Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in American patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A cost‐effectiveness analysis.

Background: Toripalimab, combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin, has been approved as the first‐line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (RM‐NPC), representing a significant milestone as the first FDA‐approved innovative therapy for this condition. Despite this achievement, there's a lack of data on the cost‐effectiveness of toripalimab for RM‐NPC patients in the American context. Methods: To assess the cost‐effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, a 3‐state partitioned survival model was constructed. The study involved participants with characteristics matching those in the JUPITER‐02 trial. Cost and utility inputs were collected from literature. Main outcomes measured were quality‐adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of results. Results: The study found that the toripalimab regimen resulted in 4.390 QALYs at a cost of $361,813, while the chemotherapy‐only regimen yielded 1.685 QALYs at a cost of $161,632. This translates to an ICER of $74,004/QALY, below the willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that utility values, discount rate, and the price of toripalimab significantly impact INMB. With an 87.10% probability of being cost‐effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis supports toripalimab plus chemotherapy as a viable option. Scenario analysis showed that toripalimab remains cost‐effective unless its price increases by 125%. Additionally, a simulated 15‐year study period increases the ICER to $88,026/QALY. Subgroup analysis revealed ICERs of $76,538/QALY for PD‐L1 positive and $70,158/QALY for PD‐L1 negative groups. Conclusions: Toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy is likely to be a cost‐effective alternative to standard chemotherapy for American patients with RM‐NPC. This evidence can guide clinical and reimbursement decision‐making in treating RM‐NPC patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]