Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for cT2-4N0-1 non-small cell lung cancer patients during initial treatment phase

Economic Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

In the absence of evidence on whether neoadjuvant (NAC) or adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is more beneficial for various tumor treatments, economic evaluation (EE) can assist medical decision making. There is limited evidence on their cost-effectiveness and their prospective evaluation is less likely in the future. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis about EE for NAC versus AC in solid tumor help compare these therapies from various perspectives.

METHODS

Various databases were searched for studies published from inception to 2021. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines and economic-specific guidelines. The data were pooled using a random effects model when possible.

RESULTS

The retrieval identified 15 EE studies of NAC versus AC in 8 types of cancer. NAC is the dominant strategy for pancreatic, head and neck, rectal, prostate cancers and colorectal liver metastases. For ovarian cancer, NAC is cost-effective with a lower cost and higher or similar quality-adjusted life-year. There were no significant differences in cost and outcomes for lung cancer. For stage IV or high-risk patients with ovarian or prostate cancer, NAC was cost-effective but not for patients who were not high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The EEs results for NAC versus AC were inconsistent because of their different model structures, assumptions, cost inclusions, and a shortage of studies. There are multiple sources of heterogeneity across EEs evidence synthesis. More high-quality EE studies on NAC versus AC in initial cancer treatment are necessary.

Surgical-decision making in the setting of unsuspected N2 disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Identification of unsuspected nodal metastasis may occur at the time of operation for a stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Guidelines for this scenario are unclear. Our goal was to assess the cost-effectiveness of aborting the operation in an attempt to first provide neoadjuvant systemic therapy compared with upfront resection.

Methods

A computer simulation Markov model with a lifetime horizon was constructed to compare the costs and clinical outcomes, as measured by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), of upfront resection at the time of identification of unsuspected N2 mediastinal disease vs. aborting initial resection and continuing with neoadjuvant therapy prior to resection. Input parameters for the model were derived from published literature with costs measured from the healthcare perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was evaluated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Both deterministic (one-, two-, and three-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the impact of variation in input parameter values on model results.

Results

Aborting initial resection in favor of neoadjuvant therapy resulted in both higher costs ($40,415 vs. $29,873) and more QALYs (3.95 vs. 2.84) relative to upfront resection, yielding an ICER of $9,526/QALY. While variation in overall survival had a significant impact on the ICER, perioperative variables did not. As the annual mortality of best-case therapy in the abort group increased from a base-case estimate of 11% to 15%, the ICER exceeded the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. Subsequent one- and two-way sensitivity analyses did not find substantially alter the overall results. PSA resulted in aborting resection to be cost-effective in 99.7% of samples, with 13% of samples dominating upfront resection.

Conclusions

Treatment of stage IIIa lung cancer requires the input of a multidisciplinary team who must consider cost, quality of life, and overall survival. As new treatments are developed, further analyses should be performed to determine optimal therapy.

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.