Cost-effectiveness of Paclitaxel + Ramucirumab Combination Therapy for Advanced Gastric Cancer Progressing After First-line Chemotherapy in Japan

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Systemic Treatments for Advanced and Metastatic Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in the development of biomarker-directed therapy and immunotherapy, for advanced and metastatic gastric cancers, have the potential to improve survival and quality of life. Much attention has been directed towards second- and later-line treatments, and the landscape here is evolving rapidly. However, uncertainty in relative effectiveness, high costs and uncertainty in cost effectiveness represent challenges for decision makers.

OBJECTIVE

To identify economic evaluations for the second-line or later-line treatment of advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. Also, to assess key criteria (including model assumptions, inputs and outcomes), reporting completeness and methodological quality to inform future cost-effectiveness evaluations.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (from database inception to 5 March 2023) of EconLit via EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library (restricted to National Health Service [NHS] Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment [HTA] Database), Embase, MEDLINE and of grey literature was conducted. This aimed to identify systemic treatments that align with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines. Data were collected on key criteria and on reporting completeness and methodological quality. A narrative synthesis focussed on cost-effectiveness and cost-of-illness studies. Outcomes of interest included total and incremental costs and outcomes (life-years and quality-adjusted life-years), ratios of incremental costs per unit outcome and other summary cost and outcome measures. Also, for cost-effectiveness studies, reporting completeness and the methodological quality were assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Philips Checklist, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 19 eligible economic evaluations were identified (cost-effectiveness studies [n = 15] and cost-of-illness studies [n = 4]). There was a general lack of consistency in the methodological approaches taken across studies. In the main, the cost-effectiveness studies indicated that the intervention under consideration was more effective and more costly than the comparator(s). However, most interventions were not cost effective. No studies were fully compliant with reporting-completeness and methodological-quality requirements. Given the lack of consistency in the approaches taken across cost-of-illness studies, outcomes could not be directly compared.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first published systematic literature review that has qualitatively synthesised economic evaluations for advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. There were differences in the approaches taken across the cost-effectiveness studies and the cost-of-illness studies. The conclusions of most of the cost-effectiveness studies were consistent despite identified differences in approaches. In the main, the interventions under consideration were not cost effective, presenting challenges to sustainability and affordability. We highlight a requirement for cost-effectiveness evaluations and for second-line or later-line treatments of advanced and metastatic gastric cancer that consider all relevant comparators and that are compliant with reporting-completeness and methodological-quality requirements. By addressing the methodological gaps identified here, future healthcare decision-making, within the context of this rapidly changing treatment landscape, would be better informed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023405951.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab vs. camrelizumab for the treatment of second-line locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Esophageal carcinoma is a type of cancer that occurs in the esophagus. For patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who have either experienced disease progression following first-line standard chemotherapy or are intolerant to it, the prognosis is typically poor. Additionally, these patients often bear a substantial economic burden during the course of their treatment. Tislelizumab is a selective PD-1 inhibitor with efficacy proven in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus camrelizumab as the second-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients in China.

METHODS

From the perspective of China's healthcare system, the partitioned survival model with three health states was established in a 3-week cycle and a lifetime horizon. Anchored matching adjusted indirect comparison was used for survival analyses based on individual patient data from RATIONALE 302 trial and the published ESCORT study due to the lack of head-to-head clinical trials. Only direct medical costs were included. Costs and utility values were derived from local charges, the published literature, and related databases. Sensitivity analyses and a scenario analysis were also performed to verify the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

Compared with camrelizumab monotherapy, tislelizumab monotherapy incurred a lower lifetime cost ($8,346 vs. $8,851) and yielded higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.87 vs. 0.63), which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$2,051/QALY. Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option over camrelizumab monotherapy in China. The three primary parameters upon which this result was most sensitive were the unit cost of camrelizumab, the unit cost of tislelizumab, and the duration of reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP). According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), tislelizumab monotherapy was 100% cost-effective when the WTP was 1-3 times GDP per capita in China($11,207/QALY∼$33,621/QALY). Scenario analysis showed that the result was consistent.

CONCLUSION

Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option compared with camrelizumab monotherapy as the second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

A Partitioned Survival Model followed by state transition Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and effectiveness of the use of PIPAC C/D versus palliative chemotherapy in the UK. The intervention was assessed at two different levels of care, including upfront therapy (PIPAC C/D plus Oxaliplatin in combination with Capecitabine (XELOX) chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy alone) and second-line therapy (PIPAC C/D alone versus second-line chemotherapy (ramucirumab monotherapy)). Data from multiple sources, including published literature and UK-based databases, were used to inform the economic model.

RESULTS

For the upfront therapy analysis, the estimated total costs in the intervention and comparator arms were £32,606 (SD: £3877) and £17,844 (SD: £920), respectively. PIPAC C/D plus XELOX led to an increase of 0.46 in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £31,868. For the second-line therapy analysis, the use of PIPAC C/D led to an increase of 0.19 in QALYs and a £21,474 reduction in costs, meaning the intervention was a dominant strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness results for the upfront therapy analysis indicate that PIPAC C/D plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective strategy. Additionally, PIPAC C/D alone as a second-line therapy has the potential to reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes for patients with advanced gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis.

Molecularly Targeted Therapies for Gastric Cancer. State of the Art

Many phase III trials failed to demonstrate a survival benefit from the addition of molecular therapy to conventional chemotherapy for advanced and metastatic gastric cancer, and only three agents were approved by the FDA. We examined the efficacy and safety of novel drugs recently investigated. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for phase III randomized controlled trials published from January 2016 to December 2020. Patients in the experimental arm received molecular therapy with or without conventional chemotherapy, while those in the control arm had conventional chemotherapy alone. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The secondary outcomes were the rate of tumor response, severe adverse effects, and quality of life. Eight studies with a total of 4223 enrolled patients were included. The overall and progression-free survival of molecular and conventional therapy were comparable. Most of these trials did not find a significant difference in tumor response rate and in the number of severe adverse effects and related deaths between the experimental and control arms. The survival benefits of molecular therapies available to date for advanced and metastatic gastric cancer are rather unclear, mostly due to inaccurate patient selection, particularly concerning oncogene amplification and copy number.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tisagenlecleucel for the Treatment of Pediatric and Young Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory B Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Japan

Until recently, treatment options were relatively limited for children and young adults with relapsed or refractory (r/r) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) immunotherapy with promising efficacy and manageable safety that was approved in Japan in 2019 for the treatment of CD19-positive r/r B cell ALL (B-ALL). However, there is no publication assessing the cost-effectiveness of CAR-T in Japan. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a tisagenlecleucel treatment strategy compared to a blinatumomab treatment strategy and a clofarabine combination treatment strategy (i.e., clofarabine + cyclophosphamide + etoposide) in Japan for pediatric and young adult patients up to 25 years of age with r/r B-ALL. A partitioned survival model with a lifetime horizon and monthly cycle was constructed from a Japanese public healthcare payer's perspective. Patients were distributed across the following partitioned health states: event-free survival (EFS), progressive disease, and death, which were informed by the EFS and overall survival (OS) data of respective clinical trials before year 5. For the tisagenlecleucel arm, a decision-tree structure was used to partition patients based on the infusion status; those who discontinued prior to receiving infusion were assigned efficacy and cost inputs of blinatumomab and those who received infusion were assigned efficacy and costs inputs based on tisagenlecleucel-infused patients. As trial data for blinatumomab and clofarabine ended before year 5, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were used to extrapolate OS between the end of trial observation and up to year 5. All surviving patients followed the mortality risk of long-term ALL survivors without additional risk of disease relapse after year 5, regardless of initial treatment strategies. The model accounted for pretreatment costs, treatment costs, adverse event costs, follow-up costs, subsequent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation costs, and terminal care costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-years (LYs) gained and ICERs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were evaluated using a 2% discount rate, and a threshold of ¥7.5 million was used to assess cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The total LYs (discounted) for tisagenlecleucel, blinatumomab, and clofarabine combination treatment strategies were 13.3, 4.0, and 2.7 years, respectively; the corresponding QALYs were 11.6, 3.1, and 2.1 years, respectively. The ICERs per QALY gained for tisagenlecleucel were ¥2,035,071 versus blinatumomab and ¥2,644,702 versus clofarabine combination therapy. Extensive sensitivity analyses supported the findings. Tisagenlecleucel is a cost-effective treatment strategy for pediatric and young adult patients with r/r B-ALL from a Japanese public healthcare payer's perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab in the second-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus chemotherapy in the second-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Materials & methods: A Markov model reflecting the patients in the ATTRACTION-3 trial was established. Weibull survival model was employed to fit the Kaplan-Meier progression-free survival and overall survival probabilities of the nivolumab and chemotherapy strategy, respectively. Meanwhile, one-way and PSA were performed to test the uncertainty in the model. Results: Overall, the incremental effectiveness and cost of nivolumab versus chemotherapy were 0.107 quality-adjusted life-years and $14,627.90, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $136,709.35/quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusion: Nivolumab is not a cost-effective treatment option compared with chemotherapy from the perspective of Chinese society.

An open label, multicenter, noninterventional study of apatinib in advanced gastric cancer patients (AHEAD-G202)

Background:

Apatinib has been proved to be effective and well tolerated among patients in phase II and III studies. Here, we evaluated the safety and effectiveness of apatinib in advanced gastric cancer patients in a real-world setting.

Methods:

This study enrolled advanced gastric cancer patients who had progressed or relapsed despite systemic chemotherapy. The primary outcome was safety and the secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results:

A total of 337 patients were included. In total, 62 (18.4%), 102 (30.3%), and 173 (51.3%) patients received first, second, and third or higher line apatinib therapy, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were infrequent (<5%), with hypertension (6.8%) being the only grade 3/4 AE occurring in more than 5% of the patients and across the low-dose (250 mg, 7.3%), mid-dose (425–500 mg, 6.1%), and high-dose group (675–850 mg, 2/15, 13.3%). The median OS and PFS were 7.13 months (95% CI, 6.17–7.93) and 4.20 months (95% CI, 4.60–4.77), respectively, and were comparable among the low-, mid-, and high-dose groups.

Conclusion:

Lower daily doses of apatinib achieved comparable OS and PFS versus higher daily doses of apatinib while maintaining a more benign safety profile in advanced gastric cancer patients.

Clinical Trial Registration:

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02668380.

Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) for heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102), a novel oral cytotoxic chemotherapy, significantly improved overall survival compared with placebo in heavily pretreated advanced gastric cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAS102 in the third-line or later treatment for this population from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to simulate advanced gastric cancer, including three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death. Model inputs were derived from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TAGS trial, NCT02500043). Utilities were extracted from public resources. Costs were calculated from an American payer perspective. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainty.

RESULTS

From the US payer perspective, treatment with TAS102 for patients with heavily pretreated advanced gastric cancer was estimated to increase costs by $59,180 compared with the placebo, with a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $986,333 per QALY. The costs for progression-free survival of TAS102 group had the greatest impact on the ICERs, as well as the cost of TAS102.

CONCLUSION

Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) is not a cost-effective choice for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer from an American payer perspective.