Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib versus Other Third-Line Treatments for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Background

Regorafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor, has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as a standard treatment choice for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Nonetheless, its substantial cost places a significant burden on social health resources and patients. However, the cost-effectiveness (CE) of regorafenib compared to other third-line therapies is still undetermined.

Objective

This study aims to assess the CE of regorafenib compared to other third-line therapies for the treatment of mCRC.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, as well as nine other databases to identify relevant studies published up to October 2023, focusing on patients with mCRC and examining the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib. Following the screening and extraction of pertinent data, the study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist.

Results

The literature search yielded 751 records, and after applying the inclusion criteria, 13 studies from 7 different countries were included. Of these, 7 studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib compared to trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102), 3 studies compared regorafenib with best supportive care (BSC), and 3 studies compared regorafenib with fruquintinib, serplulimab, and regorafenib dose optimization (ReDo).The quality of the included studies was high with an average QHES scores of 85.62. Regorafenib standard dose proves to be less cost-effective than alternative third-line therapies. Implementing a dose optimization strategy could potentially rectify this disparity and enhance the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib.

Conclusion

The use of the standard dose of regorafenib is generally regarded as not cost-effective when compared to other third-line therapies for patients with mCRC. However, implementing a dose-escalation strategy may enhance regorafenib's cost-effectiveness. Consequently, significant price reductions or optimizing the dose of regorafenib are required to achieve cost-effectiveness.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cost-Effectiveness and the Economics of Genomic Testing and Molecularly Matched Therapies

Cost-effectiveness analysis of precision oncology can help guide value-driven care. Next-generation sequencing is increasingly cost-efficient over single gene testing because diagnostic algorithms require multiple individual gene tests to determine biomarker status. Matched targeted therapy is often not cost-effective due to the high cost associated with drug treatment. However, genomic profiling can promote cost-effective care by identifying patients who are unlikely to benefit from therapy. Additional applications of genomic profiling such as universal testing for hereditary cancer syndromes and germline testing in patients with cancer may represent cost-effective approaches compared with traditional history-based diagnostic methods.

Selective Internal Radiation Therapy Using Y-90 Resin Microspheres for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This literature review and exploratory network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using yttrium-90 (Y-90) resin microspheres, regorafenib (REG), trifluridine-tipiracil (TFD/TPI), and best supportive care (BSC) in adult patients with chemotherapy-refractory or chemotherapy-intolerant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

In light of recently published data, the literature was searched to complement and update a review published in 2018. Studies up to December 2022 comparing two or more of the treatments and reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or incidence of adverse events (AE) were included. The NMA compared hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS using Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included, with eight studies added (none addressing SIRT). All active treatments improved OS in relation to BSC. SIRT had the longest OS among all treatments, although without statistically significant differences (HR [95% credible interval] for SIRT, 0.48 [0.27, 0.87]; TFD/TPI, 0.62 [0.46, 0.83]; REG, 0.78 [0.57, 1.05]) in a fixed effects model. Information regarding SIRT was insufficient for PFS analysis, and TFD/TPI was the best intervention (HR 2.26 [1.6, 3.18]). One SIRT study reported radioembolization-induced liver disease in > 10% of the sample; this was symptomatically managed. Non-haematological AEs (hand-foot skin reaction, fatigue, diarrhoea, hypertension, rash or desquamation) were more common with REG, while haematological events (neutropoenia, leukopenia, and anaemia) were more common with TFD/TPI.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence supports SIRT treatment in patients with chemotherapy-refractory or chemotherapy-intolerant mCRC compared to newer oral agents, with comparable OS and low incidence of AEs.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness analysis of mFOLOFX6 with or without a targeted drug among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: inverse probability of treatment weighting

This study investigated the cost-effectiveness and quality of life (QoL) within 1 year of receiving mFOLOFX6 with or without a targeted drug (bevacizumab or ramucirumab) as second-line treatment among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) following the failure of FOLFIRI + bevacizumab as first-line treatment. This prospective cohort study included patients who received a diagnosis of mCRC between March 2015 and May 2020. QoL was evaluated before treatment and at 6 months and 1 year posttreatment. All related variables were controlled using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. Generalized estimating equations with the difference-in-difference method was used to explore changes in QoL. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of the two groups was simulated using the annual-cycle Markov decision tree model. Finally, 39 and 76 patients were included in the targeted and nontargeted agent groups, respectively. At 6 months after treatment, QoL of the two groups improved significantly, but the targeted agent group had significantly better QoL than did the nontargeted agent group at 1 year posttreatment (P < 0.05). When the time frame was set to 20 years, the ICUR of the targeted agent group compared with the nontargeted agent group was US$32,052 per quality-adjusted life years. Addition of a targeted drug to the second-line mFOLOFX6 regimen not only improved the patients' QoL but was also more cost effective when the willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US$33,004 (the per capita gross domestic product of Taiwan). These patients should be reimbursed for these targeted agents by the National Health Insurance scheme in Taiwan.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib as a third-line or further treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China

Background

The health expenditure on treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is enormous, especially in third-line or further therapy. Cost-effectiveness analysis for the treatment of advanced NSCLC is particularly important. Anlotinib has been approved by the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) for the third-line or further treatment of advanced NSCLC. The price of anlotinib in China fell in 2022. Thus, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib in the third-line or further treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC based on the newest price from the Chinese health-care system perspective.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and effectiveness of anlotinib and a placebo in the third-line or further treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC based on outcome data from the ALTER 0303 phase-3 randomized clinical trial, which included 437 patients with advanced NSCLC and investigated the efficacy of anlotinib. The lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty.

Results

Anlotinib provided an additional 0.1161 QALYs compared to the placebo. The corresponding incremental cost was ¥22,729. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anlotinib compared to the placebo was ¥195,768 per QALY. From the perspective of the Chinese health-care system, anlotinib was found to be cost-effective compared to the placebo in the third-line or further treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥242,928 per QALY. Moreover, 1-way sensitivity analysis found that the results were sensitive to the utility of progressive disease (PD). The lower this parameter was, the higher the probability of ICER for anlotinib not being cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that the base-case analysis results were relatively stable.

Conclusions

Considering the clinical efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of anlotinib, it may be a valuable third-line or further treatment for advanced NSCLC in China.

The Value of Tucatinib in Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients: An Italian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

This study was aimed at estimating the appropriate price of tucatinib plus trastuzumab and capecitabine (TXC), as third-line treatment, in HER2⁺ breast cancer (BC) patients from the Italian National Health System (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with three mutually exclusive health states (i.e., progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death) was used to estimate the price of tucatinib vs trastuzumab emtansine (TDM-1), considering a willingness to pay (WTP) of 60,000 EUR. Data from the HER2CLIMB trial, the Italian population, and the literature were used as input. The model also estimated the total costs and the life-years (LY) of TXC and TDM1. Deterministic and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

In the base case scenario, the appropriate price of tucatinib was 4828.44 EUR per cycle. The TXC resulted in +0.28 LYs and +16,628 EUR compared with TDM-1. Results were mainly sensitive to therapy intensity variation. In PSA analysis, TXC resulted cost-effective in 53% of the simulations. Assuming a WTP ranging 20,000-80,000 EUR, the tucatinib price ranged from 4090.60 to 5197.41 EUR.

CONCLUSIONS

This study estimated the appropriate price for tucatinib according to different WTP in order to help healthcare decision makers to better understand the treatment value.

Real-world Use of and Spending on New Oral Targeted Cancer Drugs in the US, 2011-2018

Importance

Launch prices of new cancer drugs in the US have substantially increased in recent years despite growing concerns about the quantity and quality of evidence supporting their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Objective

To assess the use of and spending on new oral targeted cancer drugs among US residents with employer-sponsored insurance between 2011 and 2018, stratified by the strength of available evidence of benefit.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, dispensing claims for oral targeted cancer drugs first approved by the FDA between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were analyzed. The number of patients with drugs dispensed and the total payment for all claims were aggregated by calendar year, and these outcomes were arrayed according to evidence underlying FDA approvals, including pivotal study design (availability of randomized clinical trials) and overall survival (OS) benefit, as documented in drug labels. This study was conducted from July 17, 2019, to July 23, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Annual and cumulative numbers of patients who had dispensing events, and annual and cumulative sums of payment for eligible drugs.

Results

Of 37 348 patients who had at least 1 of the 44 new oral targeted drugs dispensed between 2011 and 2018, 21 324 were men (57.1%); mean (SD) age was 64.1 (13.1) years. Most individuals (36 246 [97.0%]) received drugs for which evidence from randomized clinical trials existed; however, a growing share of patients received drugs without documented OS benefit during the study period: from 12.7% in 2011 to 58.8% in 2018. Cumulative spending on all sample drugs totaled $3.5 billion by the end of 2018, of which 96.8% was spent on drugs that were approved based on a pivotal randomized clinical trial. Cumulative spending on drugs without documented OS benefit ($1.8 billion [51.6%]) surpassed that on drugs with documented OS benefit ($1.7 billion [48.4%]) by the end of 2018.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that drugs used for treatment of cancer without documented OS benefits are adopted in the health system and account for substantial spending.

Prognostic significance of the systemic immune-inflammation index in pancreatic carcinoma patients: A meta-analysis

Background: Systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) is a prognostic indicator for several malignancies, including pancreatic carcinoma; however, there is no consensus on its significance. In the current study, a systematic meta-analysis was used to explore the correlation between SII and prognosis in pancreatic carcinoma patients.

Methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were screened from inception to May 2020. Studies describing the prognostic role of SII in pancreatic carcinoma were then retrieved. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using random- or fixed-effects models to determine the correlation between SII and prognosis.

Results: A total of four studies, comprising 1749 patients, met the inclusion criteria of the study and were therefore included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that high SII indicated was correlated with worse overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreatic carcinoma (HR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.24–1.65, P<0.001). These findings were validated through subgroup analyses, stratified by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage. In addition, patients with high SII showed poorer cancer-specific survival (HR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.55–3.48, P<0.001). However, analysis showed no significant correlations between SII and disease-free and relapse-free survival (RFS).

Conclusion: These findings indicate that SII is a potential non-invasive and a promising tool for predicting clinical outcomes of pancreatic carcinoma patients. However, the current research did not explore whether neoadjuvant therapy has an effect on the prognostic value of SII. Further studies using adequate designs and larger sample sizes are required to validate these findings.

Cost-effectiveness of azacitidine and venetoclax in unfit patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia

The phase 3 VIALE-A trial reported that venetoclax in combination with azacitidine significantly improved response rates and overall survival compared with azacitidine alone in older, unfit patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, the cost-effectiveness of azacitidine-venetoclax in this clinical setting is unknown. In this study, we constructed a partitioned survival model to compare the cost and effectiveness of azacitidine-venetoclax with azacitidine alone in previously untreated AML. Event-free and overall survival curves for each treatment strategy were derived from the VIALE-A trial using parametric survival modeling. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of azacitidine-venetoclax from a US-payer perspective. Azacitidine-venetoclax was associated with an improvement of 0.61 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with azacitidine alone. However, the combination led to significantly higher lifetime health care costs (incremental cost, $159 595), resulting in an ICER of $260 343 per QALY gained. The price of venetoclax would need to decrease by 60% for azacitidine-venetoclax to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. These data suggest that use of azacitidine-venetoclax for previously untreated AML patients who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Significant price reduction of venetoclax would be required to reduce the ICER to a more widely acceptable value.

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.

First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Simple Summary

There is a growing body of literature demonstrating high cancer drug costs relative to the benefits provided to patients treated on a large scale. We examined the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab–bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, based on the results of the pivotal phase 3 trial IMbrave 150. Our model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. We found that atezolizumab–bevacizumab was cost-effective if we assumed all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of hepatocellular carcinoma. Otherwise, atezolizumab–bevacizumab was not cost-effective. We concluded that price reduction, duration of therapy capped to ≤12 months, or dosage of bevacizumab reduced to ≤10 mg/kg would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical benefits were modest. The long-term effectiveness of atezolizumab–bevacizumab is a critical factor of its cost-effectiveness. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Abstract

Background: The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo–bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo–bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo–bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Atezo–bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo–bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo–bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo–bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo–bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo–bev cost-effective. Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness of atezo–bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Selective Internal Radiotherapy With Yttrium-90 Versus Sorafenib in Locally Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

PURPOSE

The recent sorafenib versus radioembolization in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH) and selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SIRveNIB) trials showed no statistically significant difference in overall survival for randomization to selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) versus sorafenib for locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, although SIRT was better tolerated. Given the high cost of both treatments, we investigated their comparative cost-effectiveness from a US healthcare sector perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We constructed a state-transition microsimulation model to simulate patients allocated to SIRT versus sorafenib according to an intention-to-treat principle. Hazard rates of disease progression and death were based on pooled individual patient data generated from the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials' Kaplan-Meier curves. Inputs for adverse events, treatment adherence, and quality of life utility weights were derived from trial data as well. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates and literature. We performed probabilistic sensitivity analysis and estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 5-year time horizon. We evaluated sensitivity to uncertainty of key model parameters.

RESULTS

Costs were $78,859 v $58,397 (difference $20,462; 95% uncertainty interval $14,444 to 27,205) and QALYs were 0.88 v 0.87 (difference 0.02, -0.02 to 0.05) for sorafenib versus SIRT, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of sorafenib was $1,280,224/QALY. The likelihood that sorafenib would be cost effective did not exceed 1%, assuming cost-effectiveness thresholds up to $200k/QALY. If the monthly price of sorafenib decreased from $16,390 to below $7,000, the ICER of sorafenib fell below $200k/QALY, and an ICER < $100k/QALY was reached if the monthly price fell below $6,600.

CONCLUSION

Sorafenib is unlikely to provide a gain in quality-adjusted survival compared with SIRT at an acceptable cost for the US healthcare sector. Only if the current price decreased by more than 50% would sorafenib be considered economically attractive.

Evaluation of the Cost-effectiveness of Doublet Therapy in Metastatic BRAF Variant Colorectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

The BEACON trial showed that combination therapy with encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) and cetuximab (EGFR inhibitor) was associated with prolonged overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer. However, the cost-effectiveness of using these agents in this clinical setting is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To create a cost-effectiveness model to compare doublet therapy (encorafenib plus cetuximab) with standard chemotherapy (cetuximab plus irinotecan or cetuximab plus folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) in treating patients with metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation constructed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and utility of doublet therapy and standard chemotherapy. Parametric survival modeling was used to extrapolate the effectiveness of each line of therapy from large clinical trials. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the uncertainty in the model. Patients mirrored the cohorts in the BEACON trial: they had metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer and were followed up as they progressed through multiple lines of therapy, best supportive care, and death. Data collection and data analysis were performed from November 15, 2019, to July 14, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was calculated using the cumulative cost and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), of doublet therapy compared with standard chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The model patient cohort had a mean age of 61 years, and 53% of the patients were women, 66% had 1 previous line of therapy, and 8% had high microsatellite instability. Doublet therapy was associated with an improvement of 0.15 QALYs compared with standard chemotherapy. However, the incremental cost of doublet therapy was $78 233, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $523 374 per QALY gained. Concomitant decreases in the price of encorafenib and cetuximab are needed to achieve cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that doublet therapy for metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer was unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Cost-effectiveness needs to be considered in clinical trial design, particularly when combining new therapies with non-cost-effective treatments that are coadministered without a fixed duration.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as the third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in China.

METHODS

A three-state Markov model with monthly cycle was constructed to estimate lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with mCRC from Chinese health care perspective. Survival analysis was applied to calculate transition probabilities using the data from the clinical trials FRESCO and CONCUR, which were also the data sources accessing probabilities of adverse events. Background mortality rate and drug costs were derived from government published data. Costs for medical services were obtained from real-world data and published literatures. Utilities applied to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from literature review. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were adopted to verify the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Fruquintinib provided 0.74 QALYs at a cost of CNY 151,058 (USD 22,888), whereas regorafenib provided 0.79 QALYs at a cost of CNY 226,657 (USD 32,224). Compared to fruquintinib, the ICER of regorafenib was CNY 1,529,197/QALY (USD 231,697/QALY) from Chinese health care perspective, which was above the triple GDP per capita of China in 2019 (CNY 212,676) (USD 32,224) as the threshold to define the cost-effectiveness. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results were generally robust. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the probability that fruquintinib was more cost-effective was 100% when the threshold was the triple GDP per capita of China.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to regorafenib, fruquintinib, which leads to forego about 0.05 QALYs and save about CNY 75,599 (USD 11,454), is a cost-effective choice as the third-line treatment for patients with mCRC in China.

The Survival Advantage of Females at Premenopausal Age Is Race Dependent in Colorectal Cancer

Background

A female prognostic advantage in younger individuals has been demonstrated in various cancers. Several large-scale analyses based on different racial backgrounds have reported inconsistent results in colorectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic value of sex and age in patients with colorectal cancer of different ethnic groups.

Methods

We identified 71,812 eligible patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. According to age at diagnosis, the patients were categorized into premenopausal age (≤45 yrs), menopausal age (46–54 yrs), and postmenopausal age (≥55 yrs) subgroups for further analysis.

Results

Multivariate analysis identified the female survival advantage to be significant in the premenopausal age subgroup (P = 0.002, HR (95% CI): 0.73 (0.60–0.89)), diminished in the menopausal age subgroup (P = 0.09), and absent in the postmenopausal age subgroup (P = 0.96). Furthermore, the female survival advantage at premenopausal age was significant only in white patients (P = 0.001, HR (95% CI): 0.68 (0.54–0.87)) and not in either American Indian/Alaska Native or Asian or Pacific Islander patients. There was a trend of better survival of females in black patients (P = 0.07).

Conclusions

Sex was a major prognostic factor in colorectal cancer patients, especially premenopausal women, and the difference was also associated with race.

A cost-utility analysis of SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres versus best supportive care in the treatment of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to chemotherapy in the UK

BACKGROUND

Limited treatment options are available in chemotherapy-refractory or -intolerant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective of the present analysis was to evaluate the cost-utility of SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres relative to best supportive care (BSC) in the treatment of chemotherapy refractory mCRC from the perspective of the UK national healthcare payer.

METHODS

A cost-utility model was developed in Microsoft Excel to simulate transitions from progression-free survival to post-progression survival and death in patients with mCRC. Unit costs were captured in 2019 pounds sterling (GBP) based on the literature, formulary listings, and National Health Service (NHS) England reference costs. Future costs and effects were discounted at 3.5% per annum. A series of one-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted.

RESULTS

The base case analysis showed that SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres would result in an increase in discounted quality-adjusted life years gained from 0.69 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to 1.50 QALYs, with an associated increase in cost from GBP 15,268 to GBP 34,168 yielding an incremental cost-utility ratio of GBP 23,435 per QALY. PSA showed that there would be a 56% likelihood that SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres would be cost-effective relative to BSC at a willingness-to-pay threshold of GBP 30,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

This cost-utility analysis showed that, relative to BSC, SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres would be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with mCRC in the UK setting from the national healthcare payer perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China

Background

In this study, we analyze the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, especially after a recent price drop suggested by the National Healthcare Security Administration.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to placebo among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Chinese healthcare payer’s perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical cost (2019 US dollars [USD]). A willing-to-pay threshold was set at USD 27,130/QALY, which is three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results

Fruquintinib was associated with better health outcomes than placebo (0.640 vs 0.478 QALYs) with a higher cost (USD 20750.9 vs USD 12042.2), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 53508.7 per QALY. This ICER is 25% lower than the one calculated before the price drop (USD 70952.6 per QALY).

Conclusion

After the price negotiation, the drug becomes cheaper and the ICER is lower, but the drug is still not cost effective under the standard of 3 times GDP willing-to-pay threshold. For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, fruquintinib is not a cost-effective option under the current circumstances in China.

Prognostic Value of the Pace of Tumor Progression as Assessed by Serial 18F-FDG PET/CT Scan and Liquid Biopsy in Refractory Colorectal Cancer: The CORIOLAN Trial

Simple Summary

Management of chemorefractory colorectal cancer patient is challenging, and reliable tools which can predict individual patient prognosis and help the decision making are needed. In this study, we hypothesized that the natural pace of cancer growth and progression, as assessed by early changes of a number of imaging and circulating biomarkers which are surrogates of tumor burden (i.e., metabolically active tumor volume, carcinoembryonic antigen, circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA), could predict patient prognosis. By prospectively recruiting 47 eligible patients who had measurements of these biomarkers taken two weeks apart in the absence of any active anti-cancer treatment, we failed to demonstrate our hypothesis. On the other hand, we found that baseline assessment of the same biomarkers was associated with survival outcomes. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and translate them into applications for clinical practice.

Abstract

Introduction: Decision making in refractory colorectal cancer (rCRC) is challenging, with limited data available to predict patient outcome. We conducted a study to assess the pace of cancer progression as a potential prognostic and decision tool. Methods: CORIOLAN was a prospective, single-center, single-arm trial recruiting refractory CRC patients with an ECOG performance status of ≤1 and an estimated life expectancy of ≥12 weeks. 18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT) scan and blood sample collection were carried out at baseline and after 2 weeks with no cancer treatment given between these timepoints. The primary objective was to evaluate the association between pace of cancer progression as defined by changes of the whole-body metabolically active tumor volume (WB-MATV) and overall survival (OS). Exploratory objectives included evaluation of the prognostic value of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA), circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). Results: 47 eligible patients who had received a median number of 5 (range 2–8) prior treatments were enrolled. At the time of analysis, 45 deaths had occurred, with 26% of patients dying within 12 weeks. The median OS was 6.3 months (range 0.4–14.3). The median relative delta between WB-MATV at baseline and 2 weeks was +21%. Changes of WB-MATV, however, failed to predict OS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.3, p = 0.383). Similarly, no association was observed between changes of any of the circulating biomarkers investigated and prognosis. By contrast, high WB-MATV (4.2 versus 9.4 months; HR 3.1, p = 0.003), high CEA (4.4 versus 7.0 months; HR 1.9, p = 0.053), high cfDNA (4.7 versus 7.0 months; HR 2.2, p = 0.015) and high CTC count (3.3 versus 7.5 months; HR 6.5, p < 0.001) at baseline were associated with worse OS. Conclusions: In this study, approximately 1 out of 4 refractory CRC patients who were judged to have a life expectancy >12 weeks actually died within 12 weeks. Baseline assessment of WB-MATV, cfDNA, CTCs and CEA, but not early change evaluation of the same, may help to refine patient prognostication and guide management decisions.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs. Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background: The CheckMate 227 trial has indicated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with chemotherapy significantly increases long-term survival in the first-line setting of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: A Markov model was built to estimate the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy as the first-line therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC based on outcomes data from the CheckMate 227 trial. We calculated the cost and health outcomes at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) in populations with different programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels (≥50, ≥1, and <1%) or a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) (≥10 mutations per megabase). Sensitivity analysis were used to test the model stability.

Results: The outcomes showed that the incremental costs and QALYs by using nivolumab plus ipilimumab were $124180.76 and 1.16, $70951.42 and 0.53, $144093.63 and 0.83 for the advanced NSCLC patients with a PD-L1 expression ≥50%, ≥1%, and <1%, which led to an incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) of $107403.72, $133732.20, and $172589.15 per QALY, respectively. For patients with a high TMB, nivolumab plus ipilimumab contributed an extra 2.04 QALYs at a cost of $69182.50 per QALY.

Conclusion: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy makes a better cost-effective strategy than chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression levels ≥50% and ≥1% or a high TMB, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, but not in the patients with a PD-L1 expression <1%.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tucatinib in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer From the US and Chinese Perspectives

Background: The clinical evaluation of HER2CLIMB trial showed a 21. 9-month median overall survival with the triplet regimens of tucatinib, capecitabine, and trastuzumab (TXT) for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. From the payer's perspective of the United States and China, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to evaluate the costs and benefits of adding tucatinib in this study.

Methods: We constructed a Markov model for the economic evaluation of adding tucatinib to trastuzumab plus capecitabine in patients with HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer in the United States and China. The model was conducted with a 10-year time horizon, and the health status was divided into three states: progression-free survival, progressing disease, and death. The health utility scores were consistent with published literature with similar patient status. The transition probabilities were derived from the survival data of the HER2CLIMB study. The unit prices of medicines were obtained from the West China Hospital, Red Book, and published literature. Outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which robustness was evaluated by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Compared with the two-drug regimen of trastuzumab plus capecitabine (TX), the addition of tucatinib increased 0.21 QALY, with an increasing cost of $146,995.05 and $19,022.97 in the United States and China, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the TXT versus TX was $699,976.43 in the U.S. and $90,585.57 in China, both of which are higher than their respective threshold of willingness to play. Deterministic sensitivity analysis shows that the price of tucatinib is the parameter that has the most significant impact on ICERs, but it does not change the results of the model. Probability sensitivity analysis shows that the probability of cost-effective for TXT is 0 in the base case.

Conclusion: In the United States and China, tucatinib combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine is not cost-effective for patients with HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer.

Comparative Cost-utility Analysis of Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil in The Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Japan

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the cost utility of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) compared with that of best supportive care (BSC) in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with, or not considered candidates for, available therapies, including fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapies; anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents; and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents, in Japan.

METHODS

Efficacy data, utility values, and costs were extracted from published studies. The cost and effectiveness of regorafenib and of T/T were compared with those of BSC and examined between the 2 agents over a 5-year time horizon using a partitioned survival analysis. The health outcomes were life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The costs were year-2018 revisions to the drug prices and medical fees. The uncertainty and robustness of the model were verified by 1-way sensitivity analysis, probability sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis compared with different clinical studies. A 2% per-annum discount was applied to expenses and QALYs. The willingness-to-pay threshold used was 5 million Japanese yen (JPY).

FINDINGS

Regorafenib and T/T had incremental costs of 11,898,982 JPY (107,781 US dollars [USD]) and 5,000,141 JPY (45,291 USD), incremental effects of 0.249 QALYs (0.280 LYs) and 0.344 QALYs (0.421 LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 47,773,791 JPY (432,734 USD) and 14,550,577 JPY (131,799 USD) per QALY, respectively. Results of sensitivity analyses all exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of 15 million JPY. In the comparison of the 2 agents, T/T was a dominant alternative over regorafenib.

IMPLICATIONS

As a third-line or later treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan, T/T is cost-effective compared with BSC, whereas regorafenib is not. It is necessary to adjust the price of regorafenib based on the results of this analysis, with the improvement of clinical parameters such as survival time and adverse events.

Cost-Effectiveness of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as a second-line therapy for advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal cancer in China

AIM

That clinical trial (RAINBOW) showed that a 7.4 months overall survival benefit with the combination therapy with ramucirumab (RAM) and paclitaxel (PAC) as second-line therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, compared with placebo (PLA) plus paclitaxel. We performed an analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of RAM from a Chinese perspective and recognized the range of drug costs.

METHODS

By building a Markov model to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs) and lifetime costs. Transition probabilities, costs and utilities were estimated for the published literature, Chinese health care system and local price setting. We performed threshold analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

Compared with PLA strategy, RAM strategy provided an incremental survival benefit of 1.22 LYs and 0.64 QALYs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that when RAM costs less than $151 or $753 per 4 weeks, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) approximated the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP), suggesting that there was 50% likelihood that the ICER for RAM + PAC would be less than $44528.4 per QALY or $48121 per QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who fail first-line chemotherapy, our results are conducive to the multilateral drug price guidance negotiations of RAM in China.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the United States (US) payers' perspective in the first-line treatment.

METHODS

A mathematical Markov model was developed to estimate cost and effectiveness of atezolizumab combination therapy versus carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel alone in the first-line therapy of metastatic non-squamous NSCLC from the data of IMpower130. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were analyzed, and model robustness was assessed by sensitivity analysis. Additional subgroup analyses were performed as well.

RESULTS

Compared to chemotherapy, treatment with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy yields an increase of 0.16 QALYs with an increase in cost of $109,809.13, resulting in an ICER of $670,309.66 per QALY. The most influential factor in this model was the cost of atezolizumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was 0% probability that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) values of $150,000 per QALY. The results of subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained greater than $150,000/QALY across the all patient subgroups.

CONCLUSION

First-line treatment with atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel is not a cost-effective option in patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of addition of fruquintinib to best supportive care (BSC) in third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

To conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov model was established to simulate the course of metastatic CRC. Three health states-progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death-were included. Clinical data were derived from the FRESCO trial and health utility values were extracted from previous literature. The primary outcome of the study was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in US dollars per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from a Chinese societal perspective. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the study.

RESULTS

Addition of fruquintinib to BSC gained 0.54 QALY at a cost of $15,404.57 while the BSC group gained 0.38 QALY at a cost of $9603.94. ICER of fruquintinib versus BSC was $36,253.94/QALY. In the 1-way sensitivity analyses, utility for PD in both groups, utility for PFS in both groups, and cost of fruquintinib significantly influenced the results of the analysis. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $28,988.40/QALY, probabilities of addition of fruquintinib to BSC or BSC alone as the cost-effective option were 0% and 100%, indicating addition of fruquintinib is not a dominant option compared with BSC.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of fruquintinib to BSC is not a cost-effective regimen in the third-line setting for patients with metastatic CRC from the Chinese societal perspective.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib as second-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Germany and the United States

BACKGROUND

Cabozantinib was approved by the European Medicines Agency and the Federal Drug Administration as an option for sorafenib-resistant advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, increasing overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib in the second-line setting for patients with an advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from the German statutory health insurance perspective compared with an US scenario using US prices.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of cabozantinib with best supportive care in the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma over a lifetime horizon. Health outcomes were measured in discounted life years and discounted quality-adjusted life years. Survival probabilities were estimated using parametric survival distributions based on CELESTIAL trial data. Utilities were derived from the literature. Costs contained drugs, monitoring and adverse events measured in US Dollars. Model robustness was addressed in univariable, scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Cabozantinib generated a gain of 0.18 life years (0.15 quality-adjusted life years) compared with best supportive care. The total mean cost per patient was $56,621 for cabozantinib and $2064 for best supportive care in the German model resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cabozantinib of $306,778/life year and $375,470/quality-adjusted life year. Using US prices generated costs of $177,496 for cabozantinib and $4630 for best supportive care and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $972,049/life year and $1,189,706/quality-adjusted life year.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis established that assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $163,371/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the German model and $188,559/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the US model, cabozantinib is not cost-effective compared with best supportive care. Sensitivity analyses showed that cabozantinib was not cost-effective in almost all our scenarios.

Role of cellular, molecular and tumor microenvironment in hepatocellular carcinoma: Possible targets and future directions in the regorafenib era

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains as one of the major causes of cancer-related mortality, despite the recent development of new therapeutic options. Regorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, is the first systemic therapy that has a survival benefit for patients with advanced HCC that have a poor response to sorafenib. Even though regorafenib has been approved by the FDA, the clinical trial for regorafenib treatment does not show significant improvement in overall survival. The impaired efficacy of regorafenib caused by various resistance mechanisms, including epithelial-mesenchymal transitions, inflammation, angiogenesis, hypoxia, oxidative stress, fibrosis and autophagy, still needs to be resolved. In this review, we provide insight on regorafenib microenvironmental, molecular and cellular mechanisms and interactions in HCC treatment. The aim of this review is to help physicians select patients that would obtain the maximal benefits from regorafenib in HCC therapy.

Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy of 5-Fluorouracil for Patients with Unresectable Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Systemic Chemotherapy: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) is a feasible treatment for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with unresectable liver metastases.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess HAIC of 5-fluorouracil (5FU) in patients with unresectable liver metastases from CRC refractory to standard systemic chemotherapy.

METHODS

A total of 137 patients (85 men, 52 women; median age, 62 years; with KRAS mutation, n = 57) were recruited from seven institutions from September 2008 to December 2015. These patients were refractory to systemic chemotherapy including three cytotoxic agents (fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) with two molecular-targeted agents (bevacizumab and epidermal growth factor receptor antibody [cetuximab or panitumumab]). All patients underwent HAIC of continuous 5FU for unresectable liver metastases. Overall survival time, time to treatment failure, objective response rate, disease control rate, and incidence of adverse events to HAIC were assessed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The median overall survival time was 4.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0-5.7 months), whereas time to treatment failure was 2.4 months (95% CI, 2.0-2.8 months). The objective overall response rate and disease control rate were 12.4 and 64%, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were observed in 2.9% of the patients (hyperbilirubinemia in 2, liver abscess in 1, and myelosuppression in 1).

CONCLUSIONS

There were few incidences of severe adverse events to HAIC of 5FU for liver metastases from CRC refractory to standard systemic chemotherapy. Therefore, it might present as a treatment option as last-line chemotherapy.

First-line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs Sunitinib for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Importance

Recently, new drugs have been approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly increases overall survival for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC from the US payer perspective.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line treatment of mRCC using outcomes data from the CheckMate 214 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1096 patients with mRCC (median age, 62 years) and compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC. In the analysis, patients were modeled to receive sunitinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 4 doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY. Univariable, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed.

Results

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an additional 0.96 QALYs, at a cost of $108 363 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to overall survival hazard ratio (0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89) and mean patient weight (70 kg, range, 40-200 kg). Other variables, such as the cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, $32 213.44; range, $25 770.75-$38 656.13), utility values for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, 0.82; range, 0.65-0.98), and proportion receiving nivolumab in sunitinib arm (mean, 0.27; range, 0.22-0.32), had a moderate or minor influence on model results. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most cost-effective for patients with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression of at least 1% ($86 390 per QALY).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this model, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with sunitinib for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC at a willingness-to-pay threshold from $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for previously untreated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the USA

OBJECTIVES

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus standard chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the US payer perspective.

DESIGN

A Markov model was constructed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Health outcomes were estimated in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost information was from Medicare in 2018. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the impact of uncertainty and assumptions on the results.

SETTING

The US payer perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical US cohort of patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations.

INTERVENTIONS

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy expressed as cost per QALY gained compared with chemotherapy RESULTS: The base case analysis demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provided an additional 0.78 QALYs at incremental cost of $151 409, resulting in an ICER of $194 372/QALY. ICER for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was >$149 680/QALY in all of our univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab in addition to chemotherapy provides modest incremental benefit at high incremental cost per QALY for the treatment of previously untreated metastatic NSCLC.

Regorafenib: A Review in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Regorafenib (Stivarga^®) is an oral small-molecule multiple kinase inhibitor. It is indicated worldwide for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the EU and USA it is indicated for patients with mCRC who have been previously treated with, or are not considered candidates for available therapies, including fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF therapy and, if RAS wild-type, an anti-EGFR therapy. In Japan, it is indicated for the treatment of unresectable, advanced/recurrent CRC. The addition of regorafenib to best supportive care prolonged median overall survival (OS; by up to 2.5 months) and progression-free survival (PFS; by up to 1.5 months) relative to the addition of placebo in double-blind phase 3 studies (CORRECT and CONCUR) in patients with mCRC who had progressed after failure of standard therapy. Health-related quality of life was not adversely affected with regorafenib relative to placebo. A large open-label phase 3 study (CONSIGN) and several large real-world studies supported the efficacy of regorafenib in this setting. Regorafenib had a generally manageable tolerability profile, which was consistent with the profile of a typical small-molecule multiple kinase inhibitor. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs), mostly of mild or moderate severity, were reported in the majority of patients receiving regorafenib, with dermatological toxicities and liver enzyme elevations among the most common AEs. Although identification of biomarkers/parameters predicting efficacy outcomes with regorafenib will help to individualize therapy, current evidence indicates that regorafenib is a valuable treatment option for patients with refractory mCRC who have a very poor prognosis.

Precision treatment in colorectal cancer: Now and the future

Until recently, a one‐drug‐fits‐all model was applied to every patient diagnosed with the same condition. But not every condition is the same, and this has led to many cases of ineffective treatment. Pharmacogenetics is increasingly used to stratify patients for precision medicine treatments, for instance, the UGT1A1*28 polymorphism as a dosage indicator for the use of irinotecan as well as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) immunohistochemistry and KRAS Proto‐Oncogene (KRAS) exon 2 mutation tests for determining the likelihood of treatment response to cetuximab or panitumumab treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). The other molecular subtypes, such as KRAS exon 3/4, B‐Raf Proto‐Oncogene, NRAF, PIK3CA, and PETN, were also reported as potential new pharmacogenetic targets for the current and the newly discovered anticancer drugs. In addition to next‐generation sequencing (NGS), primary tumor cells for in vivo and in vitro drug screening, imaging biomarker 3′‐Deoxy‐3′‐18F‐fluorothymidine positron emission tomography, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection methods are being developed and may represent the future direction of precision medicine. This review will discuss the current environment of precision medicine, including clinically approved targeted therapies, the latest potential therapeutic agents, and the ongoing pharmacogenetic trials for CRC patients.

Early modifications of circulating microRNAs levels in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with regorafenib

Biomarkers able to improve the cost/benefit ratio are urgently needed for metastatic colorectal cancer patients that are eligible to receive regorafenib. Here, we measured plasma levels of ten circulating microRNAs (c-miRNAs) and we investigated their early changes during treatment, as well as possible correlation with clinical outcome. Ten literature-selected c-miRNAs were quantified by qRT-PCR on plasma samples collected at baseline (d1) and after 15 days of treatment (d15). C-miRNAs showing significant changes were further analyzed to establish correlations with outcome. A decision tree-based approach was employed to define a c-miRNA signature able to predict the outcome. Results achieved in an exploratory cohort were tested in a validation group. In the exploratory cohort (n = 34), the levels of c-miR-21 (p = 0.06), c-miR-141 (p = 0.04), and c-miR-601 (p = 0.01) increased at d15 compared with d1. A c-miRNA signature involving c-miR-21, c-miR-221, and c-miR-760 predicted response to treatment (p < 0.0001) and was significantly associated to PFS (HR = 10.68; 95% CI 3.2-35.65; p < 0.0001). In the validation cohort (n = 36), the increase in c-miR-21 (p = 0.02) and c-miR-601 (p = 0.02) levels at d15 was confirmed, but the associations with outcome were not. Our data indicate that early changes of c-miRNA levels might be influenced by regorafenib treatment. However, further studies are needed to establish the predictive power of such modifications.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) show a significant response to checkpoint inhibitor therapies, but the economic impact of these therapies is unknown. A decision analytic model was used to explore the effectiveness and cost burden of MSI-H/dMMR mCRC treatment.

METHODS

The treatment of hypothetical patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC was simulated in 2 treatment scenarios: a third-line treatment and an exploratory first-line treatment. The treatments compared were nivolumab, ipilimumab and nivolumab, trifluridine and tipiracil (third-line treatment), and mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (first-line treatment). Disease progression, drug toxicity, and survival rates were based on the CheckMate 142, study of TAS-102 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapies (RECOURSE), and Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Southwest Oncology Group 80405 trials. The analyzed outcomes included survival (life-years), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

Ipilimumab with nivolumab was the most effective strategy (10.69 life-years and 9.25 QALYs for the third line; 10.69 life-years and 9.44 QALYs for the first line) in comparison with nivolumab (8.21 life-years and 6.76 QALYs for the third line; 8.21 life-years and 7.00 QALYs for the first line), trifluridine and tipiracil (0.74 life-years and 0.07 QALYs), and mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (2.72 life-years and 1.63 QALYs). However, neither checkpoint inhibitor therapy was cost-effective in comparison with trifluridine and tipiracil (nivolumab ICER, $153,000; ipilimumab and nivolumab ICER, $162,700) or mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (nivolumab ICER, $150,700; ipilimumab and nivolumab ICER, $158,700).

CONCLUSIONS

This modeling analysis found that both single and dual checkpoint blockade could be significantly more effective for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC than chemotherapy, but they were not cost-effective, largely because of drug costs. Decreases in drug pricing and/or the duration of maintenance nivolumab could make ipilimumab and nivolumab cost-effective. Prospective clinical trials should be performed to explore the optimal duration of maintenance nivolumab.

Regorafenib treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib-A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer related deaths. Patients with advanced HCC are treated with sorafenib. A recent randomized controlled trial demonstrated a survival benefit for regorafenib treatment in patients with advanced HCC who had progressed on sorafenib. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this approach.

METHODS

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of regorafenib, we used a Markov model that incorporates health outcomes, measured by life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were based on 2017 discounted prices. Model robustness was validated by probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulations.

RESULTS

The use of regorafenib results in a gain of 19.76 weeks of life (0.38 Life Years) as compared to placebo. When adjusted for quality of life, using regorafenib produced a gain of 0.25 quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for regorafenib compared with best supportive care was between $201,797 and $268,506 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

The modest incremental benefit at a relatively high incremental cost of regorafenib treatment suggests that it is not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness to pay thresholds.

Ribociclib in hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: Establishing a value-based cost in China

BACKGROUND

The addition of ribociclib (RIB) to letrozole (LET) significantly increases progression free survival for patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). We identified the range of drug costs for which RIB could be considered cost effective from a Chinese perspective.

METHODS

A discrete event simulation model was developed to model the treatment sequences among patients with ABC. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and lifetime costs were estimated. Costs were estimated for Chinese health care systems. Three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China 2016 ($24,360) and three times the per capita GDP of Beijing city 2016 ($53,384) were used as the willingness-to-pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, RIB + LET provided an incremental survival benefit of 0.631 LYs and 0.451 QALYs. When RIB costs less than $721 or $1170 per 4 weeks, there was a nearly 90% likelihood that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RIB + LET would be less than $24,360 per QALY or $53,384 per QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A value-based price for the cost of RIB is $732 or $1170 per 4 weeks for China and Beijing City, respectively. Our study is helpful to inform the multilateral drug price negotiations in China that may be upcoming for RIB.

Cost-effectiveness of liver transplantation in patients with colorectal metastases confined to the liver

BACKGROUND

Patients with non-resectable colorectal metastases are currently treated with chemotherapy. However, liver transplantation can increase the 5-year survival rate from 9 to 56 per cent if the cancer is confined to the liver. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastases.

METHODS

A Markov model with a lifetime perspective was developed to estimate the life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct healthcare costs and cost-effectiveness for patients with non-resectable colorectal liver metastases who received liver transplantation or chemotherapy alone.

RESULTS

In non-selected cohorts, liver transplantation increased patients' life expectancy by 3·12 life-years (2·47 QALYs), at an additional cost of €209 143, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €67 140 per life-year (€84 667 per QALY) gained. In selected cohorts (selection based on tumour diameter, time since primary cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen levels and response to chemotherapy), the effect of liver transplantation increased to 4·23 life-years (3·41 QALYs), at a higher additional cost (€230 282), and the ICER decreased to €54 467 per life-year (€67 509 per QALY) gained. Given a willingness to pay of €70 500, the likelihood of transplantation being cost-effective was 0·66 and 0·94 (0·23 and 0·67 QALYs) for non-selected and selected cohorts respectively.

CONCLUSION

Liver transplantation was cost-effective but only for highly selected patients. This might be possible in countries with good access to grafts and low waiting list mortality.

Financial toxicity and implications for cancer care in the era of molecular and immune therapies

Molecular and immune therapies have revolutionized cancer treatment and improved patient outcomes and survival. However, the pricing of these drugs has become an issue as the cost of cancer care continues to rise significantly. Cost sharing policies have increased out-of-pocket expenses for patients, leading to poorer financial well-being, quality of life, psychosocial health, and treatment adherence. In this review, we briefly examine some factors affecting the pricing of these new targeted therapies; the effects of financial toxicity on patients; and highlight potential health policy and patient-provider level interventions to address these issues.

Evolution of regorafenib from bench to bedside in colorectal cancer: Is it an attractive option or merely a "me too" drug?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major public health problem in the United States with an estimated 50,260 deaths in 2017. Over the past two decades, several agents have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC). Regorafenib (BAY 73-4506) is a small-molecule multikinase inhibitor that was approved for the treatment of mCRC in 2012. This agent is a novel oral diphenylurea-based multikinase inhibitor that is active against several angiogenic receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs; VEGFR-1, VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, TIE-2), oncogenic RTKs (c-KIT, RET), stromal RTKs (PDGFR-B, FGFR-1), and intracellular signaling kinases (c-RAF/RAF-1, BRAF, BRAF^V600E). Preclinical studies have documented its broad-spectrum activity against different solid tumor types including CRC. Phase I studies showed that it had an acceptable safety profile in advanced refractory mCRC. A subsequent Phase III trial (CORRECT) demonstrated significant clinical efficacy of regorafenib in patients with refractory or advanced mCRC, which eventually led to its FDA approval for the treatment of mCRC in September 2012. However, the drug was associated with significant toxicity in clinical practice when administered at the approved doses, which necessitated a thorough reassessment of its dosing schedule and toxicity profile. This review summarizes the development of regorafenib from the initial preclinical studies to the Phase III trials and critically examines the current clinical space occupied by regorafenib in the treatment of mCRC, at 5 years after its initial FDA approval.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of consolidation with brentuximab vedotin for high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

In a recent randomized, placebo-controlled trial, consolidation treatment with brentuximab vedotin (BV) decreased the risk of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) progression after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, the impact of BV consolidation on overall survival, quality of life, and health care costs remain unclear.

METHODS

A Markov decision-analytic model was constructed to measure the costs and clinical outcomes for BV consolidation therapy compared with active surveillance in a cohort of patients aged 33 years who were at risk for HL relapse after ASCT. Life-time costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each post-ASCT strategy.

RESULTS

After quality-of-life adjustments and standard discounting, upfront BV consolidation was associated with an improvement of 1.07 QALYs compared with active surveillance plus BV as salvage. However, the strategy of BV consolidation led to significantly higher health care costs ($378,832 vs $219,761), resulting in an ICER for BV consolidation compared with active surveillance of $148,664/QALY. If indication-specific pricing was implemented, then the model-estimated BV price reductions of 18% to 38% for the consolidative setting would translate into ICERs of $100,000 and $50,000 per QALY, respectively. These findings were consistent on 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

BV as consolidation therapy under current US pricing is unlikely to be cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. However, indication-specific price reductions for the consolidative setting could reduce ICERs to widely acceptable values. Cancer 2017. © 2017 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2017;123:3763-3771. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Cost Effectiveness of Nivolumab in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In recent years, new drugs have been introduced for second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Nivolumab increases overall survival and is associated with less toxicity compared to everolimus in this setting according to the CheckMate 025 study. However, because of the high cost of nivolumab, there is a need to define its value by considering both efficacy and cost.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost effectiveness of nivolumab for second-line treatment of advanced RCC from the US payer perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nivolumab with those of everolimus and placebo in second-line treatment of advanced RCC. Health outcomes were measured in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs). Drug costs were based on 2016 Medicare reimbursement rates.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Model robustness was assessed in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We addressed the issue of the extensive duration of immunotherapy treatment among long-term survivors, which may or may not be approved by payers.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The total mean cost per patient was $101 070 for nivolumab and $50 935 for everolimus. Nivolumab generated a gain of 0.24 LYs (0.34 QALYs) compared to everolimus. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for nivolumab was $146 532/QALY versus everolimus and $226 197/QALY versus placebo. Limiting the maximal treatment duration of nivolumab to 2 yr reduced the ICER to $121 788/QALY versus everolimus. The analysis is limited by data availability and our assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis established that with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY, nivolumab is estimated to be cost-effective versus everolimus, but not cost-effective versus placebo.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We assessed the cost effectiveness of nivolumab in previously treated metastatic kidney cancer. In the USA, it would cost $146 532 to gain one quality-adjusted life-year with nivolumab versus everolimus, or $226 197 versus placebo. Nivolumab is considered cost-effective versus everolimus, but not versus placebo.

Cost-effectiveness of precision medicine in gastrointestinal stromal tumor and gastric adenocarcinoma

Over the past 20 years, with the incorporation of genetic sequencing and improved understanding regarding the mechanisms of cancer growth/metastasis, novel targets and their associated treatments have emerged in oncology and are now regularly incorporated into the clinical care of patients in the US. Novel, more tumor-specific, non-chemotherapy agents, including agents that are commonly used in the treatment of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), fall under a broader treatment strategy, termed "precision medicine". While diagnostic testing and associated treatments in metastatic GA (mGA) are costly and may produce marginal benefit, those associated with GIST, despite being costly, produce significant improvements in patient outcomes. Despite the significant difference in impact, the agents associated with these cancers have similar acquisition costs. In this paper, we will review the current literature regarding cost and cost-effectiveness associated with precision medicine diagnosis and treatment strategies for GA and GIST.