0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cost-effectiveness analysis of Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the perspective of the Chinese health service system.

          Methods

          A lifetime partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed to cost-effectively analyze Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC. The clinical and safety data were derived from a recently randomized clinical trial (RATIONALE-301). Utilities were collected from the published literature. Costs were obtained from an open-access database ( http://www.yaozh.com) and previous studies. The model cycle was 21 days, according to the RATIONALE-301 study, and the simulation period was patients’ lifetime. Long-term direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were determined. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation index. one-way sensitivity analysis (OSWA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to analyze the uncertainty of parameters and to adjust and verify the stability of the baseline results.

          Results

          The Tislelizumab group generated a cost of $39,746.34 and brought health benefits to 2.146 QALYs, while the cost and utility of the Sorafenib group were $26750.95 and 1.578 QALYs, respectively. The Tislelizumab group increased QALYs by 0.568, the incremental cost was $12995.39, and the ICER was $22869.64/QALY, lower than the willingness to pay threshold (WTP). OSWA results showed that the utility of progressed disease (PD), cost of Camrelizumab, and cost of Tislelizumab were the main factors affecting the ICER. PSA results showed that, within 1000 times the Monte Carlo simulation, the cost of the Tislelizumab group was lower than three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China ($37653/QALY). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) revealed that when WTP was no less than $12251.00, the Tislelizumab group was the dominant scheme, and the economic advantage grew with an increasing WTP. When WTP ≥ $19000.00, the Tislelizumab group became the absolute economic advantage.

          Conclusion

          Under the current economic conditions in China, the Tislelizumab therapeutic scheme is more cost-effective than the Sorafenib therapeutic scheme for treating patients with unresectable HCC.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

          This article provides an update on the global cancer burden using the GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Worldwide, an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases (18.1 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and almost 10.0 million cancer deaths (9.9 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurred in 2020. Female breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases (11.7%), followed by lung (11.4%), colorectal (10.0 %), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancers. Lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18%), followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%), stomach (7.7%), and female breast (6.9%) cancers. Overall incidence was from 2-fold to 3-fold higher in transitioned versus transitioning countries for both sexes, whereas mortality varied <2-fold for men and little for women. Death rates for female breast and cervical cancers, however, were considerably higher in transitioning versus transitioned countries (15.0 vs 12.8 per 100,000 and 12.4 vs 5.2 per 100,000, respectively). The global cancer burden is expected to be 28.4 million cases in 2040, a 47% rise from 2020, with a larger increase in transitioning (64% to 95%) versus transitioned (32% to 56%) countries due to demographic changes, although this may be further exacerbated by increasing risk factors associated with globalization and a growing economy. Efforts to build a sustainable infrastructure for the dissemination of cancer prevention measures and provision of cancer care in transitioning countries is critical for global cancer control.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pembrolizumab As Second-Line Therapy in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in KEYNOTE-240: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial

            Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and safety in the phase II KEYNOTE-224 trial in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in this population. This randomized, double-blind, phase III study was conducted at 119 medical centers in 27 countries. Eligible patients with advanced HCC, previously treated with sorafenib, were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS; one-sided significance thresholds, P = .0174 [final analysis] and P = .002 [first interim analysis], respectively). Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug. Between May 31, 2016, and November 23, 2017, 413 patients were randomly assigned. As of January 2, 2019, median follow-up was 13.8 months for pembrolizumab and 10.6 months for placebo. Median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 16.0 months) for pembrolizumab versus 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.5 months) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.781; 95% CI, 0.611 to 0.998; P = .0238). Median PFS for pembrolizumab was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 4.1 months) for placebo at the first interim analysis (HR, 0.775; 95% CI, 0.609 to 0.987; P = .0186) and 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.0 months) at final analysis (HR, 0.718; 95% CI, 0.570 to 0.904; P = .0022). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 147 (52.7%) and 62 patients (46.3%) for pembrolizumab versus placebo; those that were treatment related occurred in 52 (18.6%) and 10 patients (7.5%), respectively. No hepatitis C or B flares were identified. In this study, OS and PFS did not reach statistical significance per specified criteria. The results are consistent with those of KEYNOTE-224, supporting a favorable risk-to-benefit ratio for pembrolizumab in this population.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Previously Treated With Sorafenib : The CheckMate 040 Randomized Clinical Trial

              Question Does adding ipilimumab to nivolumab improve clinical outcomes for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib? Findings In the CheckMate 040 randomized clinical trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular cancer previously treated with sorafenib, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to 3 different treatment arms to evaluate different dosing regimens. Investigator-assessed objective response rate was greater than 30% across treatment arms, and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to high overall survival rates and had a manageable safety profile. Meaning The manageable safety profile and promising response rates observed in this study support further investigation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a treatment option for this patient population. This randomized clinical trial assesses the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib. Importance Most patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are diagnosed with advanced disease not eligible for potentially curative therapies; therefore, new treatment options are needed. Combining nivolumab with ipilimumab may improve clinical outcomes compared with nivolumab monotherapy. Objective To assess efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced HCC who were previously treated with sorafenib. Design, Setting, and Participants CheckMate 040 is a multicenter, open-label, multicohort, phase 1/2 study. In the nivolumab plus ipilimumab cohort, patients were randomized between January 4 and September 26, 2016. Treatment group information was blinded after randomization. Median follow-up was 30.7 months. Data cutoff for this analysis was January 2019. Patients were recruited at 31 centers in 10 countries/territories in Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients had advanced HCC (with/without hepatitis B or C) previously treated with sorafenib. A total of 148 patients were randomized (50 to arm A and 49 each to arms B and C). Interventions Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to either nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, administered every 3 weeks (4 doses), followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (arm A); nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, administered every 3 weeks (4 doses), followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (arm B); or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks (arm C). Main Outcomes and Measures Coprimary end points were safety, tolerability, and objective response rate. Duration of response was also measured (investigator assessed with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1). Results Of 148 total participants, 120 were male (81%). Median (IQR) age was 60 (52.5-66.5). At data cutoff (January 2019), the median follow-up was 30.7 months (IQR, 29.9-34.7). Investigator-assessed objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 20%-47%) in arm A, 27% (95% CI, 15%-41%) in arm B, and 29% (95% CI, 17%-43%) in arm C. Median (range) duration of response was not reached (8.3-33.7+) in arm A and was 15.2 months (4.2-29.9+) in arm B and 21.7 months (2.8-32.7+) in arm C. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events were reported in 46 of 49 patients (94%) in arm A, 35 of 49 patients (71%) in arm B, and 38 of 48 patients (79%) in arm C; there was 1 treatment-related death (arm A; grade 5 pneumonitis). Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had manageable safety, promising objective response rate, and durable responses. The arm A regimen (4 doses nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks) received accelerated approval in the US based on the results of this study. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01658878
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: Software
                Role: Data curation
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: Supervision
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: Supervision
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Project administrationRole: Supervision
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                4 March 2024
                2024
                : 19
                : 3
                : e0295090
                Affiliations
                [1 ] College of Clinical Medicine, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China
                [2 ] Guangzhou ZhongWei Public Health Technology Accessment Institute, Guangzhou, China
                Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, TAIWAN
                Author notes

                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.

                ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7188-8989
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3437-8987
                Article
                PONE-D-23-37305
                10.1371/journal.pone.0295090
                10911588
                38437209
                004e3713-bb8c-4266-ae7d-7d7240446a66
                © 2024 Chen 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.

                History
                : 14 November 2023
                : 14 February 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 2, Pages: 13
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100014718, Innovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China;
                Award ID: 82374314
                Award Recipient :
                This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (GrantNo.82374314).
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancers and Neoplasms
                Carcinoma
                Hepatocellular Carcinoma
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancers and Neoplasms
                Gastrointestinal Tumors
                Hepatocellular Carcinoma
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Gastroenterology and Hepatology
                Liver Diseases
                Hepatocellular Carcinoma
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancer Treatment
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Economic Analysis
                Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Health Economics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Economics
                People and Places
                Geographical Locations
                Asia
                China
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Physiology
                Physiological Parameters
                Body Weight
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Body Fluids
                Blood
                Platelets
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Body Fluids
                Blood
                Platelets
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Physiology
                Body Fluids
                Blood
                Platelets
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Cell Biology
                Cellular Types
                Animal Cells
                Blood Cells
                Platelets
                Custom metadata
                The clinical and safety data were derived from a recently randomized clinical trial (RATIONALE-301). Utilities were collected from the published literature included in PubMed, Web of science, Embase Cochrane, CNKI, Wanfang and Weipa. Costs were obtained from an open-access database ( http://www.yaozh.com) and previous studies.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article