Search

Importance: Adjuvant therapy is an important and effective treatment for retinoblastoma. However, there is a lack of head-to-head clinical trials comparing 3 vs 6 cycles of CEV chemotherapy (carboplatin, etoposide, and vincristine) for enucleated unilateral retinoblastoma with high-risk pathological features., Objective: To assess whether 3 cycles of CEV chemotherapy is noninferior to 6 cycles for enucleated unilateral retinoblastoma with high-risk pathological features., Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-center, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial was conducted at 2 premier eye centers in China and included 187 patients who had undergone enucleation for unilateral retinoblastoma with high-risk pathological features (massive choroidal infiltration, retrolaminar optic nerve invasion, or scleral infiltration) between August 2013 and March 2024. The final date of follow-up was March 21, 2024., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 3 (n = 94) or 6 (n = 93) cycles of CEV chemotherapy regimen after enucleation., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was disease-free survival, with a noninferiority margin of 12%. Secondary end points encompassed overall survival, safety, economic burden, and the quality of life of children., Results: All 187 patients (median [IQR] age, 25.0 [20.0-37.0] months; 83 [44.4%] female) completed the trial. Median (IQR) follow-up was 79.0 (65.5-102.5) months. Five-year disease-free survival was 90.4% for the 3-cycle group vs 89.2% for the 6-cycle group (difference, 1.2% [95% CI, -7.5% to 9.8%]), which met the noninferiority criterion (P = .003 for noninferiority). The 6-cycle group experienced a higher frequency of adverse events, greater reduction in quality of life scores, and increased costs compared with the 3-cycle group., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with unilateral pathologic high-risk retinoblastoma, 3 cycles of CEV chemotherapy resulted in 5-year disease-free survival that was noninferior to 6 cycles of CEV chemotherapy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01906814.

The main objective of this study is to determine whether the employment of fixed-dose combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab for subcutaneous injection (PH FDC SC; and Phesgo as brand name) to treat metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer patients would minimize costs compared to the traditional treatment of separate intravenous doses of pertuzumab and trastuzumab in Peru. To achieve this, we used EsSalud (the social security health insurance) data and assessed it through a mixed strategy, which consisted of a quantitative and a qualitative approach. The first one aimed to calculate the direct (non-drug consumables, drugs, and healthcare professionals) and indirect costs of both treatments to develop a comparison, whilst the second aimed to validate information and internalize the procedure in an EsSalud context. Overall, we found that the usage of PH FDC SC would be cost saving in EsSalud's context. Specifically, we found three main advantages. Firstly, PH FDC SC generates a savings of 62% in non-drug consumables, which helps alleviate the healthcare system budget constraint. Secondly, its adoption frees up 61 hours of treatment and observation time for a single patient per year, which in turn increases the attention capacity of the healthcare system in terms of nursing hours and chemotherapy couches. Thirdly, the reduction of clinic time supposes an advantage for the patient in the form of increased productivity and well-being. Hence, the adoption of this drug would improve the quality of life of patients while reducing costs and pressure on the healthcare system. This is aligned with the strategy of prioritizing the appropriate breast cancer treatment within the National Cancer Care Plan. In this regard, we also found that the savings produced from switching from the traditional intravenous treatment to the subcutaneous one would allow EsSalud to afford full annual costs of 2 additional treatments, but without increasing their budget. This would cover 7% of the gap of 29 patients who do not have access to full treatment., Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal’s policy and have the following competing interests: MF and MG consulted for Roche Peru through their employment with APOYO Consultoría. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare., (Copyright: © 2024 Figallo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) for heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system., Designs: Based on the overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) data from the Trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer (TAGS) trial (NCT02500043), a three-state Markov model (PFS, progressed disease and death) was constructed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of FTD/TPI compared with the placebo in heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer. Cost and utility were from pricing records and the literature. The model was simulated for 5 years with monthly cycles. Costs and health outcomes were discounted by 5%. We then conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the parameters. The model results were from the Chinese healthcare system., Outcome Measures: The output results were the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)., Results: According to the model results, FTD/TPI generated an additional cost of US$26 855.66 and 0.88 QALYs compared with the placebo. ICER of FTD/TPI compared with the placebo was US$30 494.89 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the utility value of the PFS stage and FTD/TPI adverse event costs were the main influencing parameters, and the results were stable. At a threshold of three times per capita gross domestic product of China (US$35 559.34 in 2022), the probability of FTD/TPI being cost-effective compared with placebo was 99.2%., Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, FTD/TPI is a more cost-effective option compared with the placebo for the treatment of heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer in patients who have received at least two prior advanced treatment regimens., Trial Registration Number: The Chinese population registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400080940) and clinical trial (NCT05029102)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The ALINE trial demonstrated the superiority of alectinib over platinum-based chemotherapy in resected Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Considering the high cost of alectinib, this study aimed to evaluate the economic value of alectinib compared to platinum-based chemotherapy for treating early-stage ALK-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health care system., Materials and Methods: We developed a five-state Markov model with monthly cycles to estimate the lifetime costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of cost per LY gained and per QALY gained. Costs were obtained from database, expert opinions and published literature, and utilities were primarily derived from a multicenter cross-sectional study based on the Chinese population. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5% per year. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in model results., Results: Compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, alectinib increased total costs by $16,245 and provided gains of 2.02 LYs and 1.84 QALYs over a lifetime horizon. ICERs were $8,052/LY and $8,806/QALY. The ICER in terms of cost per QALY gained was most sensitive to the outcome discount rate. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 93% probability of alectinib being cost-effective at a willing-to pay (WTP) threshold of $12,367/QALY (1 GDP per capita), rising to 100% at $37,100/QALY (3 GDP per capita)., Conclusion: Alectinib appears to be the preferred cost-effective option in the adjuvant treatment for Chinese patients with resected early-stage ALK-positive NSCLC., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: The BETAcc clinical trial demonstrated that chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab plus atezolizumab (CBA) significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer. However, to the best of our knowledge, the economic value of using this new therapy for this indication is currently unknown. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CBA for the first-line treatment of metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer from the United States healthcare payers perspective., Methods: A state-transition Markov model over a 10-year lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of CBA with that of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (CB). The primary outcomes of our study included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the results., Results: CBA was associated with an additional 0.58 QALY at an extra cost of $172 495.90 compared with CB. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $295 972.43/QALY, significantly higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold value of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that results were most sensitive to the progression-free disease utility, the unit cost of atezolizumab, and progressed disease utility. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that CBA achieved a 4.3% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $150 000/QALY threshold. To achieve cost-effectiveness, the unit price of atezolizumab must be reduced by approximately 56.6%., Conclusions: CBA treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with CB for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer in the United States., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy compared chemotherapy alone as first-line strategy for patients with ES-SCLC in China., Methods: A decision-analytic model that based on the Chinese health-care system perspective was conducted to evaluate the economic benefits for the two competing first-line treatment. The clinical survival and safety data were obtained from the ASTRUM-005 trial, cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and previously published study. Both cost and utility values were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the model results., Results: Serplulimab plus chemotherapy could bring additional 0.25 QALYs with the marginal cost of $37,569.32, resulting in an ICER of $147,908.74 per additional QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that model results were robust. Subgroup analyses revealed that adding serplulimab to first-line chemotherapy were unlikely to be the cost-effective option for all subgroup patients., Conclusions: Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line strategy compared with chemotherapy alone for patients with ES-SCLC in China. Reduced the price of serplulimab could increase its cost-effective.

Introduction: Childhood cancers are a significant global health concern, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where over 80% of childhood cancer patients reside. In India, acute myeloid leukemia (AML) constitutes a significant portion of childhood cancers; however, the data on the cost-effectiveness of childhood AML treatment in India and other LMICs remain limited., Methods: The study focused on children (<15 years of age) diagnosed with AML at a tertiary care cancer center in North India. Data, including treatment outcome, treatment-related morbidity, mortality, and costs were retrospectively collected from the electronic medical record and hospital database. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted in relation to the country-specific cost-effectiveness threshold., Results: Among 59 AML patients, treatment-related high mortality rates, abandonment, and limited access to bone marrow transplantation were notable challenges. Intensive chemotherapy resulted in substantial sepsis-related complications, with treatment-related mortality reaching 30%. The 3-year event-free survival and overall survival of the 43 patients who received intensive therapy were 24.5% ± 7.6% and 27.9% ± 8.3%, respectively. Despite these challenges, treating childhood AML was still found to be cost-effective. The total cost per newly diagnosed patient treated with curative intent was $4454. Cost per DALY averted accounted for 24% of the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, rendering the treatment to be cost-effective with a stringent cost-effectiveness threshold utilized., Conclusion: The study underscores the challenges faced while treating childhood AML in LMICs, including treatment-induced high sepsis-related mortality and abandonment. Despite these challenges, it remains cost-effective to treat childhood AML in India. Future efforts should focus on reducing treatment-related morbidity and mortality to further improve outcomes and cost-effectiveness., (© 2024 The Author(s). Pediatric Blood & Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone, based on the results of the NRG-GY018 trial, in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC), stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups., Methods: A Markov model was used to simulate patients receiving either pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of our findings., Results: The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to an incremental gain of 4.05 QALYs at an additional cost of $167,224, resulting in an ICER of $41,305.09/QALY compared to chemotherapy alone in dMMR EC. Additionally, there were 0.93 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $83,661, which resulted in an ICER of $90,284.80/QALY in pMMR EC. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the cost of pembrolizumab, utility of progressed disease, and utility of progression-free survival had the greatest impact on the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that pembrolizumab was considered cost-effective at a 100% probability at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY., Conclusion: Pembrolizumab, when combined with chemotherapy, was found to be cost-effective compared to chemotherapy alone both for patients with advanced or recurrent dMMR and pMMR EC from the perspective of a payer in the United States., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Background: This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab in combination with chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab biosimilar IBI305, versus chemotherapy alone for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system., Methods: 10-year Markov model was developed using a 21-day cycle length. Transition probabilities were derived from the ORIENT-31 trial, while cost and health state utilities were obtained from publicly databases, local hospitals, and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the primary model output and compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold range of $15,289.34 to $38,223.34 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model., Results: In the base-case analysis, sintilimab plus IBI305 and chemotherapy had an ICER of $53,266.32/QALYs, exceeding the upper WTP threshold. Sintilimab plus chemotherapy had an ICER of $15,329.11/QALY, slightly above the lower WTP threshold. Subgroup analysis yielded consistent results. Deterministic sensitivity analyses found no ICER for sintilimab plus chemotherapy beyond the upper WTP threshold. Most model input changes did not decrease the ICER of sintilimab plus IBI305 and chemotherapy below the upper WTP threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses further demonstrated the cost-effectiveness superiority of sintilimab plus chemotherapy over sintilimab plus IBI305 and chemotherapy., Conclusion: This study supports the cost-effectiveness of using sintilimab in combination with chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of combining sintilimab with IBI305 and chemotherapy in this particular patient group may be lacking., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Peng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations show significant survival advantages compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced endometrial cancer., Objective: To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of different immunotherapy combinations for clinician and patient decision-making., Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science Databases were reviewed from January 1, 2010 to October 30, 2023, for phase III randomized controlled trials of first-line immunotherapy combinations in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival and progression-free survival, relative risks (RRs) of adverse events, and corresponding p value. The lifetime Markov model of cost-effectiveness analysis was developed to summarize the cost, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios at the US$150 000/QALY of willingness-to-pay of six first-line treatment strategies., Results: Four trials were identified, involving 2577 patients. Dostarlimab plus chemotherapy or durvalumab plus chemotherapy with olaparib was associated with more survival benefits than other immunotherapy regimens and chemotherapy in the mismatch repair-deficient microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) and mismatch repair-proficient microsatellite-stable (pMMR/MSS) population, respectively. Further, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy increased efficacy (cost) by 3.76 QALYs and US$540 817, which yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$143 894/QALY in the dMMR/MSI-H population., Conclusion: First-line durvalumab plus chemotherapy with olaparib, and dostarlimab plus chemotherapy, were more beneficial for survival in the pMMR/MSS and dMMR/MSI-H populations, respectively. Only pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was cost-effective for patients with dMMR/MSI-H endometrial cancer in the USA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: This study aimed to investigate what treatment are selected for malignant brain tumors, particularly glioblastoma (GBM) and primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), in real-world Japan and the costs involved., Methods: We conducted a questionnaire survey regarding treatment selections for newly diagnosed GBM and PCNSL treated between July 2021 and June 2022 among 47 institutions in the Japan Clinical Oncology Group-Brain Tumor Study Group. We calculated the total cost and cost per month of the initial therapy for newly diagnosed GBM or PCNSL., Results: The most used regimen (46.8%) for GBM in patients aged ≤74 years was 'Surgery + radiotherapy concomitant with temozolomide'. This regimen's total cost was 7.50 million JPY (Japanese yen). Adding carmustine wafer implantation (used in 15.0%), TTFields (used in 14.1%), and bevacizumab (BEV) (used in 14.5%) to the standard treatment of GBM increased the cost by 1.24 million JPY for initial treatment, and 1.44 and 0.22 million JPY per month, respectively. Regarding PCNSL, 'Surgery (biopsy) + rituximab, methotrexate, procarbazine, and vincristine (R-MPV) therapy' was the most used regimen (42.5%) for patients of all ages. This regimen incurred 1.07 million JPY per month. The three PCNSL regimens based on R-MPV therapy were in ultra-high-cost medical care (exceeding 1 million JPY per month)., Conclusions: Treatment of malignant brain tumors is generally expensive, and cost-ineffective treatments such as BEV are frequently used. We believe that the results of this study can be used to design future economic health studies examining the cost-effectiveness of malignant brain tumors., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Although treatment outcomes for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have dramatically improved over the past few decades, drug costs have also significantly increased. This study aimed to investigate which first-line treatment regimens for mCRC are actually used (frequency) in Japanese practice and at what cost., Methods: We collected data on patients with mCRC who received first-line treatment at 37 institutions of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group Colorectal Cancer Study Group from July 2021 to June 2022, and calculated the cost of regimens. The cost per month of each regimen was estimated based on standard usage, assuming a patient with a weight of 70 kg and a body surface area of 1.8 m2. We categorized the regimens into very high-cost (≥1 000 000 Japanese yen [JPY]/month), high-cost (≥500 000 JPY/month), and others (<500 000 JPY/month)., Results: The study included 1880 participants, 24% of whom were ≥ 75 years. Molecular targeted containing regimens were received by 78% of the patients. The most frequently used regimen was the doublet regimen (fluoropyrimidine with either oxaliplatin or irinotecan) plus bevacizumab (43%), followed by doublet plus cetuximab or panitumumab (21%). The cost of molecular targeted drugs-containing regimens (ranging from 85 406 to 843 602 JPY/month) is much higher than that of only cytotoxic drug regimens (ranging from 17 672 to 51 004 JPY/month). About 16% received high-cost treatments that included panitumumab-containing regimens and pembrolizumab (17% of patients aged ≤74 years and 11% of patients aged ≥75 years)., Conclusion: About 16% of mCRC patients received first-line treatment with regimens costing >500 000JPY/month, and molecular targeted drugs being the main drivers of cost., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Over the last decade, novel anticancer drugs have improved the prognosis for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (RM-SCCHN). However, this has increased healthcare expenditures and placed a heavy burden on patients and society. This study investigated the frequency of use and costs of select palliative chemotherapy regimens in Japan., Methods: From July 2021 to June 2022 in 54 healthcare facilities, we gathered data of patients diagnosed with RM-SCCHN and who had started first-line palliative chemotherapy with one of eight commonly used regimens. Patients with nasopharyngeal carcinomas were excluded. The number of patients receiving each regimen and the costs of each regimen for the first month and per year were tallied., Results: The sample comprised 907 patients (674 were < 75 years old, 233 were ≥ 75 years old). 330 (36.4%) received Pembrolizumab monotherapy, and 202 (22.3%) received Nivolumab monotherapy. Over 90% of patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. Treatment regimens' first-month costs were 612 851-849 241 Japanese yen (JPY). The cost of standard palliative chemotherapy until 2012 was about 20 000 JPY per month. The incremental cost over the past decade is approximately 600 000-800 000 JPY per month, a 30- to 40-fold increase in the cost of palliative chemotherapy for RM-SCCHN., Conclusion: First-line palliative chemotherapy for RM-SCCHN exceeds 600 000 JPY monthly. Over the last decade, the prognosis for RM-SCCHN has improved, but the costs of palliative chemotherapy have surged, placing a heavy burden on patients and society., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The increasing incidence and prevalence of breast cancer alongside diagnostic and treatment technology advances have produced a debate about the financial burden cancer places on the healthcare system and concerns about access., Methods: This study was conducted at 51 hospitals belonging to the Breast Cancer Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group using a web-based survey. The survey period conducted from July 2021 to June 2022. The study population included patients with metastatic breast cancer who received the related treatment as their first-line therapy. The proportion of patients who selected that regimen as their first-line treatment was tabulated. The total cost increase for each current standard therapy in comparison to conventional treatments was calculated., Results: A total of 702 patients (pts) were surveyed. Of those enrolled, 342 (48.7%) received high-cost treatment [estimated monthly drug costs exceeding ~500 000 Japanese Yen (JPY)]. Of these, 16 pts (4.7%) were receiving very high-cost treatment, amounting to more than 1 000 000 JPY per month. Fifty three (15.5%) of the patients who received high-cost treatment were 75 years of age or older. Of these, 1 pt (0.3%) were receiving very high-cost treatment. Analyses of incremental costs by current drugs showed that abemaciclib was costly with total additional cost of 6 365 670 JPY per patient. The total additional cost of the regimen per patient that included palbociclib was the second highest at 4011248 JPY, followed by atezolizumab at 3209033 JPY., Conclusions: The findings indicate that evaluating the financial implications of high-cost treatments requires considering not only drug prices but also analysis of total cost increase., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Advanced (Stage IV) prostate and renal cancer have poor prognosis, and several therapies have been developed, but many are very costly. This study investigated drug regimens used in patients with untreated Stage IV prostate cancer and renal cell carcinoma and calculated the monthly cost of each., Methods: We surveyed first-line drugs administered to patients with untreated Stage IV prostate cancer and renal cancer at Japan Clinical Oncology Group affiliated centers from April 2022 to March 2023. Drug costs were calculated according to drug prices in September 2023. Individual drug costs were calculated or converted to 28-day costs., Results: A total of 700 patients with untreated Stage IV prostate cancer were surveyed. Androgen deprivation therapy + androgen receptor signaling inhibitor was the most common regimen (56%). The cost of androgen deprivation therapy + androgen receptor signaling inhibitor was 10.6-30.8-fold compared with conventional treatments. A total of 137 patients with Stage IV renal cancer were surveyed. Among them, 91% of patients received immune-oncology drug-based regimen. All patients received treatments with a monthly cost of ≥500 000 Japanese yen, and 80.4% of patients received treatments with a monthly cost of ≥1 million Japanese yen, of combination treatments. The cost of immune-oncology drug-based regimen was 1.2-3.1-fold that of TKI alone., Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a survey of first-line drug therapy in untreated Stage IV prostate cancer and renal cell carcinoma stratified by age and treatment costs. Our results show that most Japanese patients received state-of-the-art, effective treatments with high financial burden., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Molecular-targeted drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors have been developed for various malignant diseases, thereby improving clinical outcomes. However, these drugs are expensive, and few studies have assessed their actual use and costs in Japan. This study aimed to survey the use and costs of first-line chemotherapy for advanced/recurrent gastric cancer (AGC) in real-world settings., Methods: The survey included patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor type2 (HER2)-negative AGC who initiated first-line chemotherapy from January 2022 to December 2022 at the participating 92 institutions in the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. Data on the regimens were collected using Google Forms. A regimen that costs >500 000 Japanese yen (JPY) per month was defined as expensive., Results: Data on chemotherapy regimens were collected from 2173 patients at all 92 institutions between March 2023 and May 2023. We analyzed 2113 patients who underwent the chemotherapy with recommended regimens and conditionally recommended regimens according to the Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines sixth edition. The expensive regimens were triplet chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine (S-1 or capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil/levofolinate), oxaliplatin, and nivolumab. Their monthly costs ranged from 767 648 to 771 046 JPY. Nivolumab-containing regimens cost more than 20 times the price of conventional chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin. These regimens were used in 1416 (67%) of 2113 patients: in 71% of patients aged ≤74 years and in 59% of patients aged ≥75 years., Conclusion: The regimens with >20-fold cost of conventional chemotherapy were used as first-line chemotherapy in two-thirds of patients and more than half even in the elderly population with HER2-negative AGC. This finding is important for future health economic studies on drug cost-efficacy., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The prognosis of gynecological malignancies has improved with the recent advent of molecularly targeted drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, these drugs are expensive and contribute to the increasing costs of medical care., Methods: The Japanese Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) Health Economics Committee conducted a questionnaire survey of JCOG-affiliated facilities from July 2021 to June 2022 to assess the prevalence of high-cost regimens., Results: A total of 57 affiliated facilities were surveyed regarding standard regimens for advanced ovarian and cervical cancers for gynecological malignancies. Responses were obtained from 39 facilities (68.4%) regarding ovarian cancer and 37 (64.9%) concerning cervical cancer, with respective case counts of 854 and 163. For ovarian cancer, 505 of 854 patients (59.1%) were treated with regimens that included PARP inhibitors, costing >500 000 Japanese yen monthly, while 111 patients (13.0%) received treatments that included bevacizumab, with costs exceeding 200 000 Japanese yen monthly. These costs are ~20 and ~10 times higher than those of the conventional regimens, respectively. For cervical cancer, 79 patients (48.4%) were treated with bevacizumab regimens costing >200 000 Japanese yen per month, ~10 times the cost of conventional treatments., Conclusions: In this survey, >70% of patients with ovarian cancer were treated with regimens that included poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors or bevacizumab; ~50% of patients with cervical cancer were treated with regimens containing bevacizumab. These treatments were ~10 and ~20 times more expensive than conventional regimens, respectively. These findings can inform future health economics studies, particularly in assessing cost-effectiveness and related matters., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Although recent advances in systemic therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have led to prolonged patient survival, the high costs of the drugs place a heavy burden on both patients and society. The objectives of this study were to examine the treatment regimens used as first-line systemic treatment for patients with advanced HCC in Japan and to estimate the treatment costs per regimen., Methods: For this study, we aggregated the data of patients who had received first-line systemic treatment for advanced HCC between July 2021 and June 2022. The treatment cost per month of each regimen was estimated based on standard usage, assuming an average weight of 60 kg for male patients. The data were categorized by the treatment regimen, and the treatments were categorized based on the cost into very high-cost (≥1 000 000 Japanese yen [JPY]/month), high-cost (≥500 000 JPY/month) and other (<500 000 JPY/month) treatments., Results: Of the total of 552 patients from 24 institutions whose data were analyzed in this study, 439 (79.5%) received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, 98 (17.8%) received lenvatinib and 15 (2.7%) received sorafenib as the first-line treatment. The treatment cost per month for each of the above regimens was as follows: atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, 1 176 284 JPY; lenvatinib, 362 295 JPY and sorafenib, 571 644 JPY. In total, 82.2% of patients received high-cost regimens, and the majority of these patients received a very high-cost regimen of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab., Conclusions: Advances in systemic therapies for HCC have led to prolonged patient survival. However, the treatment costs are also increasing, imposing a burden on both the patients and society., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The treatment of lung cancer has made dramatic progress in the past decade, but due to the high cost of drugs, the total pharmaceutical cost has been rising explosively. There are currently no data available in Japan on which regimens are used, to what extent they are used, and what their total cost is., Methods: Sixty Japanese centers belonging to the Lung Cancer Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group were surveyed for information about the first-line treatment for advanced lung cancer in practice from July 2021 to June 2022. Three types of cancer were included: driver gene mutation-negative NSCLC, EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, and extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC)., Results: Recent treatment costs for ICIs or ICI plus chemotherapy were about 20-55 times higher than those for conventional chemotherapy. Of the 3738 patients with driver gene aberration-negative NSCLC, 2573 (68.8%) received treatments with monthly cost of 500 000 Japanese yen (JPY) or more; 2555 (68.4%) received ICI therapy. Of the 1486 patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, 1290 (86.8%) received treatments with a monthly cost of 500 000 JPY or more; 1207 (81.2%) received osimertinib. ICI treatments with a monthly cost of 500 000 JPY or more were administered to 607 (56.3%) of 1079 patients with ES-SCLC. Elderly NSCLC patients received slightly more high-cost treatment than younger patients., Conclusion: Recent treatments cost many times more than conventional chemotherapy. This study revealed that high-cost treatments were widely used in advanced lung cancer and some of high-cost treatments were used despite the lack of clear evidence. Physicians should pay attention to the cost of treatments they use., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent trials have shown that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), atezolizumab and durvalumab, in combination with chemotherapy, are effective in treating extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). However, owing to the expensiveness of ICIs, monetary issues arise. The cost-effectiveness of ICI combination treatment with carboplatin plus etoposide (CE) as first-line therapy for patients with ED-SCLC was examined to aid public health policy in Japan., Methods: IMpower 133 and CASPIAN data were used to create a partitioned survival model. Medical expenses and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were considered. The analysis period, discount rate, and threshold were set at 20 years, 2%, and 15 million Japanese yen (JPY) [114,068 US dollars (USD)] per QALY, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by gathering reasonable parameters from published reports and combining the costs and effects using parametric models. Monte Carlo simulations, scenario analysis, and one-way sensitivity analyses were employed to quantify uncertainty., Results: After comparing atezolizumab plus CE (ACE) and durvalumab plus CE (DCE) with CE, it was found that the ICERs exceeded the threshold at 35,048,299 JPY (266,527 USD) and 36,665,583 JPY (278,826 USD) per QALY, respectively. For one-way sensitivity and scenario assessments, the ICERs exceeded the threshold, even with considerably adjusted parameters. For the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, there was no probability that the ICER of the ICI combination treatment with chemotherapy would fall below the threshold., Conclusion: ACE and DCE were not cost-effective compared with CE as first-line therapy for ED-SCLC in Japan. Both these therapies exhibited high ICERs., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) have poor prognosis and survival outcomes. Sacituzumab govitecan was newly approved into Chinese market for mTNBC. However, whether its price matches the survival benefit still needs exploring. Here, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in patients with mTNBC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system., Methods: A partitioned survival model consisting of three discrete health states was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus single-agent chemotherapy. The key clinical data in the model were from the ASCENT trial. Costs and utility inputs were collected from published literatures. Life-years gained, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated between 2 treatment strategies. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for uncertainty and verify model robustness. Subgroup and cost-threshold analysis were also performed., Results: Sacituzumab govitecan provided an additional 0.25 QALYs and an incremental cost of $ 81,778.61 compared with chemotherapy, which was associated with an ICER of $ 323,603.84/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the model was most sensitive to the cost of sacituzumab govitecan, weight, and utility of progression-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the probability of sacituzumab govitecan being cost-effective was 0%. Considering a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of 3 times GDP, the maximum cost of sacituzumab govitecan that would make it cost-effective was $155.65 per unit (180 mg)., Conclusions: Sacituzumab govitecan was not cost-effective for patients with mTNBC compared with chemotherapy at the commonly adopted WTP threshold of 3 times GDP per capita per QALY in China., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Camrelizumab combined with rivoceranib has been proven effective for treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, their higher prices than sorafenib could impose a substantial economic burden on patients., Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of the combination of camrelizumab and rivoceranib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for patients with uHCC from the perspective of the US and Chinese payers., Method: Using data from the CARES-310 trial, a partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed, considering the perspectives of the US and Chinese payers. The model employed a 15-year time horizon and a biweekly cycle. Direct medical costs and utility data were collected from previous studies and open-access databases. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Price simulations, sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses were conducted., Results: The ICER for the US and China was $122,388.62/QALY and $30,410.56/QALY, respectively, falling below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $150,000/QALY for the US and $35,898.87/QALY for China. Price simulations indicated the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib when the price of camrelizumab (200 mg) remained below $6275.19 in the US and $558.09 in China. The primary determinant of cost-effectiveness in both regions was the cost of camrelizumab., Conclusion: The combination of camrelizumab and rivoceranib is a cost-effective first-line therapy for uHCC in both the US and China. Lowering their prices could significantly influence their cost-effectiveness and accessibility to patients. These findings will guide clinicians in treating uHCC and help decision-makers formulate value-based drug pricing strategies., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Objective: Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard of care (SOC) in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC and is associated with a significant health-related quality-of-life burden. Recently, promising results have been published on Gemcitabine/Docetaxel, Pembrolizumab, and Hyperthermic Intravesical Chemotherapy (HIVEC) as salvage therapy options trying to increase the rate of bladder preservation. Here, we performed a Cost-Effectiveness-Analysis of those treatment modalities., Patients and Methods: We developed a Markov model from a payer's perspective drawing on clinical data of single-arm trials testing intravesical gemcitabine/docetaxel and pembrolizumab in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC, as well as clinical data from patients receiving hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy HIVEC (n = 29) as intravesical salvage chemotherapy at our uro-oncological centre in Cologne. Costs were simulated utilising a non-commercial diagnosis-related groups grouper, utilities were derived from comparable cost-effectiveness studies. We used a Monte Carlo simulation to identify the optimal treatment, comparing the incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50 000 (euro)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY)., Results: Over a horizon of 10 years, gemcitabine/docetaxel, HIVEC, and pembrolizumab were associated with costs of €48 353, €64 438, and €204 580, as well as a gain of QALYs of 6.16, 6.48, and 6.00, resulting in an ICER of €26 482, €42 567, and €184 533 respectively, in comparison to RC with total costs of €21 871 and a gain of QALYs of 5.01. Monte Carlo simulation identified HIVEC as the treatment of choice under assumption of a WTP of <€50 000., Conclusion: Considering a WTP of <€50 000/QALY, gemcitabine/docetaxel and HIVEC are highly cost-effective therapeutic options in BCG-refractory NMIBC, while RC remains the cheapest option. At its current price, pembrolizumab would only be cost-effective assuming a price reduction of at least 70%., (© 2024 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Background: Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) and the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax in combination with obinutuzumab (VEN-O) are both recommended as frontline therapy in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). However, VEN-O is a 12-month fixed-duration therapy generating durable remissions whereas BTKis are continuous treat-to-progression treatments., Objective: To examine costs before and after the fixed-duration treatment period for VEN-O relative to that observed for BTKis in a national sample of older US adults with CLL in the frontline setting., Methods: This retrospective analysis used Medicare Parts A, B, and D claims from 2016 to 2021. Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years or older initiating frontline CLL treatment with VEN-O or a BTKi treatment between June 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020 (index date = first prescription fill date), were included in the sample. Mean cost measures were captured for both groups over 2 fixed time periods calculated from the index date: Month 0 to 12 (proxy for VEN-O on-treatment period) and Month 13 to 18 (proxy for VEN-O off-treatment period). A difference-in-difference approach was used. Multivariate generalized linear models estimated changes in adjusted mean monthly costs during Month 0 to 12 vs Month 13 to 18, for the VEN-O group relative to the BTKi group., Results: The final sample contained 193 beneficiaries treated with VEN-O and 1,577 beneficiaries treated with BTKis. Risk-adjusted all-cause monthly total costs were similar for VEN-O patients ($13,887) and BTKi patients ($14,492) between Month 0 and 12. Moreover, during Month 13 to 18, the mean monthly all-cause total costs declined by 67% for VEN-O ($13,887 to $4,462) but only by 10% for BTKi ($14,492 to $13,051). Hence, the relative reduction in costs across the 2 periods was significantly larger for VEN-O (-$9,425) vs BTKi (-$1,441) patients (ie, difference in difference = -$7,984; P < 0.001). Similar patterns were observed for CLL-related costs, with the substantially larger reductions in CLL-related total monthly costs (-$9,880 VEN-O vs -$1,753 BTKi; P < 0.001) for the VEN-O group primarily driven by the larger reduction in CLL-related monthly prescription costs (-$9,437 VEN-O vs -$2,020 BTKi; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: This real-world study of older adults with CLL found a large reduction in monthly Medicare costs in the 6 months after completion of the fixed-duration treatment period of VEN-O, largely driven by the reduction in CLL-related prescription drug costs. A similar decline in costs was not observed among those treated with BTKis. Our study highlights the substantial economic benefits of fixed-duration VEN-O relative to treat-to-progression therapies like BTKis in the first-line CLL setting.

Background: This study compares first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone for patients with HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) in China., Methods: A Markov state-transition model was developed based on the phase 3 randomized KEYNOTE-859 clinical trial data. The health state utility values and direct medical costs were derived from the KEYNOTE-859 clinical trial, the relevant literature, and local charges. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model., Results: In the base analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were 0.22 QALYs and $16,627.31, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $76,936.60/QALY, which is higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold in China ($35,864.61/QALY). Subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were $72,762.68 and $34,813.70 in the populations with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or higher (CPS ≥ 1) and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 (CPS ≥ 10), respectively., Conclusions: As first-line therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative GC/GEJC in China, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is less cost-effective than chemotherapy alone, however, in the CPS ≥ 10 subgroup is more.

Objective: In the ASTRUM-004 trial, serplulimab plus chemotherapy demonstrated significantly improved survival and controllable safety. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC), considering the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system., Methods: A decision tree and a Markov model were constructed to simulate the treatment. The interesting results included total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model instability., Results: Compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy had an ICER of $55,539.46/QALY ($47,278.84/LY). The ICERs were estimated to be $58,706.03/QALY, $48,978.34/QALY and $59,709.54/QALY inpatients with programmed death-ligand 1 expression level of tumor proportion score (TPS) < 1%, 1% ≤ TPS < 50%, and TPS ≥ 50%. The cost-effective prices of serplulimab were $168.276/100 mg, $349.157/100 mg, and $530.039/100 mg at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $12,574.30/QALY, $25,148.60/QALY, and $37,722.90/QALY. Patient weight and price of serplulimab created the most significant impact. Presently, the probability of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 14.15%., Conclusion: Compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy might not be cost-effective in the first-line treatment for advanced sqNSCLC.

Objective: This study aims to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy for HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer in China., Methods: A partitioned survival approach model was constructed to simulate the progression of HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer and evaluate the outcomes of different treatment strategies. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) to assess the cost associated with each quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess robustness and reliability., Results: The analysis conducted in the base case demonstrated that the ICER associated with pembrolizumab was $177405.83/QALY gained in all population. In the subgroup analysis, it was found that individuals with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 and those with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 had ICERs of $152397.06/QALY and $109534.13/QALY, respectively. All ICER values for both the all population groups and the subgroups exceeded the WTP threshold in China. Our analysis shows the robustness of these results, as they remained consistent when input parameters were varied within a ± 25% range., Conclusion: The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer in China.

Objective: Nivolumab, recently proven in a phase 3 clinical trial (CheckMate 901) to enhance survival when combined with gemcitabine-cisplatin for advanced urothelial carcinoma. This study aimed to assess its cost-effectiveness against gemcitabine-cisplatin alone, from US and Chinese payers' perspectives., Methods: A partitioned survival model was established to assess the life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin versus gemcitabine-cisplatin alone as first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. Univariate, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the model's robustness. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed., Results: Nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin and gemcitabine-cisplatin achieved survival benefits of 4.238 life-years and 2.979 life-years for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma, respectively. Compared with gemcitabine-cisplatin, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in ICERs of $116,856/QALY in the US and $51,997/QALY in China. The probabilities of achieving cost-effectiveness at the current willingness-to-pay thresholds were 77.5% in the US and 16.5% in China. Cost-effectiveness could be reached if the price of nivolumab were reduced to $920.87/100mg in China. Subgroup analyses indicated that the combination had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness in patients under 65 or with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance-status score of 0 in the US and China., Conclusion: Nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma results in longer life expectancy than gemcitabine-cisplatin, but is not cost-effective in China at current price. However, cost-effectiveness is likely to be achieved in most patient subgroups in the US., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Xiang, Huang, Gan, Wang, Ding, Wu, Xing and Liu.)

Background and Objective: The EV-302 trial found that the combination of enfortumab vedotin (EV) with pembrolizumab significantly improved survival for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, given the high cost of the drugs, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of EV plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with mUC from the perspective of U.S. payers., Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and effectiveness of EV in combination with pembrolizumab with chemotherapy in the treatment of mUC patients from U.S. payer perspective. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed., Results: Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of EV and pembrolizumab provided an additional 2.10 LYs and 1.72 QALYs, at an incremental cost of $962,240.8 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $558,973 per QALY. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients ineligible for cisplatin treatment had a lower ICER compared to those who were eligible for cisplatin., Conclusions: From the perspective of US payers, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the combination of EV and pembrolizumab is estimated to not be cost-effective compared to traditional chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of mUC patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Li, Wu, Xie, Xiang, Meng, Tan, Wang and Wan.)

Introduction: The diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Dlbcl) is the most common non-Hodgkin lymphoma and at highest incidence among the elderly. Despite the improved outcomes of patients treated with the first-line (1L) standard of care until the end of 2022, composed by rituximab and polychemotherapy (R-Chop), during the last 20 years, the rate of relapsed and refractory Dlbcl (rrDlbcl) remains elevated. This study has identified and analyzed patients newly diagnosed with Dlbcl and treated with 1L, from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (Ssn)., Methods: From the administrative database of Fondazione Ricerca e Salute (ReS) including ~5.5 million inhabitants/year in Italy, adults with a new in-hospital Dlbcl diagnosis (index date) and treated with 1L in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 were identified and characterized in terms of demographics and comorbidities during a period (from 4 to 8 years) preceding index date. From 1 to 4 years following index date (follow-up), overall survival (Kaplan-Meier curves), percentage distribution of patients by line of therapy including dispensation/administration of chemo-immunotherapy, hemopoietic stem cell transplantation (Hsct), and direct healthcare costs charge to the Ssn, were evaluated., Results: Overall, from the ReS database, 206 patients newly diagnosed with Dlbcl and treated with 1L from 2018 to 2021 in Italy (incidence from 0.9 to 1.7 x100,000 adult inhabitants) were identified. They were mainly older (median age 68 [56; 75] years), males (56%) and affected by ≥2 comorbidities (52%), mostly cardiometabolic. During 4 years of follow-up, 56% of cases in 2018 survived. During the first follow-up year: 73%, 80%, 100% and 35% of cases in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively, received a 2L; 42% and 64% of cases in 2018 and 2020, respectively, received a 3L. At least one Hsct was found as a 2L among cases in 2018, 2020 and 2021. On average, each patient newly diagnosed with Dlbcl and treated with 1L from 2018 to 2021 caused a total expenditure directly charged to the Ssn ranging from € 20,000 to € 30,000 during the first follow-up year (chemo-immunotherapy accounted for 40-53%), which reduced with time in favor of other drugs and Hsct., Conclusions: This analysis confirms the high rate of rrDlbcl and the high economic impact charged to the SSN to support first the chemo-immunotherapy, then the chronic care and the absence of standardized further lines of therapy for patients with rrDlbcl.

Background: Abemaciclib was newly approved for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) high-risk early breast cancer (EBC). Clinical guidelines recommended abemaciclib as the first-line treatment for HR+/ HER2- EBC (early use) or HR+/ HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (delayed use)., Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of early vs delayed use of abemaciclib for treatment of HR+/HER2- high-risk EBC. Early use was defined as combined abemaciclib and endocrine therapy as first-line therapy for EBC, followed by treatment with fulvestrant for MBC. Delayed use was defined as endocrine therapy for EBC, followed by combined abemaciclib and fulvestrant therapy for MBC., Methods: A 5-state model was developed to estimate lifetime costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of hypothetical patients with HR+/ HER2- EBC from a third-party US payer's perspective. Key clinical and safety data were derived from the monarchE and MONARCH 2 clinical trials. Costs, utilities, and disutility values of adverse events were obtained from the literature. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of early vs delayed abemaciclib use and compared it with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per LY or QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed to test the robustness of the base-case model., Results: Base-case analysis showed early use yielded 21.08 LYs and 17.93 QALYs for $586,213 and delayed use yielded 11.14 LYs and 9.38 QALYs for $157,576. The ICER of early vs delayed use was $43,136/LY and $50,104/QALY, which was cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $100,000. The PSA result indicated that a 94.6% likelihood of early use (vs delayed use) was cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $100,000 per QALY., Conclusions: This study suggests that giving abemaciclib in the early stage rather than waiting until patients develop metastatic disease (current standard of care in MBC) is a cost-effective strategy.

Background: Cancer is among the leading causes of death globally, posing a significant economic burden on the healthcare sector. Among other types of cancer in Indonesia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) ranks fifth in terms of prevalence. Chemotherapy for NHL patients is funded by a national health insurance scheme through the National Healthcare Insurance and Social Security/Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional (JKN)., Objective: This study aimed to analyze cost burden of chemotherapy for JKN patients with NHL., Data Source: A retrospective cross-sectional observational study was conducted among NHL patients receiving chemotherapy at a hospital in East Java, Indonesia in 2021. Data were collected from medical record documents and a total of 44 patient visits were recorded in this study., Data Summary: The result showed that patient visits were dominated by females (55%), a significant proportion were aged 31 to 40 years (32%), and the majority were JKN participants in the Contribution Assistance Recipients/Penerima Bantuan Iuran (PBI) category (64%). The most chemotherapy regimen given was R-CHOP (68%) and the mean total cost for NHL patients was Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) 5,178,146. The highest mean cost burden was on chemotherapy drugs with a value of IDR 6,333,315. Based on the regimen, the highest cost burden was R-CHOP-Bleo with a mean cost of IDR 8,764,091., Conclusion: Based on the results, the highest cost burden for chemotherapy among JKN patients with NHL in Indonesia was attributed to R-CHOP-Bleo regimen with a mean of IDR 8,764,091., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objectives: Novel interventions (axicabtagene ciloleucel [axi-cel], lisocabtagene maraleucel [liso-cel], tafasitamab-lenalidomide [Tafa-L], polatuzumab-rituximab-bendamustine [pola-BR]) improve clinical outcomes in second-line (2 L) treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with early relapse or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The costs vary depending on the respective treatment regimen and the treatment duration, difficult comparability in reimbursement decisions. The objective was to analyze the health economic impacts of novel 2 L interventions and conventional immunochemotherapies (bendamustine-rituximab [BR], rituximab-gemcitabine-oxaliplatin [R-GemOx]) from a German healthcare payer's perspective as a function of treatment duration., Methods: An economic model was developed to compare treatment costs of 2 L interventions depending on the treatment duration. Treatment duration was measured by progression-free survival (PFS), identified based on a systematic review. Total and average costs were calculated over 5 years to evaluate incremental costs at median PFS for each intervention., Results: Average costs per month at median PFS ranged from €2846 (95% CI: 5067-1641) to €40 535 (95% CI: 91180-N/A) for BR and liso-cel, respectively. Incremental costs at the lowest median PFS (R-GemOx: 5.3 months) revealed -€664, €5560, €11 817, €53 145, and €67 745 for BR, Tafa-L, pola-BR, axi-cel, and liso-cel as compared to R-GemOx, respectively., Conclusions: Analyses uncovered a variation of incremental costs of 2 L transplant-ineligible DLBCL interventions as a function of time leading to amortization of high-priced interventions., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: ARASENS was a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial comparing darolutamide + docetaxel + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with placebo + docetaxel + ADT in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC)., Objective: To use clinical trial data from ARASENS to understand whether the addition of darolutamide to docetaxel + ADT leads to increased hospitalizations and to estimate the budget impact on the US health care system., Methods: We used mixed-effects negative binomial regression to estimate hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates and length of hospital stay (LoHS) counts. Hospitalization rates were estimated per treatment arm for the period during and after administration of docetaxel. Based on these estimates, a budget impact analysis evaluated the hospitalization costs (including ICU admissions) and standalone ICU hospitalization costs for the totality of the US population over a 5-year time horizon. The analysis compared a scenario without darolutamide vs one with darolutamide included in the US payer formulary. Hospitalization estimates were varied in a one-way sensitivity analysis., Results: The first 4 months of treatment (when patients were receiving docetaxel) were associated with increased hospitalizations across both arms. The addition of darolutamide was associated with a numerical reduction in the rate of hospitalization (per year) due to any reason both during docetaxel treatment (1.01 visits per year [95% CI = 0.82-1.20] vs 1.18 visits per year [95% CI = 0.96-1.41]) and after docetaxel treatment (0.28 visits per year [95% CI = 0.23-0.34] vs 0.33 visits per year [95% CI = 0.27-0.40]). Darolutamide was associated with a marginally longer LoHS per hospitalization compared with placebo (+1.90 days per year) both during and after docetaxel treatment. ICU admissions were low in the ARASENS data; admission rates were assumed to be the same during and after docetaxel treatment. ICU admission rate estimates were equivalent across arms (0.02 visits per year [95% CI = 0.01-0.03]). The budget impact per treated member per month represents a cost-neutral option after Year 5 with a cumulative budget impact of -$9.71., Conclusions: The addition of darolutamide to docetaxel + ADT was associated with a numerically lower rate of hospitalization but marginally longer LoHS compared with docetaxel + ADT alone. Darolutamide represents a cost-neutral alternative per treated member per month compared with docetaxel + ADT with regard to hospitalizations at the end of a 5-year time horizon.

Introduction: The therapeutic landscape in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) has changed rapidly, with twenty-two drug approvals since 2012. We characterized population-level trends in RRMM therapy selection, survival and cost outcomes associated with RRMM treatment over time., Materials and Methods: Our cohort included adults diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) in the SEER-Medicare database from 2007-2017 who received at least one antimyeloma agent. MM-directed therapies and lines of therapy were identified. Changes in 2LT regimens over time were described. Trends in overall survival from 2LT initiation over time were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for factors associated with survival in MM. Trends in mean inflation-adjusted cost per 12 months of 2LT were analyzed using JoinPoint analysis., Results: A total of 9,822 patients met eligibility criteria, of whom 5,866 (59.7%) received 2LT. By 2018, 46% of 2LT regimens contained at least one agent approved in 2012 or later. Year of 2LT initiation was associated with improved overall survival (HR 0.78 per 5 years, 95% CI 0.74-0.84) after adjustment. Costs associated with 2LT increased over the study period, and the rate of cost increase increased significantly after 2012 (0.89%/year vs. 9.9%/year, P < .001), with higher total costs for regimens containing newer novel agents (mean $224,193 vs. $189,381, P < .001) CONCLUSION: Overall survival after initiation of 2LT has improved, however this has been accompanied by significant increases in costs of RRMM treatment, particularly for patients receiving newer novel agents. These findings provide useful context for existing and future drug approvals in RRMM., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in combination with chemotherapy for patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) from the U.S. payer's perspective., Methods: A cost-effectiveness study was conducted using a Markov model based on ENGOT-en7/MaNGO/AtTEnd clinical trials. The population consisted of patients with EC, stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups. The model simulated patients receiving either atezolizumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated using a Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy in dMMR EC resulted in an incremental gain of 3.31 QALYs but at an additional cost of $855,042, leading to an ICER of $258,391.07/QALY compared to chemotherapy alone. In pMMR EC, there was a gain of 0.50 QALYs with an additional cost of $140,502, resulting in an ICER of $279,239.72/QALY. The overall ICER for EC was $216,459.34/QALY. Scenario analysis indicated that administering atezolizumab for a maximum of 2 years improved cost-effectiveness in dMMR EC, with an ICER of $70,695.96/QALY falling within the predetermined WTP threshold., Conclusion: For patients with advanced or recurrent EC, the combination of atezolizumab and chemotherapy may not prove cost-effective. However, administering atezolizumab for a limited period of maximum 2 years could improve cost-effectiveness in dMMR EC., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Background: Although selpercatinib has shown clinical benefits for rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), its cost-effectiveness requires further evaluation., Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of selpercatinib versus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab in the first-line treatment of RET fusion-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the United States (US) payer., Method: A partitioned survival model was developed based on data from the LIBRETTO-431 trial. Cost and utility values for the health state were obtained from database data or published literature. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the model., Results: Selpercatinib increased QALYs in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC by 0.90 compared to chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab, with an additional cost of $542,517.45, resulting in an ICER of $603,286.49/QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold ($150,000) in the US. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility of progressed disease, the utility of progression-free survival, the price of selpercatinib, the discount, the price of pemetrexed, and the price of pembrolizumab had the greatest influence on the cost- effectiveness analysis process. In the PSA, 99.9% of the scatter points were distributed above the US WTP threshold of $150,000., Conclusion: From the perspective of the US payer, selpercatinib is not cost-effective compared to chemotherapy and pembrolizumab for first-line treatment in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest All of the authors have indicated that they have no conflicts of interest with regard to the content of the article. This manuscript is original and has not been previously published, nor has it been simultaneously submitted to any other journal., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy has shown significant clinical benefits in improving overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC)., Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective and the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system., Method: We conducted an economic evaluation using a Markov state-transition model, reflecting the US payer perspective and the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Baseline patient characteristics and essential clinical data were obtained from the RATIONALE-312 trial. The costs and utilities were derived from open-access databases and published literature. The primary outcomes measured included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefit (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Uncertainties in the model were addressed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA)., Results: In the base-case analysis, the addition of tislelizumab to chemotherapy provided an incremental gain of 0.16 QALYs at an additional cost of $7430.73, resulting in an ICER of $46,132.33 per QALY. Although above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China of $38,042.49 per QALY, the cost-effectiveness was marginal, with an INHB of - 0.03 QALYs and an INMB of $- 1303.06. In the US, despite a slightly higher effectiveness gain of 0.28 QALYs, the increased cost of $45,157.35 resulted in an unfavorable ICER of $163,885.06 per QALY, exceeding the US WTP threshold of $150,000.00. PSA showed probabilities of cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy at 17.18% in China and 40.41% in the US., Conclusion: Tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy was not a cost-effective first-line treatment option for ES-SCLC in China or the US; however, the margin of cost-effectiveness was narrow., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Although amivantamab has shown clinical benefits for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertions, its cost-effectiveness requires further investigation., Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of amivantamab plus chemotherapy for the treatment of NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions from the United States payer perspective., Method: A partitioned survival model was developed based on the data from the PAPILLON trial. Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services and published literature, and utility values were derived from previous studies. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to both costs and outcomes. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis, were conducted to test the model stability., Results: Amivantamab plus chemotherapy yielded an additional 1.12 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) while increasing costs by $483,769.50 relative to the chemotherapy regimen, leading to an ICER of $432,401.16/QALY. The combination of amivantamab with chemotherapy was not cost effective at a threshold of $150,000/QALY. In the scenario analysis, the results showed that the ICERs were $263,680.69/QALY and $418,416.35/QALY when different utility values and 10-year time horizons were adopted, respectively. For PSA, the probability that amivantamab plus chemotherapy would be cost-effective was 0% if the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $150,000/QALY., Conclusion: Amivantamab plus chemotherapy is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions. Reducing the cost of amivantamab may produce favorable economic outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest All of the authors have indicated that they have no conflicts of interest with regard to the content of the article. This manuscript is original and has not been previously published, nor has it been simultaneously submitted to any other journal., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Purpose: The clinical effectiveness of triple chemotherapy consisting of gemcitabine, cisplatin plus either S-1 (GCS), durvalumab (DGC), or pembrolizumab (PGC) as first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) has been reported. However, their comparative cost-effectiveness is unclear. We conducted a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Japanese healthcare payer., Methods: A 10-year partitioned survival model was constructed by comparing the time-dependent hazards of the KHBO1401-MITSUBA, TOPAZ-1, and KEYNOTE-966 trials. The cost and utility came from previously published reports. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were used to measure the effects on health. Costs for direct medical care were taken into account. There was a one-way analysis and a probability sensitivity analysis. A willingness-to-pay threshold of 7.5 million yen (57,034 USD) per QALY was defined., Results: The incremental costs per QALY for GCS, DGC, and PGC in the base case study were 3,779,374 JPY (28,740 USD), 86,058,056 JPY (65,4434 USD), and 28,982,059 JPY (220,396 USD), respectively. No parameter had an influence beyond the threshold in a one-way sensitivity analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of GCS, DGC, and PGC being cost-effective at the threshold was 85.6%, 0%, and 0%, respectively., Conclusion: Given the current circumstances, it is probable that triple therapy utilizing GCS will emerge as a plausible and efficient primary chemotherapy strategy for patients with advanced BTC in the Japanese healthcare system, as opposed to DGC and PGC., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: Icotinib has been approved for adjuvant treatment of stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in China, yet the long-term costs and outcomes of this strategy are unknown. Thus, we examined the cost effectiveness of adjuvant icotinib, compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, for the treatment of resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC., Design: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, comparing 2-year adjuvant icotinib with four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using a Markov model. Model inputs were obtained from local data and literature. The influence of model parameters and assumptions was explored in sensitivity analyses. All costs are expressed in 2022 US dollars, and costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times the per capita gross domestic product., Setting: The Chinese healthcare system perspective., Participants: A hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC., Interventions: Icotinib versus chemotherapy., Primary Outcome Measure: Costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio., Results: The incremental cost per QALY gained with the use of 2-year icotinib, from the Chinese healthcare system perspective, was $3440.66 compared with adjuvant chemotherapy. At a WTP threshold of $40 500, adjuvant icotinib was the optimal treatment in over 99% of replications. The interpretation of the results was insensitive to model and input assumptions., Conclusions: Compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant icotinib may be a cost-effective treatment for resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC as the WTP threshold is set at $40 500 per QALY., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy approved for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In the phase 3 trial, CARTITUDE-4 (NCT04181827), cilta-cel demonstrated improved efficacy vs. standard of care (SOC; daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone [DPd] or pomalidomide plus bortezomib and dexamethasone [PVd]) with a ≥ complete response (≥CR) rate of 73.1% vs. 21.8%., Methods: A cost-per-responder model was developed to assess the value of cilta-cel and SOC (87% DPd and 13% PVd) based on the CARTITUDE-4 trial data from a US mixed payer perspective (76.7% commercial, 23.3% Medicare). The model was developed using progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and ≥CR endpoints from CARTITUDE-4 over a period of 25.4 months. Inpatient stays, outpatient visits, drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring costs were included. The base-case model assumed an inpatient setting for each cilta-cel infusion; another scenario included 30% outpatient and 70% inpatient infusions. Costs of managing grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and grade 1-4 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity were included. Subsequent therapy costs were incurred after disease progression; terminal care costs were considered upon death events. Outcomes included total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS between cilta-cel and SOC. Costs were adjusted to 2024 US dollars., Results: Total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and total cost per month in PFS were estimated at $704,641, $963,941, and $30,978 for cilta-cel, respectively, and $840,730, $3,856,559, and $42,520 for SOC over the 25.4-month period. Cost drivers included treatment acquisition costs before progression and subsequent treatment costs ($451,318 and $111,637 for cilta-cel; $529,795 and $265,167 for SOC). A scenario analysis in which 30% of patients received an outpatient infusion (assuming the same payer mix) showed a lower cost per complete responder for cilta-cel ($956,523) than those with an infusion in the inpatient setting exclusively., Discussion: This analysis estimated that cost per treated patient, cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS for cilta-cel were remarkably lower than for DPd or PVd, highlighting the substantial clinical and economic benefit of cilta-cel for patients with RRMM., Competing Interests: DH has consulted for BMS, Janssen, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Kite, and Karyopharm; has received research funding from BMS, Karyopharm, and the Pentecost Family Myeloma Research Center. OP has served on a speaker’s bureau for Adaptive Biotechnologies. SS and EZ are employed by Evidera and were contracted by Janssen to work on this project. SU has served in a consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, and Takeda; and has received research funding from Amgen, Array BioPharma, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, and SkylineDx. SJ has served in a consulting or advisory role for BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend Biotech USA Inc., Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda; and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from BMS and Janssen. XL, YZ, and ZQ are currently employed at Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and own Johnson & Johnson stock. SH is currently employed at Janssen Global Services, LLC, and owns Johnson & Johnson stock. This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company and Legend Biotech USA Inc. The sponsors were involved in study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, and the decision to submit it for publication., (Copyright © 2024 Hansen, Lu, Puglianini, Sorensen, Usmani, Zhang, Huo, Zhang, Qureshi and Jagannath.)

Background: Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient's risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression., Objectives: The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab., Methods: The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme., Results: The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab., Conclusions: Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

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., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Objective: There has been a shift toward systemic treatment intensification for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Recent trials have demonstrated the efficacy of triplet therapy with an androgen receptor signalling inhibitor (ARSI), docetaxel, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, ARSI treatment is expensive. The objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of current treatments strategies for men with mHSPC., Methods: We developed a Markov state-transition model to simulate outcomes for men with newly diagnosed mHSPC. For the simulation, patients were entered in the model in the mHSPC disease state before progressing to castration-resistant disease and finally dying from prostate cancer. Costs were calculated from a USA health sector perspective in 2022 US dollars. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for uncertainty in the parameter estimates. We also performed scenario analyses for costs in the UK and Australian health sectors., Key Findings and Limitations: Treatment intensification with doublet and triplet therapy resulted in an improvement in quality-adjusted survival for all strategies in comparison to ADT monotherapy. However, only docetaxel doublet therapy was cost effective at standard thresholds, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $13 647. The cost of ARSIs needed to be discounted by 47-70% before they were cost effective. Only medication costs impacted the model results. If the generic price for abiraterone acetate is used, then triplet therapy with abiraterone is the best-value option. Similar results were obtained for analyses for the UK and Australian health sectors., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Treatment intensification with ARSIs in men with mHSPC results in better quality-adjusted survival but is not cost effective according to standard thresholds. The costs of these medications would need to be heavily discounted before they are cost effective. The cost of generic ARSIs, once available, would render these strategies cost effective., Patient Summary: This report examines whether increasing the number of systemic drugs used to treat a patient's metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is cost effective for the health care system. We found that the additional cost of triplet therapy does not justify the increase in patient benefit., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death all over the world, and brings a heavy social economic burden especially in China. Several immuno-combination therapies have shown promising efficacy in the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC and are widely used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, which combination is the most affordable one is unknown. Our study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the immuno-combinations as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC from the perspective of Chinese payers., Methods: A Markov model was built according to five multicenter, phase III, open-label, randomized trials (Himalaya, IMbrave150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, LEAP-002) to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tremelimumab plus durvalumab (STRIDE), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B), sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) (S + B), camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (C + R), and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (P + L). Three disease states were included: progression free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) as well as death. Medical costs were searched from West China Hospital, published literatures or the Red Book. Cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated to compare costs among different combinations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robust of the model., Results: The total cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of C + R, S + B, P + L, A + B and STRIDE were $12,109.27 and 0.91, $26,961.60 and 1.12, $55,382.53 and 0.83, $70,985.06 and 0.90, $84,589.01 and 0.73, respectively, resulting in the most cost-effective strategy of C + R with CER of $13,306.89 per QALY followed by S + B with CER of $24,072.86 per QALY. Compared with C + R, the ICER of S + B strategy was $70,725.38 per QALY, which would become the most cost-effective when the willing-to-pay threshold exceeded $73,500/QALY. In the subgroup analysis, with the application of Asia results in Leap-002 trial, the model results were the same as global data. In the sensitivity analysis, with the variation of parameters, the results were robust., Conclusion: As one of the promising immuno-combination therapies in the first-line systemic treatment of HCC, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib demonstrated the potential to be the most cost-effective strategy, which warranted further studies to best inform the real-world clinical practices., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Determine the cost-effectiveness for hysterectomy versus standard of care single agent chemotherapy for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN)., Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing single agent chemotherapy with hysterectomy using decision analysis and Markov modeling from a healthcare payer perspective in Canada. The base case was a 40-year-old patient with low-risk non-metastatic GTN that completed childbearing. Outcomes were life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and adjusted 2022 costs (CAD). Discounting was 1.5% annually and the time horizon was the patient's lifetime. Model validation included face validity, deterministic sensitivity analyses, and scenario analysis., Results: Mean costs for chemotherapy and hysterectomy arms were $34,507 and $17,363, respectively, while effectiveness measure were 30.37 QALYs and 31.04 LYs versus 30.14 QALYs and 30.82 Lys, respectively. The ICER was $74,526 (USD $54,516) per QALY. Thresholds favoring hysterectomy effectiveness were 30-day hysterectomy mortality below 0.2% and recurrence risk during surveillance above 9.2% (low-risk) and 33.4% (high-risk). Scenario analyses for Dactinomycin and Methotrexate led to similar results. Sensitivity analysis using tornado analysis found the cost to be most influenced by single agent chemotherapy cost and risk of resistance, number of weeks of chemotherapy, and probability of postoperative mortality., Conclusion: Compared to hysterectomy, single agent chemotherapy as a first-line treatment costs $74,526 for each additional QALY gained. Given that this cost falls below the accepted $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold and waitlist limitations within public healthcare systems, these results support the continued use of chemotherapy as standard of care approach for low-risk GTN., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Wilms Africa studies implemented an adapted Wilm's tumor (WT) treatment protocol in sub-Saharan Africa in two phases. Phase I began with four sites and provided out-of-pocket costs. Phase II expanded the number of sites, but lost funding provision. Objective is to describe the outcomes of Phase II and compare with Phase I., Methods: Wilms Africa Phase I (n = 4 sites; 2014-2018) and Phase II (n = 8 sites; 2021-2022) used adapted treatment protocols. Funding for families' out-of-pocket costs was provided during Phase I but not Phase II. Eligibility criteria were age less than 16 years and newly diagnosed unilateral WT. We documented patients' outcome at the end of planned first-line treatment categorized as treatment abandonment, death during treatment, and disease-related events (death before treatment, persistent disease, relapse, or progressive disease). Sensitivity analysis compared outcomes in the same four sites., Results: We included 431 patients in Phase I (n = 201) and Phase II (n = 230). The proportion alive without evidence of disease decreased from 69% in Phase I to 54% in Phase II at all sites (p = .002) and 58% at the original four sites (p = .04). Treatment abandonment increased overall from 12% to 26% (p < .001), and was 20% (p = .04) at the original four sites. Disease-related events (5% vs. 6% vs. 6%) and deaths during treatment (14% vs. 14% vs. 17%) were similar., Conclusion: Provision of out-of-pocket costs was important to improve patient outcomes at the end of planned first-line treatment in WT. Prevention of treatment abandonment remains an important challenge., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare adverse event (AE) management costs for fruquintinib, regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) and trifluridine/tipiracil+bevacizumab (T/T+bev) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy from the US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. Materials & methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to calculate the per-patient and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) AE costs using rates of grade 3/4 AEs with incidence ≥5% in clinical trials, event-specific management costs and duration treatment. Anchored comparisons of AE costs were calculated using a difference-in-differences approach with best supportive care (BSC) as a common reference. AE rates and treatment duration were obtained from clinical trials: FRESCO and FRESCO-2 (fruquintinib), RECOURSE (T/T), CORRECT (regorafenib) and SUNLIGHT (T/T, T/T+bev). AE management costs for the commercial and Medicare perspectives were obtained from publicly available sources. Results: From the commercial perspective, the AE costs (presented as per-patient, PPPM) were: $4015, $1091 for fruquintinib (FRESCO); $4253, $1390 for fruquintinib (FRESCO-2); $17,110, $11,104 for T/T (RECOURSE); $9851, $4691 for T/T (SUNLIGHT); $8199, $4823 for regorafenib; and $11,620, $2324 for T/T+bev. These results were consistent in anchored comparisons: the difference-in-difference for fruquintinib based on FRESCO was -$1929 versus regorafenib and -$11,427 versus T/T; for fruquintinib based on FRESCO-2 was -$2257 versus regorafenib and -$11,756 versus T/T. Across all analyses, results were consistent from the Medicare perspective. Conclusion: Fruquintinib was associated with lower AE management costs compared with regorafenib, T/T and T/T+bev for patients with previously treated mCRC. This evidence has direct implications for treatment, formulary and pathways decision-making in this patient population.

Purpose: Real-world evidence comparing health care resource use (HRU) and costs between novel targeted therapies among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is lacking. We compared all-cause and CLL-specific HRU and costs between patients initiated on B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor (venetoclax)- or Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi)-based regimens in the second-line (2L) setting., Methods: This is a retrospective observational study using Optum Clinformatics Data Mart of adult patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma who received 2L venetoclax- or BTKi-based regimens (January 2018-December 2021) for the first time and had ≥one CLL diagnostic claim after 2L initiation and ≥two claims for venetoclax or BTKi. Baseline characteristics were balanced using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights. Mean monthly cost difference (MMCD) between cohorts for all-cause and CLL-specific per patient per month (PPPM) costs was estimated. Rates of PPPM-HRU were compared between cohorts using rate ratios (RRs)., Results: Of 280 patients, median age 75.5 years, 64.6% and 35.4% received BTKi- versus venetoclax-based regimens, respectively. Most BTKi-treated patients received monotherapy (88.4%), whereas 62.3% of venetoclax-treated patients received combination therapy with anti-CD20 agents. The median duration of 2L therapy was 11.6 and 11.0 months for BTKi versus venetoclax cohorts, respectively. All-cause total costs were lower for venetoclax versus BTKi (MMCD [SE], $-2,497.64 [$1,006.77] in US dollars (USD); P = .01), driven by lower medication costs offsetting medical costs; trends were similar for CLL-specific estimates. Outpatient HRU was higher for venetoclax versus BTKi (RR all-cause: 1.22 versus CLL-specific: 1.64)., Conclusion: Venetoclax was associated with total monthly cost savings versus BTKis, illustrating the economic value of time-limited venetoclax-based regimens in the 2L setting.