Nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for advanced gastric, gastroesophageal junction, and esophageal adenocarcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma

Objective

The RATIONALE-305 trial demonstrated that tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy regimens was more beneficial than chemotherapy regimens alone in the treatment of patients with advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab combination chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced GC/GEJC from the perspective of the Chinese health service system.

Methods

A three-state partition survival model was constructed to evaluate the economics of tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of advanced GC/GEJC. Clinical data were collected from the RATIONALE-305 trial, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the output index. The stability of the results was verified using sensitivity and subgroup analyses. In addition, scenario analysis was conducted for the model simulation time and different parameter extrapolation models.

Results

The results of basic analysis showed an increase of 0.31 QALYs in the tislelizumab group compared with the placebo group (1.53 QALYs vs 1.22 QALYs), and a concomitant increase in cost of 10,326.68 USD, with an ICER of 33,876.38 USD/QALY, which is less than the current Chinese willingness-to-pay threshold (36,924.80 USD/QALY). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the utility values of progression-free survival, progressive disease and the price of capecitabine had a greater impact on the model. Subgroup analysis revealed that combination therapy was equally cost-effective in people with a program death ligand 1 tumor area positivity score of ≥5%.

Conclusion

From the perspective of the Chinese health service system, the treatment of advanced GC/GEJC with tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy has a cost-effective advantage over chemotherapy alone.

Role of immunotherapy in gastric cancer with liver metastasis

Gastric cancer continues to be a significant issue for public health, marked by its widespread occurrence and high mortality rates, even as the incidence of the disease shows a declining trend. The liver is the primary site for metastatic spread, with the peritoneum, lungs, and bones also being common targets. With the advent of biologic treatments and the introduction of immunotherapy for patients with metastatic conditions, the options to treat metastatic gastric cancer have expanded. This diversified therapeutic approach is designed to enhance patient quality of life and prolong survival, showcasing the progress in treatment modalities for individuals with gastric cancer and liver metastases.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: perspectives from the United States and China

Purpose

The efficacy of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in improving progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in unresectable gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) has recently been emphasized. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for the United States (US) and Chinese populations.

Methods

Using data from the RATIONALE-305 phase 3 trial, a Markov model was developed to analyze quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net health benefits (INHBs), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs). The health state utilities and direct medical costs were obtained from the relevant literature and local cost databases. The model uncertainty was evaluated using sensitivity analyses.

Findings

In the base-case analysis, the addition of tislelizumab to chemotherapy yielded an ICER of $37,768.48 per QALY in China, slightly below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,042.49 per QALY, showing marginal cost-effectiveness with an INHB of 0.05 QALYs and an INMB of $1,852.49. Subgroup analyses revealed ICERs of $23,853.52 for patients with a PD-L1 TAP score ≥ 5% (TAP ≥ 5%). In the US, the ICER was $502,786.22 per QALY in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and $321,395.28 per QALY in the TAP ≥ 5% subgroup, exceeding the US WTP threshold of $150,000.00.

Implications

In China, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective first-line therapy for unresectable GC/GEJC in both ITT and TAP ≥ 5% subgroups. In the US, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is not cost-effective.

Evaluating nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin's cost-effectiveness for aUC in China

Aims

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab with Gemcitabine-Cisplatin for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma (aUC) treatment from the perspective of Chinese payers.

Methods

A Markov model assessed economic outcomes, estimating health outcomes in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of uncertainties on the results.

Results

The base-case analysis showed Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin yielded 0.59 QALYs at an extra cost of $78,780.61, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of $133,526.46/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis highlighted Nivolumab's cost as the key factor, while probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 0% chance of cost-effectiveness for Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in aUC treatment.

Conclusion

Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin is not cost-effective in the treatment of aUC.

Pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy versus placebo combined with chemotherapy for HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy for HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer in China.

METHODS

A partitioned survival approach model was constructed to simulate the progression of HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer and evaluate the outcomes of different treatment strategies. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) to assess the cost associated with each quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess robustness and reliability.

RESULTS

The analysis conducted in the base case demonstrated that the ICER associated with pembrolizumab was $177405.83/QALY gained in all population. In the subgroup analysis, it was found that individuals with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 and those with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 had ICERs of $152397.06/QALY and $109534.13/QALY, respectively. All ICER values for both the all population groups and the subgroups exceeded the WTP threshold in China. Our analysis shows the robustness of these results, as they remained consistent when input parameters were varied within a ± 25% range.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone for unresectable advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer in China

Background

The Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) has recommended sintilimab plus chemotherapy (SINT + Chemo) as a standard first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC), based on the proven effectiveness and safety in the ORINT-16 trail. Its cost-effectiveness, however, remains to be evaluated.

Methods

We established a partitioned survival approach (PartSA) model with a 10-year time horizon to determine whether SINT + Chemo (vs. chemotherapy) was more cost-effective as a first-line treatment for unresectable advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC. Survival data was generated from the ORIENT-16 trail. Cost calculation was limited to direct medical costs. Database of Hunan Public Resources Trading Service Platform was used as the source for obtaining drug prices. Other cost and utility values were gathered from established literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the primary output. Additionally, we conducted sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and scenario analysis.

Results

In the base-case analysis, group SINT + Chemo showed an increase in utility value by 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an extra cost of $7988.43, resulting in an ICER of $25239.29/QALY, below the Chinese cost-effective willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38223.34. Upon further subgroup analysis according to patients' programmed death 1 ligand (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS), the ICERs were $26341.01/QALY for patients highly expressing PD-L1 (CPS ≥5) and $17658.26/QALY for patients lowly expressing PD-L1 (CPS <5). Based on the sensitivity analysis, we found the PFS utility was the parameter that had the most significant impact on the model's outcomes. Moreover, in scenario analysis, the results remained consistent despite variations in the model's time frame.

Conclusion

In China, SINT + Chemo is a more cost-effective option (vs. chemotherapy) as a first-line therapy for unresectable advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC, irrespective of PD-L1 expression levels.

Cost-utility of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer in China

OBJECTIVES

ORIENT-16, a phase III clinical trial conducted at 62 hospitals in China, reported that add-on sintilimab (Sin) to chemotherapy (Chemo) had favorable efficacy (p < 0.05) for patients with advanced HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of the Sin+Chemo based on results of ORIENT-16 from the perspective of Chinese healthcare payers.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate the 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs for patients with advanced HER2-negative GC/GEJC. Primary measure outcomes were: cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). Sensitivity/scenario analyses were conducted to assess the model robustness.

RESULTS

In all patients, Sin+Chemo vs Chemo increased costs by $6,472, additionally providing 0.61 QALYs, resulting in an ICUR of $10,610/QALY. While, in PD-L1 combined positive score ≥ 5 cohort, the ICUR was $9,738/QALYs. The ICUR was most sensitive to the utility of progression-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that add-on Sin had a 100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $18,625/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Sin+Chemo is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced HER2-negative GC/GEJC in China.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ORIENT-16, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT03745170.

Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer Management: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Across the nation, patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) are managed with modalities including upfront surgery (US) and perioperative chemotherapy (PCT). Preoperative therapies have demonstrated survival benefits over US and thus long-term outcomes are expected to vary between the options. However, as these 2 modalities continue to be regularly employed, we sought to perform a decision analysis comparing the costs and quality-of-life associated with the treatment of patients with LAGC to identify the most cost-effective option. We designed a decision tree model to investigate the survival and costs associated with the most commonly utilized management modalities for LAGC in the United States: US and PCT. The tree described costs and treatment strategies over a 6-month time horizon. Costs were derived from 2022 Medicare reimbursement rates using the third-party payer perspective for physicians and hospitals. Effectiveness was represented using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were utilized to test the robustness of our findings. PCT was the most cost-effective treatment modality for patients with LAGC over US with a cost of $40,792.16 yielding 3.11 QALYs. US has a cost of $55,575.57 while yielding 3.15 QALYs; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $369,585.25. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses favored PCT in all variations of variables across their standard deviations. Across 100,000 Monte Carlo simulations, 100% of trials favored PCT. In our model simulating patients with LAGC, the most cost-effective treatment strategy was PCT. While US demonstrated improved QALYs over PCT, the associated cost was too great to justify its use.