Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Free access
Research Article
31 August 2022

Cost–effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab for patients with advanced esophageal cancer at PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10

Authors: Qian Xie, Yaxin Luo, and Xingchen Peng https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7534-4903 [email protected]Author Info & Affiliations
Volume 11, Number 15
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2021-0165
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: Due to the high price of pembrolizumab, it is still unknown whether the use of pembrolizumab for advanced esophageal cancer would be a cost-effective option for patients whose PD-L1 combined positive score is ≥10. Methods: A Markov simulation model was performed based on clinical trial KEYNOTE-181. Incremental cost–effectiveness ratios were calculated to compare the two treatments. Results: The total costs were US$193,575.60 and $8789.24 for pembrolizumab and chemotherapy treatment, respectively. The pembrolizumab group produced 0.93 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), while the chemotherapy group produced 0.58 QALYs. Thus, patients in the pembrolizumab group spent an additional US$184,786.36 and produced 0.35 QALYs more than the chemotherapy group, which resulted in an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of US$527,961.03 per QALY. Conclusion: For patients with advanced esophageal cancer whose PD-L1 combined positive score is ≥10, pembrolizumab is not a cost-effective second-line therapy versus chemotherapy from the US payer perspective.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary materials (9).docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
National Cancer Institute. SEER stat fact sheet: stomach cancer (2019). https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/stomach.html
Google Scholar
2.
Anonymous. Erratum to: Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries (CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, (2018), 68, 6, (394–424), 10.3322/caac.21492). CA Cancer J. Clin. 70(4), 313 (2020).
Crossref
Google Scholar
3.
Lin Y, Totsuka Y, He Y et al. Epidemiology of esophageal cancer in Japan and China. J. Epidemiol. 23(4), 233–242 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Yang S, Lin S, Li N et al. Burden, trends, and risk factors of esophageal cancer in China from 1990 to 2017: an up-to-date overview and comparison with those in Japan and South Korea. J. Hematol. Oncol. 13(1), 146 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Kitagawa Y, Uno T, Oyama T et al. Esophageal cancer practice guidelines 2017 edited by the Japan Esophageal Society: part 1. Esophagus 16(1), 1–24 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Ajani JA, D'Amico TA, Bentrem DJ et al. Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J. Natl Compr. Canc. Netw. 17(7), 855–883 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Shah MA. Update on metastatic gastric and esophageal cancers. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(16), 1760–1769 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Doi T, Piha-Paul SA, Jalal SI et al. Safety and antitumor activity of the anti-programmed death-1 antibody pembrolizumab in patients with advanced esophageal carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 36(1), 61–67 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Kudo T, Hamamoto Y, Kato K et al. Nivolumab treatment for oesophageal squamous-cell carcinoma: an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 18(5), 631–639 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu TE, Pluzanski A et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in lung cancer with a high tumor mutational burden. N. Engl. J. Med. 378(22), 2093–2104 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Ready N, Hellmann MD, Awad MM et al. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 568): outcomes by programmed death ligand 1 and tumor mutational burden as biomarkers. J. Clin. Oncol. 37(12), 992–1000 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
Reck M, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(19), 1823–1833 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Nakagawa K, Yang J-H, Park K et al. Checkmate 722: a phase 3 trial of nivolumab with chemotherapy or ipilimumab vs chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutation, T790M-negative stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. Ann. Oncol. 27 (2016).
Google Scholar
14.
Shah MA, Kojima T, Hochhauser D et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab for heavily pretreated patients with advanced, metastatic adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: the phase 2 KEYNOTE-180 study. JAMA Oncol. 5(4), 546–550 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
KEYTRUDA®/TM, prescribing information. Merck, Berlin,Germany (2020). www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/k/keytruda/keytruda_pi.pdf
Google Scholar
16.
Kojima T, Shah MA, Muro K et al. Randomized phase III KEYNOTE-181 study of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in advanced esophageal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. (2020).
Google Scholar
•• We obtained all the survival data from this published trial and this is the base of our study.
17.
Hoyle MW, Henley W. Improved curve fits to summary survival data: application to economic evaluation of health technologies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 11, 139 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• We generated pseudoindividual patient data based on the literature, which can improve the estimation accuracy of survival time.
18.
Faslodex prices, coupons and patient assistance programs (2020). www.drugs.com/price-guide/faslodex
Google Scholar
19.
Wu Q, Zhang P, Wang X, Zhang M, Liao W, Li Q. Cost–effectiveness of capecitabine + irinotecan versus leucovorin + fluorouracil + irinotecan in the second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in China. Clin. Therapeut. 42(11), 2148–2158.e2142 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
20.
She L, Hu H, Liao M et al. Cost–effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor proportion score 1% or greater. Lung Cancer 138, 88–94 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Fryar CD, Kruszon-Moran D, Gu Q, Ogden CL. Mean body weight, height, waist circumference, and body mass index among adults: United States, 1999–2000 through 2015–2016. Nat. Health Stat. Rep. (122), 1–16 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
22.
Goldstein DA, Chen Q, Ayer T et al. First- and second-line bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a United States-based cost–effectiveness analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(10), 1112–1118 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Adenis A, Kulkarni A, Girotto GC et al. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of pembrolizumab (pembro) versus physician choice single-agent paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan in subjects with advanced/metastatic adenocarcinoma (ACC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the esophagus that has progressed after first-line standard therapy (KEYNOTE- 181). J. Clin. Oncol. 37 (2019).
Google Scholar
• Because quality-of-life data could not be obtained from the KEYNOTE-181 trial, we obtained utilities according to the literature.
24.
Abraham P, Wang L, Jiang Z, Gricar J, Tan H, Kelly RJ. Healthcare utilization and total costs of care among patients with advanced metastatic gastric and esophageal cancer. Future Oncol. 17(3), 291–299 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Because quality-of-life data could not be obtained from the KEYNOTE-181 trial, we obtained utilities according to the literature.
25.
Wan X, Zhang Y, Tan C, Zeng X, Peng L. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a cost–effectiveness analysis. JAMA Oncol. 5(4), 491–496 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• The willingness-to-pay threshold in the USA adopted in our study was based on the literature.
26.
Pardoll DM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 12(4), 252–264 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
27.
Massetti M, Even C, Geoffrois L et al. PCN81 cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab for the treatment of recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in patients whose tumor expressed programmed death-ligand 1 at combined positive score >=1 in France. Value Health 23, S436 (2020).
Google Scholar
28.
Loong HH, Wong CKH, Leung LKS et al. Cost–effectiveness of PD-L1-based test-and-treat strategy with pembrolizumab as the first-line treatment for metastatic NSCLC in Hong Kong. Pharmacoecon. Open 4(2), 235–247 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Similar analyses showed that pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment when compared with platinum doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment in non-small-cell lung cancer patients whose PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥50%.
29.
Wymer KM, Sharma V, Saigal CS et al. Cost–effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab for bcg-unresponsive carcinoma in situ of the bladder. J. Urol. 205(5), 1326–1335 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
30.
Kitagawa Y, Uno T, Oyama T et al. Esophageal cancer practice guidelines 2017 edited by the Japan esophageal society: part 2. Esophagus 16(1), 25–43 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
31.
Zhou K, Zhou J, Zhang M, Liao W, Li Q. Cost–effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) for heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 22(3), 337–343 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
|