivered for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Given the rapid expansion of immunotherapy for NSCLC, it is a crucial public health priority to evaluate disparities in administration thereof. The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for newly diagnosed metastatic NSCLC. Patients were dichotomized based on receipt of immunotherapy-type compounds (ICs) based on NCDB coding. Multivariable logistic regression ascertained factors associated with IC delivery. Subgroup analysis, performed by univariate logistic regression modeling, evaluated the effect of race while stratifying for insurance type. Of 504,447 patients, 11,420 (2.3%) received ICs, and 493,027 (97.7%) did not. From 2004 to 2012, ≤1% of patients received ICs; however, 4.9% did so in 2013, 6.6% in 2014, and 8.7% in 2015. ICs were more likely administered to younger and healthier patients, those living farther from treating facilities, and in more educated areas (P<0.05 for all). ICs were more often delivered to adenocarcinomas, and patients who received chemotherapy but not radiotherapy (P<0.05 for all). In addition to geographic differences, uninsured and Medicaid populations received ICs less often, along with African Americans. On subgroup analysis, African Americans were less likely to receive ICs even when stratified for Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurances. Because IC utilization is expected to amplify even further going forward, these public health and economic issues are essential to identify and address appropriately, and have implications on pharmaceutical/insurance companies, value-based oncology, and public health policy. Methods to address these inequalities are also discussed.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors of the PD-1/PD-L1-axis in non-small cell lung cancer: promise, controversies and ambiguities in the novel treatment paradigm

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have received much attention not least for melanoma since the award of the Nobel prize in 2018. Here, we review the current state of knowledge about the use of these monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These drugs have generally been conditionally approved on limited early data and there are few long-term follow-up data from randomized clinical trials. The effect observed for NSCLC thus far is, on average, moderately better than that obtained with chemotherapy. Severe side-effects are more common than might have been expected. The drugs themselves are expensive and are associated with time-consuming histopathologic testing even though the predictive value of these tests can be discussed. In addition, monitoring for side-effects involves increased workload and budgetary expense for clinical chemistry laboratories. Here, we review and summarize the current knowledge, controversies and ambiguities of ICIs for the treatment of NSCLC.

Molecular imaging for cancer immunotherapy

Immunotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for many cancers; however, not all patients treated have a favorable response and others can develop immune-related adverse events. A method to predict the treatment response to immunotherapeutic agents could allow for improved selection of patients more likely to benefit from treatment while sparing those who would suffer serious complications. While this has been an active area of research and has resulted in significant insights, current proposed mechanisms do not fully explain responses to therapy. One problem is that our understanding relies mostly on tumor biopsy samples that do not account for the complex spatiotemporal heterogeneity of cancers and their microenvironment. Radiolabeled probes targeting immune biomarkers and imaged using positron emission tomography with computed tomography could provide in vivo, real-time and non-invasive imaging of these biomarkers. Here we review the current field of functional nuclear imaging agents in immuno-oncology including antibodies and small molecule tracers to image PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA-4, T-cell markers and other targets being studied for potential therapies.

•

Treatment response of cancers to immunotherapy is difficult to predict.

•

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging may help predict treatment response.

•

PET to evaluate immunotherapeutic targets or markers of immune activation shows promise.

•

Antibodies and small molecules used for PET have different imaging characteristics.

•

More studies are needed to better interpret and validate PET scans for this purpose.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with PD-L1 test for the first-line treatment of NSCLC

Background

Pembrolizumab (Pembro) in combination with chemotherapy has been approved for the treatment of pretreated advanced NSCLC in the United States and China for its significant efficacy. However, the cost‐effectiveness is unknown considering Pembro's high price. The impact of programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) test on the cost‐effectiveness is also unknown. The current study assessed the cost‐effectiveness of combination therapy for nonsquamous NSCLC from the United States and China public payers’ perspective.

Materials and Methods

A literature‐based Markov model was conducted using KEYNOTE‐189 trial data to compare cost and quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) of three treatment strategies for nonsquamous NSCLC: Pembro‐chemotherapy combination and chemotherapy strategy without PD‐L1 test, and treatment strategy according to their PD‐L1 status.

Results

In base case analysis, the combination strategy generated an additional 0.78 QALYs and 0.59 QALYs over chemotherapy in the United States and China respectively, resulting in an ICER of $132 392/QALY in the United States and $92 533/QALY in China. In the PD‐L1 ≥1% base case, the ICERs were $77 754/QALY and $56 768/QALY respectively in the United States and China for PD‐L1 test strategy. In the PD‐L1 ≥50% base case, the ICERs were $44 731/QALY and $34 388/QALY respectively in the United States and China for PD‐L1 test strategy. Lowering Pembro price can also partly decrease the ICERs.

Conclusion

Compared with chemotherapy, the combination strategy is not cost‐effective for the treatment of NSCLC in the American and Chinese health care system at WTP threshold of $100 000/QALY for the United States and $27 351/QALY for China. Using PD‐L1 test for patient selection and price reduction could improve the cost‐effective probabilities of immunotherapy for nonsquamous NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness and Budgetary Consequence Analysis of Durvalumab Consolidation Therapy vs No Consolidation Therapy After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Context of the US Health Care System

Importance

In early 2018, durvalumab became the first immunotherapy to be approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose cancer has not progressed after definitive chemoradiotherapy. However, the cost-effectiveness and potential economic implications of using this high-priced therapy in this indication are unknown to date.

Objective

To explore the cost-effectiveness and potential budgetary consequences of durvalumab consolidation therapy vs no consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC in the context of the US health care system.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A decision analytic microsimulation model was developed in an academic medical setting to compare the following 2 postchemoradiotherapy strategies: all patients receive no consolidation therapy until progression vs all patients receive durvalumab consolidation therapy until progression or for a maximum of 1 year. The potential budgetary consequence was calculated by applying the proportion of patients with NSCLC who were diagnosed in stage III and received chemoradiotherapy to the projected number of annual new cases for 2018 to 2022 to find total eligible patients and then multiplied by the mean difference in annual cost between the strategies over this 5-year period. Simulated conditions were matched to those of the PACIFIC phase 3 randomized clinical trial and reasonable treatment strategies for metastatic NSCLC. All simulated patients begin disease free after having received radical treatment with chemoradiotherapy and are followed up as they progress to metastatic disease first-line treatment, metastatic disease second-line treatment, end-stage progressive disease, and death.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of durvalumab consolidation therapy vs no consolidation therapy, given as aggregate cost of treatment per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Results

Among 2 million simulated patients, durvalumab consolidation therapy was cost-effective compared with no consolidation therapy at a $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year willingness-to-pay threshold, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $67 421 per quality-adjusted life-year, and would contribute an additional $768 million to national cancer spending in year 1. The annual budgetary consequence would then decrease to $241 million in year 5.

Conclusions and Relevance

Durvalumab consolidation therapy represents an indication where expensive immunotherapies can be cost-effective. Treating with immunotherapy earlier in the course of cancer progression can provide significant value, despite having a substantial budgetary consequence.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of lung cancer immunotherapy in South America: strategies to improve access

AIM

Immune checkpoint inhibitors revolutionized the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer, although their costs are a limitation.

METHODS

The number of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer eligible for immunotherapy was estimated using local epidemiology data. We extracted survival data from RCTs to estimate the life-years saved in a 5-year time horizon. All costs were in local prices converted to US dollars.

RESULTS

In the first-line, the budget impact of pembrolizumab decreased by 35% through risk-sharing. In the second-line, patient selection by programmed-death receptor ligand 1 expression decreased the budgetary impact by 45%, and improved cost-effectiveness. Immunotherapy was more cost-effective in the first-line.

CONCLUSION

Given current pricing, Immune checkpoint inhibitors are cost-prohibitive in the majority of South American health services. Nevertheless, several strategies should improve access to immunotherapy.