First-line treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis in China and the United States

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in the US and Chinese setting: a modelling comparison study

OBJECTIVE

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab demonstrates a significant improvement in overall survival and progression-free survival compared with sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The combined usage of these two medications could result in substantial consumption of resources, primarily due to their exceptionally high costs. The current study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for advanced HCC from the perspective of payers in developed and developing countries.

DESIGN

A partitioned survival model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for advanced HCC. The efficacy and safety data incorporated within the model were derived from the IMbrave150 trial. Costs and utilities were extracted from published sources.

INTERVENTIONS

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Estimates were calculated for costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for both treatment strategies. One-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, expected value of perfect information (EVPI), subgroup and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The combination therapy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab results in an additional 0.72 life-years/0.57 QALYs in the USA and 0.64 life-years/0.47 QALYs in China compared with standard sorafenib treatment, although with a significant increase in costs, yielding an average ICER of US$253 247.07/QALY in the USA and US$181 552.71/QALY in China. The probability sensitivity analysis indicated that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab demonstrated a 13.60% likelihood of cost-effectiveness in the USA, whereas this likelihood is negligible (0%) in China. The expected value of uncertainty, as quantified by the EVPI, was estimated at approximately US$3658.41/patient in the USA and US$0/patient in China. The ICER was most sensitive to the cost of subsequent treatment in the USA, and most sensitive to the cost of atezolizumab in China. In scenario analyses, the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment becomes favourable when the cost of atezolizumab decreases to 67.85% and 18.45% of its original price in the USA and China, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable HCC in the context of the USA and China. The implementation of significant reductions in drug prices may render the treatment economically viable.

Cost-effectiveness of aumolertinib as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of aumolertinib as the epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer first-line treatment from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.Methods: A Markov model was developed based on the AENEAS trial. Only direct medical costs were considered in the model. Utilities were obtained from published literature. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model.Results: Compared with gefitinib, aumolertinib yielded an additional 0.941 expected life-years and 0.692 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with an incremental cost of $18,855.55 over a 20-year time horizon. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $20,051.67/life-year and $27,272.29/QALY, that below the willing-to-pay threshold of $38,223.34/QALY.Conclusion: Aumolertinib was a cost-effective alternative first-line treatment for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-positive advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer in China.

Promising first-line immuno-combination therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis

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.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review

Since 2017, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been available for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or unresectable HCC, but their adoption into national medical insurance programs is still limited. Cost-effectiveness evidence can help to inform treatment decisions. This systematic review aimed to provide a critical summary of economic evaluations of ICIs as a treatment for advanced HCC and identify key drivers (PROSPERO 2023: CRD42023417391). The databases used included Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central. Economic evaluations of ICIs for the treatment of advanced HCC were included. Studies were screened by two people. Of the 898 records identified, 17 articles were included. The current evidence showed that ICIs, including atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, sintilimab plus bevacizumab/bevacizumab biosimilar, nivolumab, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, tislelizumab, durvalumab, and cabozantinib plus atezolizumab, are probably not cost-effective in comparison with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or other ICIs. The most influential parameters were price of anticancer drugs, hazard ratios for progression-free survival and overall survival, and utility for health statest. Our review demonstrated that ICIs were not a cost-effective intervention in advanced HCC. Although ICIs can significantly enhance the survival of patients with advanced HCC, decision-makers should consider the findings of economic evaluations and affordability before adoption of new therapies.

Outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated in the lenvatinib and immunotherapy era (2018-2021) compared to the sorafenib era (2008-2018)

BACKGROUND

Lenvatinib (LEN) and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (A + B) have drastically changed the treatment paradigm for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Before these landmark trials, sorafenib (SOR) served as the standard first-line treatment for a decade. Our study aimed to assess the outcomes of HCC patients treated during the SOR era (2008-2018) in contrast to those in the post-SOR era (2018-2021), of which the predominant first-line treatments were LEN or A + B.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria of the study were all HCC patients in the Canadian province of Alberta who started first-line systemic therapy at cancer centers between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2021. Survival outcomes, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), along with clinician-assessed response rate (RR), were subject to retrospective analysis.

RESULTS

Of 372 total patients, 230 received treatment in the SOR era and 142 in the post-SOR era. The demographic and clinical characteristics for the SOR era and post-SOR era groups are as follows, respectively: the median age was 63 and 64 years, 80% and 81% were male, and 24% and 11% were of East Asian ethnicity. Before receiving systemic treatment, 40% and 33% received TACE, 7% and 9% received TARE, and 3% and 14% received SBRT in the two eras, respectively. In the post-SOR era, patients received A + B (23%), LEN (51%), and SOR (23%) as first-line treatment. There was a statistically significant improvement in RR (15% vs. 26%; p = 0.02), median PFS (3.8 months vs. 7.9 months; p < 0.0001), and median OS (9.8 months vs. 17.0 months; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective multicenter real-world study, HCC patients treated in the post-SOR era, where LEN and A + B were commonly used first-line treatments, exhibited superior OS, PFS, and RR compared to patients treated in the SOR era. The findings of this study affirm the tangible progress achieved in the real world in enhancing outcomes for HCC patients through advancements in treatments over the past 15 years.

Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab Targeted-Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review of Cost-effectiveness Analyses

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab (ATZ) plus bevacizumab (BVC) co-administration is one of the newest systemic interventions in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (AHCC). This treatment approach is more costly and effective than other therapeutic interventions, significantly improving AHCC survival and health-related quality of life.

AIM

This economic study aimed to systematically review all cost-effectiveness analyses of ATZ/BVC combination in AHCC.

METHOD

A comprehensive search in scientific databases was performed using a highly sensitive syntax to find all related economic evaluations. The target population was AHCC patients. The intervention was ATZ/BVC, which was compared with sorafenib, nivolumab, and other anticancer strategies. We included studies that reported quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and/or life-years, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and finally, the characteristics of included studies were categorized.

RESULTS

Out of 315 identified records, 12 cost-effectiveness analyses were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Treatment costs were significantly higher with ATZ/BVC in all studies (from 61,397 to 253,687 USD/patient compared to sorafenib and nivolumab, respectively). Incremental QALYs/patient varied from 0.35 to 0.86 compared to sintilimab/BVC and sorafenib. Although ICERs for drugs varied widely, all were united in the lack of cost-effectiveness of the ATZ/BVC. The willingness-to-pay threshold in all studies was lower than the ICER, which indicated a reluctance to pay for this treatment strategy by the health systems.

CONCLUSION

The ATZ/BVC combination is an expensive targeted immunotherapy in AHCC. Significant discounts in ATZ and BVC prices are essential for this novel approach to be cost-effective and extensively used.

Cost-effectiveness and prognostic model of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with high tumor burden and/or Vp4 tumor thrombus compared with sorafenib: a post-hoc analysis of the FOHAIC-1 trial

OBJECTIVES

The phase III FOHAIC-1 trial revealed that hepatic arterial infusion of chemotherapy (HAIC) improved overall survival compared to sorafenib in the high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study therefore set out to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and establish a prognostic clinico-radiological score of HAIC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 409 patients with high-risk HCC who received HAIC between 2014 and 2020 were included. A Markov model was applied in the cost-effectiveness analysis using data from the FOHAIC-1 trial. In prognosis analysis, a clinico-radiological score was developed using a Cox-regression model and subsequently confirmed in the internal validation and test cohorts. The area under the curve from receiver operator characteristic analysis was used to assess the performance of the clinico-radiological score.

RESULTS

HAIC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $10190.41/quality-adjusted life years compared to sorafenib, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted a ≥99.9% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below the willingness-to-pay. The Cox analysis identified five factors, namely extrahepatic metastasis (m), arterial enhancing type (a), tumor number (nu), albumin-bilirubin index (a), and involved lobe (l), which together comprise the clinico-radiological score (HAIC-manual). Patients were classified into three groups based on the number of factors present, with cutoffs at 2 and 4 factors. The stratified median overall survival for these groups were 21.6, 10.0, and 5.9 months, respectively ( P <0.001). These findings were verified through internal validation and test cohorts with a significance level of P ≤0.01. The time-dependent area under the curve from receiver operator characteristic for the ability of the HAIC-manual to predict survival in 1, 2, and 3 years were 0.71, 0.76, and 0.78, which significantly outperformed existing staging systems.

CONCLUSION

HAIC is a promising and cost-effective strategy for patients with high-risk HCC. The clinico-radiological score may be a simple prognostic tool for predicting HAIC treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with less adverse events (AE) compared with sorafenib in the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). But which approach is the most cost-effective remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs sorafenib as first-line therapy for patients with advanced HCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival mode was constructed to evaluate the health and economic outcomes of nivolumab vs sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced HCC. The clinical data and outcomes were obtained from CheckMate 459 trial. Medical costs and utilities were collected from published sources. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. Additional subgroup and scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Treatment with nivolumab yielded an additional 0.27 QALYs with an incremental cost of $65,579.19 compared with sorafenib, leading to an ICER of $236,765.93/QALY in China. One-way sensitivity analysis found the model outputs to be most affected for hazard ratio (HR) of OS and the cost of nivolumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was 0% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,201.19/QALY. The scenario analyses indicated altering the time horizon of the model did not reverse the economic results.

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab as first-line treatment could gain more health benefits for advanced HCC compared with sorafenib, but was estimated not to be cost-effective at the commonly adopted WTP threshold of China.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM OF THE STUDY

Studies comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATE/BEV) vs. lenvatinib (LEN) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) have shown conflicting results. With this background, we aimed to collate the available evidence comparing ATE/BEV and LEN in aHCC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive search of three databases was conducted from inception to November 2022 for studies comparing ATE/BEV with LEN for managing aHCC. Results were presented with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) as the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes or odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies were included. On analysis of matched cohorts, there was no difference in the objective response rate (ORR) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.83-1.61) or disease control rate (DCR) (aOR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.49-1.38) between groups. Three studies reported a significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) with ATE/LEN, while one reported a longer PFS with LEN. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for PFS available from three studies was comparable (HR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.75-1.50). Data were insufficient to carry out a formal analysis for overall survival (OS), but none of the studies reported any difference in OS. On comparison of overall adverse events (AE) and ≥ grade 3 AE, there was no difference in the overall analysis, but higher risk of AE with LEN on sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the currently available literature, LEN was found to be non-inferior to ATE/BEV in terms of ORR, DCR, and PFS. However, LEN may be associated with a higher incidence of AEs. Further head-to-head trials are required to demonstrate the superiority of ATE/BEV over LEN.

Recent advances in recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma therapy

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most prevalent form of primary liver cancer, accounting for 75%-85% of cases. Although treatments are given to cure early-stage HCC, up to 50%-70% of individuals may experience a relapse of the illness in the liver after 5 years. Research on the fundamental treatment modalities for recurrent HCC is moving significantly further. The precise selection of individuals for therapy strategies with established survival advantages is crucial to ensuring better outcomes. These strategies aim to minimize substantial morbidity, support good life quality, and enhance survival for patients with recurrent HCC. For individuals with recurring HCC after curative treatment, no approved therapeutic regimen is currently available. A recent study presented novel approaches, like immunotherapy and antiviral medication, to improve the prognosis of patients with recurring HCC with the apparent lack of data to guide the clinical treatment. The data supporting several neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies for patients with recurring HCC are outlined in this review. We also discuss the potential for future clinical and translational investigations.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sorafenib, lenvatinib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and sintilimab plus bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide, especially in China. According to the 2021 Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, sorafenib, lenvatinib, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab, and sintilimab combined with bevacizumab are recommended as first-line treatment options for advanced HCC. This study provides a cost-effectiveness analysis of these treatments from the patient perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was established using the TreeAge 2019 software to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. The model includes three states, namely progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. Clinical data were derived from three randomized controlled studies involving patients with advanced HCC who received the following treatment: sorafenib and lenvatinib (NCT01761266); atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab (NCT03434379); and sintilimab in combination with bevacizumab (NCT03794440). Cost and clinical preference data were obtained from the literature and interviews with clinicians.

RESULTS

All compared with sorafenib therapy, lenvatinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$188,625.25 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained; sintilimab plus bevacizumab had an ICER of US$75,150.32 per QALY gained; and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had an ICER of US$144,513.71 per QALY gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with sorafenib achieved a 100% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of US$36,600/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the medical insurance reimbursement ratio and drug prices.

CONCLUSIONS

In this economic evaluation, therapy with lenvatinib, sintilimab plus bevacizumab, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab generated incremental QALYs compared with sorafenib; however, these regimens were not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$36,600 per QALY. Therefore, some patients may achieve preferred economic outcomes from these three therapies by tailoring the regimen based on individual patient factors.