Cost-Effectiveness of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in BRAF Wild-Type Advanced Melanoma

Cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib plus chemotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

First-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to osimertinib, according to the FLAURA2 trial.

METHODS

We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib plus chemotherapy with that of osimertinib alone. Clinical data were obtained from the FLAURA and FLAURA2 trials, and additional data were extracted from online resources and publications. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. We used A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The main outcomes were QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit, and incremental net health benefit. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to patients' mutation type and central nervous system (CNS) metastatic status.

RESULTS

In a 20-year time horizon, the ICER of osimertinib plus chemotherapy versus osimertinib alone was $223,727.1 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses identified the cost of osimertinib and the hazard ratio for overall survival as the top 2 influential factors and a 1.9% probability of osimertinib plus chemotherapy to be cost-effective. The subgroup analyses revealed ICERs of $132,614.1, $224,449.8, $201,464.1, and $130,159.7 per QALY gained for L858R mutations, exon 19 deletions, CNS metastases, and no CNS metastases subgroups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the United States health care system, osimertinib plus chemotherapy is not cost-effective compared to osimertinib alone for treatment-naïve patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, but more favorable cost-effectiveness occurs in patients with L858R mutations and patients without baseline CNS metastases.

First-line treatments for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy: a systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis

Introduction

The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and chemotherapy is a promising first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The cost-effectiveness of combinations with different ICIs is yet to be compared.

Methods

We utilized Bayesian network meta-analyses for the comparisons of overall survival, progression-free survival, and incidence of adverse events of the included treatments in the total population and subgroups with different programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportional scores (TPS). The cost-effectiveness of the treatments from the perspectives of the US and Chinese healthcare systems was assessed using Markov models.

Results

Three combinations, including pembrolizumab + chemotherapy (PembroC), nivolumab + ipilimumab + chemotherapy (NivoIpiC), and atezolizumab + chemotherapy (AteC), were included in our study. In terms of efficacy, PembroC was most likely to be ranked first for extending progression-free survival (PFS) (93.16%) and overall survival (OS) (90.73%). Nevertheless, from the US perspective, NivoIpiC and PembroC showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $68,963.1/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and $179,355.6/QALY, respectively, compared with AteC. The one-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were primarily sensitive to the hazard ratios for OS or the cost of immunotherapy agents. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, NivoIpiC had the highest probability of being cost-effective (63%). As for the Chinese perspective, NivoIpiC and PembroC had ICERs of $145,983.4/QALY and $195,863.3/QALY versus AteC, respectively. The results were primarily sensitive to the HRs for OS. At a WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY, AteC had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (94%).

Conclusion

Although PembroC has the optimal efficacy, NivoIpiC and AteC were the most favorable treatments in terms of cost-effectiveness for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC from the US and Chinese perspectives, respectively.

The Future of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Uveal Melanoma: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have made tremendous progress over the last decade in the treatment of cutaneous melanoma, but their application in uveal melanoma treatment is less successful, owing in part to the immunological privilege of the eye and the liver, the most frequent site of metastasis. Nevertheless, the therapeutic outcomes reported currently are less pessimistic.

METHODS

In this review, we provide an overview of recent studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in uveal melanoma and its metastasis and classify studies in this field into three groups: monotherapy of immune checkpoint inhibitors, dual-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with other systemic or regional therapies.

RESULTS

Briefly, monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors performed poorly. Dual-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors had slightly better outcomes than traditional treatments, especially in specific patient populations. As for the combination therapy, the combination with other systemic therapies did not show superiority over dual-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors, but combination with hepatic regional therapies was quite promising. Moreover, research on emerging checkpoints is currently limited to the stage of mechanistic studies.

CONCLUSION

We propose that immune checkpoint inhibitors remain alternative treatments for patients with uveal melanoma, but factors such as cost-effectiveness should also be taken into account. The combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors deserves to be further explored.

Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Stage II Melanoma-Further Risk Stratification is Needed

This Viewpoint reviews the evidence for immune checkpoint inhibitor use in the adjuvant setting, discusses the individual and societal risks, benefits, and costs associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, and highlights the need for more targeted patient selection approaches.

Exploring long-term responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors in recurrent and metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have introduced a new era in the treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Optimal duration for ICI therapy is still unclear and the long-term outcomes and toxicity in patients responding to these therapies warrant further exploration. This study attempts to identify the clinical and biological determinants of a durable response and evaluate outcomes following ICI treatment discontinuation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 181 patients treated with ICI for R/M HNSCC was conducted. Long-term responders were defined as patients who sustained disease control at least two years after initiating ICI therapy. We compared clinical and biological characteristics associated with these long-term responders against the broader treatment population.

RESULTS

10 % of R/M HNSCC patients treated with ICIs demonstrated a durable long-term response. Only three relapses (16 %) occurred after discontinuing ICI treatment in this subset, with a median follow-up of 52 months. Upon retreatment with ICI, two attained a documented response. Extended ICI response was observed even with < 2 years of treatment. 74 % of long-term responders experienced immune-related adverse events (irAEs), 37 % of which severe irAEs. Hypothyroidism was the most frequently reported irAEs. The predictive potential of systemic inflammation indices for clinical response appears to be limited.

CONCLUSIONS

ICI present an optimistic avenue for HNSCC patients, offering substantial long-term responses. The study suggests that a two-year treatment could be optimal and irAEs, although common, are typically mild.

Molecular weight-dependent antitumor effects of prunes-derived type I arabinogalactan on human and murine triple wild-type melanomas

The regulation of metastasis-related cellular aspects of two structurally similar AGIs from prunes tea infusion, with different molar masses, was studied in vitro against Triple Wild-Type metastatic melanoma (TWM) from murine and human origin. The higher molar mass AGI (AGI-78KDa) induced TWMs cells death and, in murine cell line, it decreased some metastasis-related cellular processes: invasiveness capacity, cell-extracellular matrix interaction, and colonies sizes. The lower molar mass AGI (AGI-12KDa) did not induce cell death but decreased TWMs proliferation rate and, in murine cell line, it decreased cell adhesion and colonies sizes. Both AGIs alter the clonogenic capacity of human cell line. In spite to understand why we saw so many differences between AGIs effects on murine and human cell lines we performed in silico analysis that demonstrated differential gene expression profiles between them. Complementary network topological predictions suggested that AGIs can modulate multiple pathways in a specie-dependent manner, which explain differential results obtained in vitro between cell lines. Our results pointed to therapeutic potential of AGIs from prunes tea against TWMs and showed that molecular weight of AGIs may influence their antitumor effects.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of an orphan drug tebentafusp in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and a call for value-based pricing

The normative regimens recommendations for treating metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) are absent in the US. Recently, a phase III randomized clinical trial revealed that tebentafusp yielded a conspicuously longer overall survival than the control group. Based on the prominent efficacy, this study aimed to assess whether tebentafusp is cost-effective compared to the control group in patients with untreated mUM. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of US payers. Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the conclusion uncertainty. Compared with control group, tebentafusp therapy yielded an additional 0.47 QALYs (1.19 vs. 0.72 QALYs) and an incremental cost of $444 280 ($633 822 vs. $189 542). The resultant ICER of $953 230/QALY far outweighed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $200 000/QALY. The ICER was always more than $750 000/QALY in all the univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Scenario analyses indicated that reducing the unit price of tebentafusp to $33.768/µg was associated with a favorable result of tebentafusp being cost-effective. For treatment-naive patients with mUM, the cost of tebentafusp therapy was not worth the improvement in survival benefits at the current price compared to the investigator's choice of therapy. The cost-effectiveness of tebentafusp could be promoted using value-based pricing.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Therapy Sequence in Advanced Cancer: A Microsimulation Approach with Application to Metastatic Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with advanced cancer may undergo multiple lines of treatment, switching therapies as their disease progresses. We developed a general microsimulation framework to study therapy sequence and applied it to metastatic prostate cancer.

METHODS

We constructed a discrete-time state transition model to study 2 lines of therapy. Using digitized published survival curves (progression-free survival, time to progression, and overall survival [OS]), we inferred event types (progression or death) and estimated transition probabilities using cumulative incidence functions with competing risks. We incorporated within-patient dependence over time; first-line therapy response informed subsequent event probabilities. Parameters governing within-patient dependence calibrated the model-based results to a target clinical trial. We applied these methods to 2 therapy sequences for metastatic prostate cancer, wherein both docetaxel (DCT) and abiraterone acetate (AA) are appropriate for either first- or second-line treatment. We assessed costs and quality-adjusted life-years (5-y QALYs) for 2 treatment strategies: DCT → AA versus AA → DCT.

RESULTS

Models assuming within-patient independence overestimated OS time, which corrected with the calibration approach. With generic pricing, AA → DCT dominated DCT → AA, (higher 5-y QALYs and lower costs), consistent for all values of calibration parameters (including no correction). Model calibration increased the difference in 5-y QALYs between treatment strategies (0.07 uncorrected v. 0.15 with base-case correction). Applying the correction decreased the estimated difference in cost (-$5,360 uncorrected v. -$3,066 corrected). Results were strongly affected by the cost of AA. Under a lifetime horizon, AA → DCT was no longer dominant but still cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $19,463).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate a microsimulation approach to study the cost-effectiveness of therapy sequences for advanced prostate cancer, taking care to account for within-patient dependence.

HIGHLIGHTS

We developed a discrete-time state transition model for studying therapy sequence in advanced cancers.Results are sensitive to dependence within patients.A calibration approach can introduce dependence across lines of therapy and closely match simulation outcomes to target trial outcomes.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Analysis of genomic and immune intratumor heterogeneity in linitis plastica via multiregional exome and T-cell receptor sequencing

The molecular landscape and the intratumor heterogeneity (ITH) architecture of gastric linitis plastica (LP) are poorly understood. We performed whole-exome sequencing (WES) and T-cell receptor (TCR) sequencing on 40 tumor regions from four LP patients. The landscape and ITH at the genomic and immunological levels in LP tumors were compared with multiple cancers that have previously been reported. The lymphocyte infiltration was further assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in LP tumors. In total, we identified 6339 non-silent mutations from multi-samples, with a median tumor mutation burden (TMB) of 3.30 mutations per Mb, comparable to gastric adenocarcinoma from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohort (P = 0.53). An extremely high level of genomic ITH was observed, with only 12.42%, 5.37%, 5.35%, and 30.67% of mutations detectable across 10 regions within the same tumors of each patient, respectively. TCR sequencing revealed that TCR clonality was substantially lower in LP than in multi-cancers. IHC using antibodies against CD4, CD8, and PD-L1 demonstrated scant T-cell infiltration in the four LP tumors. Furthermore, profound TCR ITH was observed in all LP tumors, with no T-cell clones shared across tumor regions in any of the patients, while over 94% of T-cell clones were restricted to individual tumor regions. The Morisita overlap index (MOI) ranged from 0.21 to 0.66 among multi-regions within the same tumors, significantly lower than that of lung cancer (P = 0.002). Our results show that LP harbored extremely high genomic and TCR ITH and suppressed T-cell infiltration, suggesting a potential contribution to the frequent recurrence and poor therapeutic response of this adenocarcinoma.

Cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been reported in recent research, however, the value of the effectiveness and cost of sacituzumab govitecan is still unclear.

METHODS

A microsimulation model was developed using data from the ASCENT trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan for patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic TNBC over a lifetime. Model inputs, including clinical data, patient characteristics, and direct medical costs, were based on the ASCENT trial, public databases, and published literature. The primary outcomes of the model were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and multiple scenario analyses were performed to address the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

Our results revealed that sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy costs $293,037 and yielded an additional 0.2340 of QALYs in the whole population with metastatic TNBC, leading to an ICER of $1,252,295 gained. And in the population with metastatic TNBC without brain metastasis, the sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy costs $309,949 and obtained an extra 0.2633 of QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of $1,177,171/QALYs. Univariate analyses indicated that the model outcomes were most sensitive to the drug cost of sacituzumab govitecan, the utility of progression-free disease, and the utility of progressed disease.

CONCLUSION

From the US payer perspective, sacituzumab govitecan is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic TNBC compared with chemotherapy. Based on the value standpoint, a price decrease of sacituzumab govitecan is expected to increase the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan in patients with metastatic TNBC.

Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan in previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-low metastatic breast cancer

Background

Results from DESTINY-Breast04 trial revealed that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved both progression-free survival and overall survival for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low metastatic breast cancer (mBC). However, the economic impact of this practice remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd on HER2-low mBC from the viewpoint of U.S. payers.

Methods

Using the clinical data from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, a three-state Markov model was created to assess the economic and health effects of T-DXd versus chemotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and willingness-to-pay threshold were determined and compared. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to measure parameter uncertainty.

Results

In the overall HER2-low population, T-DXd provided additional 0.47 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an increased cost of $149,222 compared with chemotherapy, yielding an ICER of $317,494/QALY. The ICER was $353,903/QALY in the hormone receptor (HR)-positive subgroup, which decreased to $259,825/QALY in the HR-negative subgroup. The sensitivity analysis found that T-DXd would not be cost-effective in the base-case. The expected cost of T-DXd will be less than $4,281/cycle ($11.33/mg) or $1,903/cycle ($5.03/mg) to achieve a 50 or 90% cost-benefit probability, respectively.

Conclusions

T-DXd provides significant health benefit for patients with HER2-low mBC compared with chemotherapy but is unlikely to be cost-effective in the United States.

Impact of Extrapolation Model Choices on the Structural Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations for Cancer Immunotherapy: A Case Study of Checkmate 067

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of different extrapolation modeling techniques and analyze their impact on structural uncertainties in the economic evaluations of cancer immunotherapy.

METHODS

The individual patient data was reconstructed through published Checkmate 067 Kaplan Meier curves. Standard parametric models and six flexible techniques were tested, including fractional polynomial, restricted cubic splines, Royston-Parmar models, generalized additive models, parametric mixture models, and mixture cure models. Mean square errors (MSE) and bias from raw survival plots were used to test the model fitness and extrapolation performance. Variability of estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from different models was used to inform the structural uncertainty in economic evaluations. All indicators were analyzed and compared under cut-offs of 3 years and 6.5 years, respectively, to further discuss model impact under different data maturity. R Codes for reproducing this study can be found on GitHub.

RESULTS

The flexible techniques in general performed better than standard parametric models with smaller MSE irrespective of the data maturity. Survival outcomes projected by long-term extrapolation using immature data differed from those with mature data. Although a best-performing model was not found because several models had very similar MSE in this case, the variability of modeled ICERs significantly increased when prolonging simulation cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

Flexible techniques show better performance in the case of Checkmate 067, regardless of data maturity. Model choices affect ICERs of cancer immunotherapy, especially when dealing with immature survival data. When researchers lack evidence to identify the 'right' model, we recommend identifying and revealing the model impacts on structural uncertainty.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine maintenance therapy plus best supportive care vs. best supportive care alone as first-line treatment of newly diagnosed metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Objectives

Maintenance therapy with capecitabine after induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (mNPC) has been confirmed to be effective. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of capecitabine as maintenance therapy for patients with mNPC from the Chinese payers' perspective.

Methods

Markov model was conducted to simulate the disease progress and evaluated the economic and health outcomes of capecitabine maintenance plus best-supported care (CBSC) or best-supported care (BSC) alone for patients with mNPC. Survival data were derived from the NCT02460419 clinical trial. Costs and utilities were obtained from the standard fee database and published literature. Measured outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model robustness. Additional subgroup cost-effectiveness analyses were accomplished.

Results

Throughout the course of the disease, the CBSC group provide an incremental cost of $9 734 and additional 1.16 QALYs (1.56 LYs) compared with the BSC group, resulting in an ICUR of $8 391/QALY and ICER of $6 240/LY. Moreover, the INHB was 0.89 QALYs, and the INMB was $32 034 at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $36 007/QALY. Subgroup analyses revealed that CBSC presented a positive trend of gaining an INHB in all subgroups compared with the BSC group. The results of sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of our model.

Conclusion

Compared with BSC, after induction chemotherapy, CBSC as a first-line treatment was cost-effective for newly diagnosed mNPC. These results suggest capecitabine maintenance therapy after induction chemotherapy as a new option for patients with newly diagnosed mNPC.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibition and targeted treatment in combination as adjuvant treatment of patient with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted treatments have improved the health outcomes of patients with advanced melanoma. However, due to the high cost of novel therapies, it is crucial to evaluate their value by considering both effectiveness and cost. To compare the cost-effectiveness of these novel agents (atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib, vemurafenib-plus-cobimetinib, dabrafenib-plus-trametinib, and encorafenib-plus-binimetinib) for first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma with the BRAF^V600 mutation.

METHODS

A patient-level model was developed to project the health outcomes of 4 strategies for patients with advanced melanoma. We estimated transition probabilities from the IMspire150 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672), COMBI-AD (NCT01682083), and COLUMBUS (NCT01909453) trials using a parametric survival model. All health outcomes, including direct cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), were estimated from the US payer perspective. Lifetime cost, QALYs, life-years (LYs), and ICERs were calculated. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness, along with multiple scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 4 competing strategies, atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib produced the best health outcomes, and the vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategy was the least expensive option. Atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib, dabrafenib-plus-trametinib, and vemurafenib-cobimetinib formed the cost-effective frontier, indicating that the ordered ICERs were $325,113/QALYs for dabrafenib-plus-trametinib vs. vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategies and $2,247,500/QALYs for atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib vs. dabrafenib-plus-trametinib strategies. Encorafenib-plus-binimetinib was dominated by the other 3 competing strategies. The drug price and first-line utility significantly influenced the model utcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

For BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma, the vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategy could be considered the most cost-effective treatment at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000.

First-line systemic treatment strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Oral multikinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective for treating advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) but may increase cost. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of oral multikinase inhibitors and ICIs in the first-line treatment of patients with aHCC.

METHODS

A three-state Markov model was established to study the cost-effectiveness of drug treatment from the perspective of Chinese payers. The key outcomes in this study were total cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The total costs and QALYs of sorafenib, sunitinib, donafenib, lenvatinib, sorafenib plus erlotinib, linifanib, brivanib, sintilimab plus IBI305, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab were $9070 and 0.25, $9362 and 0.78, $33,814 and 0.45, $49,120 and 0.83, $63,064 and 0.81, $74,814 and 0.82, $81,995 and 0.82, $74083 and 0.85, and $104,188 and 0.84, respectively. The drug regimen with the lowest ICER was sunitinib ($551 per QALY), followed by lenvatinib ($68,869 per QALY). For oral multikinase inhibitors, the ICER of lenvatinib, sorafenib plus erlotinib, linifanib and brivanib compared with sunitinib was $779576, $1534,347, $1768,971, and $1963,064, respectively. For ICIs, sintilimab plus IBI305 is more cost effective than atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. The model was most sensitive to the price of sorafenib, the utility of PD, and the price of second-line drugs.

CONCLUSION

For oral multikinase inhibitors, the order of possible treatment options is sunitinib > lenvatinib > sorafenib plus erlotinib > linifanib > brivanib > donafenib. For ICIs, the order of possible treatment options is sintilimab plus IBI305 > atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Cost-effectiveness of Response-Adapted De-escalation of Immunotherapy in Advanced Melanoma

Importance

Combination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab has markedly improved outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma. However, these therapies pose a considerable financial burden to both patients and the health care system. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated comparable progression-free and overall survival for patients with response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation compared with standard of care (SOC).

Objective

To determine the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab discontinuation for patients with interim imaging-confirmed tumor response in the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using data from the ADAPT-IT (follow-up of 33 months) and CheckMate 067 (follow-up of 6.5 years) trials, as well as published literature over the ADAPT-IT trial duration of 33 months. The analysis was performed in a US setting from a US-payer perspective, and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $100 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). A total of 355 patients with previously untreated melanoma (unresectable stage III or IV metastatic melanoma) were included.

Exposure

Response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation compared with SOC therapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes of the CheckMate trial were overall survival and progression-free survival, while that of ADAPT-IT was objective response. This informed a decision model to estimate lifetime costs and QALYs associated with both strategies. Incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio were assessed. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to account for variability in trials and input parameters.

Results

Of the 355 patients included in the analysis, 41 patients were from the ADAPT-IT trial (median age, 65 years; 28 [68%] male) and 314 patients from the CheckMate 067 trial (median age, 61 years; 206 [66%] male). Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94.0% of scenarios based on Monte Carlo simulations, with a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and an incremental net monetary benefit of $28 849 compared with SOC therapy. Cost savings were estimated at $19 891 per patient compared with SOC. In scenario analyses, current SOC was only considered as a cost-effective option under best survival assumptions and if the willingness-to-pay threshold exceeded $630 000/QALY.

Conclusions and Relevance

This economic evaluation demonstrated that response-adapted treatment de-escalation in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings in health care costs and could represent the most cost-effective strategy across various resource settings. Future trials should aim to provide further evidence on noninferiority.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Treatment Strategies for Advanced Melanoma in Real Life in France

Nine drugs have been marketed for 10 years for the treatment of advanced melanoma (AM). With half of patients reaching a second line, the optimal sequence of treatments remains unclear. To inform policy-makers about their efficiency, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential strategies in clinical practice in France, for BRAF-mutated and wild-type patients. A multistate model was developed to describe treatment sequences, associated costs, and health outcomes over 10 years. Sequences, clinical outcomes, utility scores, and economic data were extracted from the prospective Melbase cohort, collecting individual data in 1518 patients since 2013, from their AM diagnosis until their death. To adjust the differences in patients' characteristics among sequences, weighting by inverse probability was used. In the BRAF-mutated population, the MONO-targeted therapies (TT)-anti-PD1 sequence was the less expensive, whereas the anti-PD1-BI-TT sequence had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 180,441 EUR/QALY. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population, the three sequences constituted the cost-effective frontier, with ICERs ranging from 116 to 806,000 EUR/QALY. For BRAF-mutated patients, the sequence anti-PD1-BI-TT appeared to be the most efficient one in BRAF-mutated AM patients until 2018. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population until 2018, the sequence starting with IPI+NIVO appeared inefficient compared to anti-PD1, considering the extra cost for the QALY gained.

Osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in patients with previously treated EGFR T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer: An updated AURA3 trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

A recently overall survival (OS) analysis from the AURA3 trial indicated that osimertinib improves median OS versus platinum-pemetrexed for patients with previously treated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of second-line osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed, from the perspectives of the United States payer and the Chinese health care system.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed to compare the costs and health outcomes of osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in second-line treatment of EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC. Life years (LYs), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model. Cost-effectiveness was examined in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and central nervous system (CNS) metastases population.

Results

In the United States, compared with platinum-pemetrexed, osimertinib yielded additional effectiveness of 0.43 QALYs and -0.12 QALYs, with incremental costs of $67,588 and $16,465 in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. The ICERs of osimertinib over platinum-pemetrexed were $159,126/QALY and $-130,830/QALY, respectively. The probability of osimertinib being cost-effective was 37% and 5.76%, respectively, at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. In China, osimertinib showed incremental effectiveness of 0.34 QALYs and -0.14 QALYs, with incremental costs of $1,663 and $-505, resulting in ICERs of $4,950/QALY and $3,754/QALY in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. At the WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, there was a 100% and 26% likelihood that osimertinib was cost-effective in the ITT population and CNS metastases population.

Conclusion

In the United States, second-line osimertinib treatment for EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC is not cost-effective compared to platinum-pemetrexed under the current WTP threshold. When the osimertinib price reduces, the economic outcome may become favorable. In China, assuming a WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, osimertinib is the dominant treatment strategy compared with platinum-pemetrexed in the ITT population and provides cost savings for CNS metastases patients.

Checkpoint Inhibitors Immunotherapy in Metastatic Melanoma: When to Stop Treatment?

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) has significantly improved the survival of metastatic melanoma (MM) with a significant proportion of patients obtaining long-lasting responses. However, ICI also exposes patients to new, heavy, and sometimes irreversible toxicities. Thus, identifying the minimal amount of treatment time is extremely urgent.

METHODS

We researched English peer-reviewed literature from electronic databases (MEDLINE and PubMed) until July 2022 with the aim of evaluating the clinical outcomes after the cessation of ICI therapy due to elective study plans, clinician-patient sharing, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Although most of the data are from retrospective studies, considering that most patients with major responses maintain it after treatment cessation, it is proposed that for complete response (CR)/near CR, a further six months of therapy after best response may be considered enough. For partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD), treatment must be continued for at least 2 years and, in some cases, indefinitely, based on residual disease, the patient's will, and the toxic profile. Of note, in spite of the best response, 25-30% of patients relapsed, and, when retreated, responded far less than in front-line treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the data being from retrospective and heterogeneous experiences, their grade of evidence is limited and no consensus has been reached on the optimal treatment duration. Controlled prospective studies are needed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive breast cancer

Background: The DESTINY-Breast03 clinical trial demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) outperformed trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Considering the excessive cost of antibody-drug conjugates, the clinical value of T-DXd must be assessed by both its efficacy and cost. We compared the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd and T-DM1 for patients with HER2-positive mBC pretreated with anti-HER2 antibodies and a taxane from the perspectives of the United States (US) and China.

Methods: A comprehensive Markov model based on the DESTINY-Breast03 phase III randomized clinical trial was used to compared the cost and effectiveness of T-DXd and T-DM1 for HER2-positive mBC. Data on direct medical cost and utilities were collected from published literatures. The recorded data included the costs, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity analysis was conducted to measure the potential uncertainty due to parameter variability. Additional subgroup cost-effectiveness analysis was performed.

Results: Treatment of HER2-positive mBC with T-DXd gained 0.73 QALYs compared with T-DM1 strategy. The incremental cost was $59,942 in the US, with an ICER of $ 82,112/QALY and an INHB of 0.33 QALYs, respectively. In China, the incremental cost of T-DXd versus T-DM1 was $222,680, with an ICER of $305,041/QALY and a negative INHB of -5.18 QALYs. At willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY in the US and $37,653/QALY in China, the probability of T-DXd as the dominant option was 77.5 and 0.1%, respectively. The unit price of T-DXd greatly influenced the results according to one-way sensitivity analysis. To meet the 50% or 90% chance of being cost-effective, the estimated cost of T-DXd would need to be less than $17.24/mg and $12.06/mg in China, respectively.

Conclusion: T-DXd is more cost-effective than T-DM1 for patients with HER2-positive mBC in the US, but not in China at current drug prices.

A novel 7 RNA-based signature for prediction of prognosis and therapeutic responses of wild-type BRAF cutaneous melanoma

Background

The prognosis of wild-type BRAF cutaneous melanoma (WT Bf-CM) patients remains poor due to the lack of therapeutic options. However, few studies have investigated the factors contributing to the prognosis of WT Bf-CM patients.

Methods

In this paper, we proposed and validated a novel 7-RNA based signature to predict the prognosis of WT Bf-CM by analyzing the information from TCGA database.

Results

Dependence of this signature to other clinical factors were verified and a nomogram was also drawn to promote its application in clinical practice. Functional analysis suggested that the predictive function of this signature might attribute to the prediction of the up-regulation of RNA splicing, transcription, and cellular proliferation in the high-risk group, which have been demonstrated to be linked to malignancy of cancer. Moreover, functional analysis and therapy response analysis supported that the prognosis is highly related to PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway among WT Bf-CM patients.

Conclusion

Collectively, this study will provide a preliminary bioinformatics evidence for the molecular mechanism and potential drug targets that could improving WT Bf-CM prognosis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12575-022-00170-2.

Conceptual Framework and Methodological Challenges for Modeling Effectiveness in Oncology Treatment Sequence Models

In this review, we summarize the challenges faced by existing oncology treatment sequence decision models and introduce a general framework to conceptualize such models. In the proposed framework, patients with cancer receive at least two lines of therapy (LOTs) followed by palliative care throughout their lifetime. Patients cycle through progression-free and progressive disease health states in each LOT before death. Under this framework, four broad aspects of modeling effectiveness of treatment sequences need exploration. First, disease progression, treatment discontinuation, and the relationship between the two events should be considered. Second, the effectiveness of each LOT depends on its placement in a treatment sequence as the effectiveness of later LOTs may be influenced by the earlier LOTs. Third, the treatment-free interval (TFI; time between discontinuation of earlier LOT and initiation of later LOT) may impact a therapy's effectiveness. Fourth, in the absence of head-to-head trials directly comparing LOTs, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of outcomes for a specific LOT or even for the entire treatment sequence is important to consider. A search of decision models that estimated effectiveness of at least two lines of oncology therapy was conducted in PubMed (N = 20) and technology appraisals by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (N = 26) to assess four methodological aspects related to the model framework: (1) selection of outcomes for effectiveness in a treatment sequence, (2) approaches to adjust the efficacy of a treatment in consideration of its place in the sequence, (3) approaches to address TFIs between LOTs, and (4) incorporation of ITCs to estimate comparators' effectiveness in the absence of direct head-to-head evidence. Most models defined health states based on disease progression on different LOTs while estimating treatment duration outside of the main model framework (30/46) and used data from multiple data sources in different LOTs to model efficacy of a treatment sequence (41/46). No models adjusted efficacy for the characteristics of patients who switched from an earlier LOT to a later LOT or adjusted for the impact of prior therapies, and just six models considered TFIs. While 11 models applied ITC results to estimate efficacy in comparator treatment sequences, the majority limited the ITC to one LOT in the sequence. Thus, there is substantial room to improve the estimation of effectiveness for treatment sequences using existing data when comparing effectiveness of alternative treatment sequences.

Predictive Efficacy of Blood-Based Tumor Mutation Burden Assay for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Therapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), tumor mutation burden (TMB) has been found to have predictive potential for survival. When compared to TMB detection in tissue (tTMB), detecting TMB in the blood (bTMB) has practical advantages; yet, the results of various studies are conflicting. The question of whether bTMB can be utilized as a predictive biomarker is becoming increasingly contentious. To confirm the predictive efficacy of bTMB, researchers did a systematic review and meta-analysis to look into the relationship between ICIs and bTMB.

Method

From the inception to March 2021, Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and other databases were systematically searched. The predictive value of bTMB in ICIs, or the efficacy of ICIs against chemotherapy, was studied. The results were presented as pooled ratio rate (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals for the Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Subgroup analysis, heterogeneity analyses, and sensitivity analysis were also performed.

Results

A total of 2,610 NSCLC patients were studied in seven trials. There were no significant differences in OS (HR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.62–1.91, P = 0.774) or PFS (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.20–2.65, P = 0.629) between high and low bTMB groups in the ICIs cohort. When ICIs were compared to chemotherapy, ICIs were found to enhance OS (HR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59–0.92, P = 0.006), but the improvement in PFS and ORR was only a numerical trend (PFS: HR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63–1.09, P = 0.173; ORR: RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.77–1.10, P = 0.372). NSCLC patients treated with ICIs in the high bTMB group had better survival benefits than chemotherapy patients in terms of OS (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.51–0.76, P <0.001), PFS (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.52–0.76, P <0.001), and ORR (RR = 1.86; 95% CI: 1.32–2.62, P <0.001), while in the low TMB group, the results were no different or even reversed (OS: HR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64–1.24, P = 0.485; PFS: HR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.93–1.58, P = 0.154; ORR: RR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.54–0.85, P = 0.001).

Conclusions

TMB could predict the enhanced survival benefit of NSCLC patients treated with ICIs; however the role of bTMB is limited at this stage. For NSCLC patients with high TMB, ICIc may be a better option than chemotherapy.

Sintilimab Plus Bevacizumab Biosimilar Versus Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective: The ORIENT-32 clinical trial revealed that sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar significantly improved the median progression-free survival and median overall survival (OS) compared with sorafenib. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the Chinese perspective of healthcare system.

Materials and methods: A Markov model with three mutual health states was constructed to evaluate the economic outcome of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar. The model cycle was 21 days, and the simulation time horizon was a lifetime. The output parameters of the model were the total cost, life-year (LY), quality-adjusted LY (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

Results: The base-case results found that sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar provided an improvement of 1.27 QALYs and 1.84 LYs compared with sorafenib, and the ICER was $23,352/QALY. The hazard ratio for OS had the greatest influence on the ICER. The probability of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar was 85% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $30,552/QALY.

Conclusion: The findings of this analysis suggested that sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar was a cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib as a First-Line Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States

Background: In a recent randomized, phase 3 trial (CheckMate 9ER), nivolumab combined with cabozantinib significantly improved patient outcomes compared with sunitinib. However, the cost-effectiveness of these novel agents for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unknown.

Materials and Methods: We constructed a microsimulation decision-analytic model to measure the healthcare costs and outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with those of sunitinib for patients with aRCC. The transition probability of patients was calculated from CheckMate 9ER using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib treatment compared with sunitinib from a US payer perspective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a series of scenario analyses to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with an improvement of 0.59 LYs and 0.56 QALYs compared with sunitinib. However, incorporating nivolumab plus cabozantinib into first-line treatment was associated with significantly higher lifetime costs ($483,352.70 vs. $198,320.10), causing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab plus cabozantinib to be $508,987/QALY. The patients’ age of treatment, first-line utility, and cost of nivolumab had the greatest influence on the model. The outcomes were robust when tested in sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Conclusion: For aRCC, substituting nivolumab plus cabozantinib in the first-line setting is unlikely to be cost-effective under the current willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000/QALY). Significant price decreases for nivolumab used in first-line therapy would be needed to drop ICERs to a more diffusely acceptable value.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ipilimumab Plus Anti-PD-1 Therapy Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma Resistant to Anti-PD-(L)1 Monotherapy

Objective

The use of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 has recently been shown to significantly improve the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy. The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in this population from the US payer perspective.

Materials and Methods

A Markov model was created based on a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic melanoma who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1. Cost information was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and literature-based costs. The utility value was derived from the published literature. The results of the model was the total cost, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was addressed through sensitivity analysis. In addition, we also conducted subgroup analysis.

Results

Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 provided an improvement of 1.39 QALYs and 2.48 LYs, at a ICER of $73,163 per QALY. The HR of OS was the variable that had the greatest impact on ICER. Compared to ipilimumab, the probability of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 being cost-effective was 94% at the WTP of $150,000/QALY. The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the ICER in the majority of the subgroups was less than $150,000/QALY.

Conclusions

Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 was likely to be cost-effective compared to ipilimumab for patients with metastatic melanoma who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 at a WTP threshold of 150,000/QALY.

Cost-Effectiveness of Frontline Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Immunotherapies

Background: Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve patient outcomes, but whether these novel agents are cost-effective for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unclear.

Materials and Methods: A microsimulation model was created to project the healthcare costs and outcomes of six strategies (lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, avelumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib monotherapy) for patients with aRCC. Transition probability of patients was estimated from CLEAR, CheckMate 9ER, CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE-426, JAVELIN Renal 101, and other data sets by using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated from a United States payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, along with multiple scenario analyses, to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Of the six competing strategies, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib yielded the most significant health outcomes, and the sunitinib strategy was the least expensive option. The cost-effective frontier consisted of the nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib strategies, which displayed the ordered ICERs of $81282/QALY for pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib vs sunitinib and $453391/QALY for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib vs pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib. The rest of the strategies, such as lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, and avelumab-plus-axitinib, were dominated. The cost of sunitinib drove the model most influentially.

Conclusions: For aRCC, the pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib strategy is likely to be the most cost-effective alternative at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.

Cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab versus high-dose interferon as an adjuvant therapy in resected high-risk melanoma

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant ipilimumab was found to improve the overall survival and reduce toxicity compared to high-dose interferon (HDI) in patients with resected, high-risk melanoma. However, the cost of ipilimumab is substantially higher than HDI. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab as an adjuvant treatment in melanoma from a healthcare perspective.

METHODS

We designed a Markov model simulating resected, high-risk melanoma patients receiving either ipilimumab or HDI. Transition probabilities, including risks of survival, disease progression, and toxicity, were ascertained from clinical trial data. Costs and quality of life measurements (health utilities) were extracted from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as incremental costs divided by incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), assessed cost-effectiveness. ICERs <$100,000/QALY were deemed cost-effective. We measured model uncertainty with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In our base case model, ipilimumab increased costs by $107,100 and increased effectiveness by 0.43 QALY, yielding an ICER of $392,600/QALY. Our model was moderately sensitive to the costs of ipilimumab, though the cost of ipilimumab would need to decrease by 44% for ipilimumab to become cost-effective compared to HDI. The model was not sensitive to survival, toxicity, or other costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that HDI would remain the cost-effective treatment option 96.2% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant ipilimumab increases the survival and decreases the toxicity compared to HDI in resected, high-risk melanoma patients, though this would not be considered cost-effective due to the high price of ipilimumab.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Durvalumab Plus Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

In the CASPIAN trial, durvalumab + chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in patients with extensive-stage SCLC from the US healthcare system perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A comprehensive Markov model was adapted to evaluate cost and effectiveness of durvalumab combination versus platinum/etoposide alone in the first-line therapy of extensive-stage SCLC based on data from the CASPIAN study. The main endpoints included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-e-ectiveness ratios (ICERs). Model robustness was assessed with sensitivity analysis, and additional subgroup analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Durvalumab + chemotherapy therapy resulted in an additional 0.27 LYs and 0.20 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $464,711.90 per QALY versus the chemotherapy treatment. The cost of durvalumab has the greatest influence on this model. Subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained higher than $150,000/QALY (the willingness-to-pay threshold in the United States) across all patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Durvalumab in combination with platinum/etoposide is not a cost-effective option in the first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage SCLC.

Biocompatible gum arabic-gold nanorod composite as an effective therapy for mistreated melanomas

Advanced melanoma patients that are not included in common genetic classificatory groups lack effective and safe therapeutic options. Chemotherapy and immunotherapy show unsatisfactory results and devastating adverse effects for these called triple wild-type patients. New approaches exploring the intrinsic antitumor properties of gold nanoparticles might reverse this scenario as a safer and more effective alternative. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy and safety of a composite made of gum arabic-functionalized gold nanorods (GA-AuNRs) against triple wild-type melanoma. The natural polymer gum arabic successfully stabilized the nanorods in the biological environment and was essential to improve their biocompatibility. In vivo results obtained from treating triple wild-type melanoma-bearing mice showed that GA-AuNRs remarkably reduced primary tumor growth by 45%. Furthermore, GA-AuNRs induced tumor histological features associated with better prognosis while also reducing superficial lung metastasis depth and the incidence of intrapulmonary metastasis. GA-AuNRs' efficacy comes from their capacity to reduce melanoma cells ability to invade the extracellular matrix and grow into colonies, in addition to a likely immunomodulatory effect induced by gum arabic. Additionally, a broad safety investigation found no evidence of adverse effects after GA-AuNRs treatment. Therefore, this study unprecedentedly reports GA-AuNRs as a potential nanomedicine for advanced triple wild-type melanomas.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Therapy for BRAF-Mutant Resected Stage III Melanoma in Medicare Patients

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma improves several measures of patient survival. However, decisions regarding inclusion of adjuvant therapies in the formularies of public payers necessarily consider the cost-effectiveness of those treatments. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four recently approved adjuvant therapies for BRAF-mutant stage III melanoma in the Medicare patient population.

METHODS

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov microsimulation model was used to simulate the healthcare trajectory of patients randomized to receive either first-line targeted therapy (dabrafenib-trametinib) or immunotherapy (ipilimumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab). The base case was a 65-year-old Medicare patient with BRAF V600E-mutant resected stage III melanoma. Possible health states included recurrence-free survival, adverse events, local recurrence, distant metastases, and death. Transition probabilities were determined from published clinical trials. Costs were estimated from reimbursement rates reported by CMS and the Red Book drug price database. Primary outcomes were costs (US$), life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Model robustness was evaluated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Dabrafenib-trametinib provided 1.83 QALYs over no treatment and 0.23 QALYs over the most effective immunotherapy, pembrolizumab. Dabrafenib-trametinib was associated with an ICER of $95,758/QALY over no treatment and $285,863/QALY over pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab yielded an ICER of $68,396/QALY over no treatment and dominated other immunotherapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab is cost-effective at a conventional willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, but dabrafenib-trametinib is not. Though dabrafenib-trametinib offers incremental QALYs, optimization of drug pricing is necessary to ensure dabrafenib-trametinib is accessible at an acceptable WTP threshold.

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.

Nivolumab vs Pembrolizumab for Treatment of US Patients With Platinum-Refractory Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Importance

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are approved for treating platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Physicians and patients are uncertain which drug is preferable, rendering a cost-effectiveness comparison between them necessary.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs pembrolizumab in treating platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Both the network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis included patients from the CheckMate 141 and the KEYNOTE 040 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. The Checkmate 141 trial started on May 1, 2014, with the present analysis based on a September 2017 data cutoff. The KEYNOTE 040 trial started on November 17, 2014, with the present analysis based on a May 15, 2017, data cutoff. A bayesian network meta-analysis that included 856 patients was carried out, and a cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients was conducted by developing a partitioned survival model, both between February and November 2020. The robustness of the model was assessed via 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses; subgroup analyses were included; and scenario analyses were conducted to investigate the associations of dosage adjustment of nivolumab with cost-effectiveness.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), overall costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured.

Results

In the cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients, for US health care payers, when nivolumab was administered based on patient weight (3 mg/kg biweekly), at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective compared with pembrolizumab was 56%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 62%. When nivolumab was administered at a fixed dose of 240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly, at a WTP threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was 42% to 45%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 52% to 55%.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings from this network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis suggest considering both WTP threshold and patient body weight when choosing between nivolumab and pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC. When the WTP threshold was $100 000 per QALY, for patients weighing less than 72 kg, nivolumab (3 mg/kg, biweekly) was considered cost-effective; otherwise, pembrolizumab was preferable. When the WTP threshold was $150 000 per QALY, nivolumab (3 mg/kg biweekly) was considered cost-effective for patients weighing less than 75 kg; otherwise, fixed-dose nivolumab (240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly) provided more cost savings.

Impact of novel systemic therapies on the first-year costs of care for melanoma among Medicare beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Since 2011, the therapeutic landscape of melanoma has changed dramatically because of the adoption of immune checkpoint inhibitor and targeted therapies. The authors sought to quantify the effects of these changes on short-term treatment costs by comparing the first-year cancer-attributable costs in novel (2011-2015) and historical (2004-2010) treatment eras.

METHODS

The authors estimated the first-year cancer-attributable and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs by cancer stage at diagnosis by using a case-control approach. Patients aged ≥67 years with melanoma results were used to calculate the total direct costs of treatment during the first year after the diagnosis of melanoma in the US Medicare population older than 65 years. Costs were reported in 2018 dollars.

RESULTS

Costs increased with the stage at diagnosis. Average first-year cancer-attributable costs per patient for stage IV patients increased significantly by 61.7% from $45,952 to $74,297 after the adoption of novel treatments. Per-patient OOP responsibility decreased by almost 30.8% across all stages of cancer but increased by 16.5% for stage IV patients from 2004 ($7646) to 2015 ($8911). The total direct cost of treatment for persons with melanoma older than 65 years increased by $16.03 million (4.93%) from $324.68 million in 2010 to $340.71 million in 2015. The largest increase in yearly total cost, $23.64 million (56.53%), was observed among stage IV patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The direct cost of melanoma increased significantly in the Medicare population, particularly for advanced-stage disease. Prevention and early detection initiatives may reduce the economic burden of melanoma.

Early discontinuation of PD-1 blockade upon achieving a complete or partial response in patients with advanced melanoma: the multicentre prospective Safe Stop trial

BACKGROUND

The introduction of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockers (i.e. nivolumab and pembrolizumab) has significantly improved the prognosis of patients with advanced melanoma. However, the long treatment duration (i.e. two years or longer) has a high impact on patients and healthcare systems in terms of (severe) toxicity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), resource use, and healthcare costs. While durable tumour responses have been observed and PD-1 blockade is discontinued on an individual basis, no consensus has been reached on the optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade is safe in patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma who achieve a radiological response.

METHODS

The Safe Stop trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 200 patients with advanced and metastatic cutaneous melanoma and a confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 will be included to early discontinue first-line monotherapy with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. The primary objective is the rate of ongoing responses at 24 months after discontinuation of PD-1 blockade. Secondary objectives include best overall and duration of response, need and outcome of rechallenge with PD-1 blockade, and changes in (serious) adverse events and HRQoL. The impact of treatment discontinuation on healthcare resource use, productivity losses, and hours of informal care will also be assessed. Results will be compared to those from patients with CR or PR who completed 24 months of treatment with PD-1 blockade and had an ongoing response at treatment discontinuation. It is hypothesised that it is safe to early stop first-line nivolumab or pembrolizumab at confirmed tumour response while improving HRQoL and reducing costs.

DISCUSSION

From a patient, healthcare, and economic perspective, shorter treatment duration is preferred and overtreatment should be prevented. If early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade appears to be safe, early discontinuation of PD-1 blockade may be implemented as the standard of care in a selected group of patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Safe Stop trial has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), Trial NL7293 (old NTR ID: 7502), https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7293 . Date of registration September 30, 2018.

The Predictive Efficacy of Tumor Mutation Burden (TMB) on Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Treated by Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common type of lung cancer, and the majority of NSCLC patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage. Chemotherapy is still the main treatment at present, and the overall prognosis is poor. In recent years, immunotherapy has developed rapidly. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as the representative have been extensively applied for treating various types of cancers. Tumor mutation burden (TMB) as a potential biomarker is used to screen appropriate patients for treatment of ICIs. To verify the predictive efficacy of TMB, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to explore the association between TMB and ICIs.

METHOD

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and son on were systematically searched from inception to April 2020. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies consisting of 1525 nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were included. Comparison of high and low TMB: pooled HRs for OS, 0.57 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.99; P = 0.046); PFS, 0.48 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.69; P < 0.001); ORR, 3.15 (95% CI 2.29 to 4.33; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis values: pooled HRs for OS, 0.75 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.92, P = 0.548) for blood TMB (bTMB), 0.44 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.75, P = 0.003) for tissue TMB (tTMB); for PFS, 0.54 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.98, P = 0.044) and 0.43 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.71, P = 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings imply that NSCLC patients with high TMB possess significant clinical benefits from ICIs compared to those with low TMB. As opposed to bTMB, tTMB was thought more appropriate for stratifying NSCLC patients for ICI treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab as a Second-Line Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for use as a second-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who previously received sorafenib. Pembrolizumab has shown substantial antitumor activity and a favorable toxicity profile as a second-line treatment of HCC. However, considering the high cost of pembrolizumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both the clinical efficacy and cost.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs placebo as second-line therapy in patients with HCC from the US payer perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of pembrolizumab as a second-line treatment of HCC with those of placebo using outcome data from the KEYNOTE-240 randomized placebo-controlled trial, which included 413 patients with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib and randomized patients to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care in a 2:1 ratio.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for the parameter of uncertainty. A cost-threshold analysis was also performed. The study was conducted from January 31 to July 29, 2020.

RESULTS

The base-case model found that treatment with pembrolizumab was associated with increased overall cost by $47 057 and improved effectiveness by 0.138 QALYs compared with placebo, leading to an ICER of $340 409 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival (range, 0.61-1.00), health utility of placebo (range, 0.59-0.93), price of pembrolizumab (range, $5531-$8297), and price of postprogression therapies (range, $5596-$7944 for pembrolizumab and $4770-$7156 for placebo). The ICER of pembrolizumab was larger than $150 000 per QALY in most of the sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The price of pembrolizumab needed to be reduced by 57.7% to $2925 per cycle to achieve cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that, at its current price, pembrolizumab is not a cost-effective second-line therapy for HCC in the US, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ribociclib for Hormone Receptor-Positive HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Ribociclib has provided significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). However, given the high cost of ribociclib, its value must be evaluated based on cost-effectiveness. Thus, we aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib for postmenopausal patients with HR-positive and HER2-negative ABC.

METHODS

A comprehensive Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant as first-line treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative ABC. Variables were estimated based on data from the randomized Phase III MONALEESA-3 trial. Ten-year values were estimated for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Direct treatment costs were estimated from the perspective of a United States payer. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to confirm the model's robustness.

RESULTS

Ribociclib plus fulvestrant increased the treatment cost by $382,172 and provided 0.47 QALYs, relative to fulvestrant alone, which corresponded to an ICER of $813,132 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that ribociclib was unlikely to be cost-effective even under the most favorable assumptions. When the cost of ribociclib was <$1,384, there was a >50% chance of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Subgroup analyses also confirmed that ribociclib was not cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

At current drug prices in the United States, ribociclib is unlikely to be cost-effective for treating postmenopausal patients with HR-positive HER2-negative ABC. Despite the clinical benefits of ribociclib, its cost would need to decrease to provide more favorable economic outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in advanced melanoma: a drug review

Introduction: The immune checkpoint inhibitors, including nivolumab, and targeted agents have dramatically improved the outcome for patients with unresectable advanced melanoma. Areas covered: This is a narrative review of the published evidence on nivolumab in metastatic melanoma. Expert opinion: In ipilimumab pre-treated patients (CheckMate 037), nivolumab was associated with a higher response rate and a longer duration of response when compared to chemotherapy. In previously untreated patients, nivolumab improves survival when compared to chemotherapy (CheckMate 066) or to ipilimumab (CheckMate 067). The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab also improves survival when compared to ipilimumab (CheckMate 067). CheckMate 067 was not designed to compare the nivolumab-ipilimumab combination to nivolumab alone. A modified regimen using a lower dose of ipilimumab in combination with standard dose nivolumab is better tolerated than nivolumab in combination with standard dose ipilimumab (CheckMate 511). In patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab improve survival when compared to ipilimumab. Nivolumab is equally active in BRAF mutated and BRAF wild type melanoma. The optimal sequence of checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibitors in BRAF mutated patients has not been established.

Frontline BRAF Testing-Guided Treatment for Advanced Melanoma in the Era of Immunotherapies: A Cost-Utility Analysis Based on Long-term Survival Data

Importance

The effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and BRAF and MEK inhibitors has improved advanced melanoma recovery. However, it is unknown whether these novel therapies are cost-effective for newly diagnosed advanced melanoma with unknown BRAF status.

Objective

To compare the cost-utility of these novel agents and their combinations with or without BRAF gene testing guidance for treating newly diagnosed advanced melanoma with unknown BRAF status.

Design and Setting

A decision-analytic model was adopted to project the outcomes of 8 strategies containing different ICIs and BRAF and MEK inhibitors for newly diagnosed advanced melanoma with unknown BRAF pathogenic variant status. The key clinical data were derived from the CheckMate 067, KEYNOTE-006, COMBI-d, and COMBI-v trials, and the cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. Costs were estimated from the US payer perspective.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), and incremental net health benefits were calculated. Subgroup, 1-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Of the 8 competing strategies, nivolumab plus ipilimumab without patient selection based on BRAF pathogenic variant testing yielded the most significant health outcome, and the nivolumab strategy was the cheapest option. The nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab strategies formed the cost-effective frontier, which showed the ordered ICURs were $8593 (SD, $592 995)/QALY for pembrolizumab vs nivolumab and $125 593 (SD, $5 751 223)/QALY for nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs pembrolizumab. Other strategies, including the BRAF testing-guided strategies (BRAF pathogenic variant testing followed by corresponding regimens for BRAF wild and pathogenic variant tumors), were dominated or extended dominated. The most influential parameters were the treatment efficacy of these new regimens.

Conclusions and Relevance

For newly diagnosed advanced melanoma with unknown BRAF pathogenic variant status, nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab strategies are likely to be the most cost-effective options. BRAF and MEK inhibitors might be productively placed in a second-line setting after BRAF pathogenic variant is confirmed.

Cost-Benefit Implication of Gene Expression Profiling and Adjuvant Therapy in Stage IIIA Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Indiscriminate use of adjuvant therapy in stage IIIA melanoma is controversial. We sought to model the clinical impact and cost of implementing a gene expression profile (GEP) test to guide adjuvant therapy.

STUDY DESIGN

A Markov decision-analysis model was created to represent resected stage IIIA melanoma with 3 treatment options: observation (OBS), adjuvant pembrolizumab for all patients (ALL), and selective adjuvant therapy (SEL). In the SEL option, only high-risk patients based on GEP stratification were treated with pembrolizumab. Cost of adjuvant therapy was normalized to reflect Medicare reimbursement schedules. The primary outcome was cost per mortality avoided at 10 years.

RESULTS

Model projections for 10-year overall survival were 68% for OBS, 73% for SEL, and 76% for ALL. The estimated incremental cost-per-mortality-avoided (compared to OBS) was $2.1 million for SEL and $2.4 million for ALL. These translate to costs of $583.0K and $697.1K per life-year for the SEL and ALL strategies, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine adjuvant pembrolizumab for stage IIIA melanoma is costly, and risk-stratification by GEP only marginally improves the value of therapy.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-Utility Analysis of Nivolumab in Adjuvant Treatment of Melanoma in France

Introduction

The aim of the current study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant treatment with nivolumab relative to clinically relevant comparators in adult patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement or metastatic disease who have undergone complete resection from a French societal perspective.

Methods

The comparators were observation, low-dose interferon and pembrolizumab. A subgroup analysis was carried out in patients with BRAF mutation, adding dabrafenib plus trametinib. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to project costs and health benefits over a 20-year time horizon. Extrapolation for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) was carried out using spline-based models. Because of the immaturity of OS data in pivotal trials for nivolumab and pembrolizumab, a predictive model of OS treatment effect based on RFS effect was developed using a correlation equation. Health state utilities and adverse events disutilities were derived from the CheckMate 238 trial and literature. Costs were estimated in 2019 euros. The model’s primary outcome was efficiency frontier. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results.

Results

Observation, low-dose interferon and nivolumab were on the efficiency frontier. The incremental cost–utility ratio of nivolumab versus low-dose interferon (closest therapy on the efficiency frontier) was €37,886/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis reported an 80% probability of nivolumab being a cost-effective strategy for a willingness-to-pay threshold of €52,000/QALY. In the subgroup with BRAF mutation, the efficiency frontier was not changed by the addition of dabrafenib plus trametinib.

Conclusions

Nivolumab is a cost-effective strategy as adjuvant treatment in adult patients with surgically resected melanoma in France.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s13555-020-00446-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma with pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib from the US payer perspective. Patients & methods: A Markov model was developed for this purpose. The clinical data were obtained from the KEYNOTE-426 trial. Utility values and direct costs related to the treatments were gathered from the published studies. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was $249,704 per quality-adjusted life year, which was higher than a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was not considered to be cost-effective versus sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the US payer perspective.

Optimizing Sequential Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Decision Analysis

Background: An optimal sequential systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has not been discovered. We developed a decision model based on available clinical trials to identify an optimal risk/benefit strategy for sequences of novel systemic agents. Methods: A Markov model was built to simulate overall survival (OS) among patients with advanced HCC. Three first-line (single-agent Sorafenib or Lenvatinib, and combination of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab) followed by five second-line treatments (Regorafenib, Cabozantinib, Ramucirumab, Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab) were compared in fifteen sequential strategies. The likelihood of transition between states (initial treatment, cancer progression, death) was derived from clinical trials. Life-year gained (LYG) was the main outcome. Rates of severe adverse events (SAEs) (≥grade 3) were calculated. The innovative measure, called incremental safety-effectiveness ratio (ISER), of the two best sequential treatments was calculated as the difference in probability of SAEs divided by LYG. Results: Lenvatinib followed by Nivolumab (median OS, 27 months) was the most effective sequence, producing a LYG of 0.75, while Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab followed by Nivolumab was the safest sequence (SAEs 40%). Accordingly, the net health benefit assessed by ISER favored Lenvatinib followed by Nivolumab, compared to Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab, followed by Nivolumab in 52% of cases. Conclusion: Further sequential clinical trials or large-scale real-world studies may prove useful to evaluate the net health benefit of the best sequential treatment for advanced HCC.

A nanoscale metal organic frameworks-based vaccine synergises with PD-1 blockade to potentiate anti-tumour immunity

Checkpoint blockade therapy has provided noteworthy benefits in multiple cancers in recent years; however, its clinical benefits remain confined to 10–40% of patients with extremely high costs. Here, we design an ultrafast, low-temperature, and universal self-assembly route to integrate immunology-associated large molecules into metal-organic-framework (MOF)-gated mesoporous silica (MS) as cancer vaccines. Core MS nanoparticles, acting as an intrinsic immunopotentiator, provide the niche, void, and space to accommodate antigens, soluble immunopotentiators, and so on, whereas the MOF gatekeeper protects the interiors from robust and off-target release. A combination of MOF-gated MS cancer vaccines with systemic programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) blockade therapy generates synergistic effects that potentiate antitumour immunity and reduce the effective dose of an anti-PD-1 antibody to as low as 1/10 of that for PD-1 blockade monotherapy in E.G7-OVA tumour-bearing mice, with eliciting the robust adaptive OVA-specific CD8⁺ T-cell responses, reversing the immunosuppressive pathway and inducing durable tumour suppression.

Nanoparticle-based strategies have been proposed to enhance the benefit of cancer immunotherapy. Here the authors show that a cancer vaccine based on metal organic frameworks-gated mesoporous silica nanoparticles for antigen and immune potentiators delivery boosts the therapeutic efficacy of low-dose anti-PD1.

Chemotherapy efficacy after first-line immunotherapy in 18 advanced melanoma patients

In BRAF wild type advanced melanoma, immune checkpoint blockers such as anti-PD1 (anti-programmed cell death 1) are usually continued beyond progression for a hypothetical rare further response. Chemotherapy as a second-line option is considered ineffective by many practitioners based on historical data. Continuing anti-PD1 beyond progression has a high health-economic impact and is not recommended by the FDA. This study aimed to describe the efficacy and survival of advanced melanoma patients who received second-line (or more) chemotherapy after immunotherapy failure.This was a retrospective single center study conducted in a French University Hospital during an 11-month period. All advanced melanoma patients treated with chemotherapy after immunotherapy failure were included.Eighteen patients were analyzed. Therapeutic response to chemotherapy was evaluable in 16 patients: partial response was achieved in 3/16 (19%), stable disease in 1/16 (6%) and progressive disease in 12/16 (75%). Median overall survival from chemotherapy start was 12 months. Median progression-free survival was 5.4 months. The 6-month overall survival rate was 81% and the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 40%.Although the disease control rate with chemotherapy was low (25%), survival data in our study are far superior to those previously published. This could be linked to a high proportion of patients treated with anti-PD1 just prior to chemotherapy, which may suggest a potential synergy between immunotherapy and chemotherapy.