Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

Cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy vs pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration approved cemiplimab in combination with chemotherapy (CCT) as a first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). However, whether CCT presents a cost-effective alternative to the previously preferred first-line treatment, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (PCT), remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CCT vs PCT as the first-line treatment for aNSCLC from a US health care payer perspective.

METHODS

A 3-state partitioned survival model with a 10-year horizon was constructed. Clinical data were derived from the EMPOWER-Lung 3, KEYNOTE-407, and KEYNOTE-189 trials. Costs and quality of life were obtained from published 2024 US list prices and literature. The cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. All outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3% per year. Scenario analyses, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses were performed for patients with different programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) levels.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the total cost of PCT was $207,926 with 1.609 QALYs, whereas CCT had a total cost of $175,247 with 1.657 QALYs. Results from the scenario analyses were consistent with the base-case analysis, indicating that CCT was a dominant treatment strategy over PCT (ICER =-$675,304 per QALY). The cost of pembrolizumab highly impacted the ICER. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, CCT would be accepted as a cost-effective option 96.9% of the time. In subgroup analyses, CCT remained a dominant alternative to PCT for patients with PD-L1 levels of at least 50% and 1%-49%.

CONCLUSIONS

This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that CCT is a dominant first-line treatment option for aNSCLC with PD-L1 levels of at least 1% compared with PCT.

Review of sociodemographic risk factors for presentation with advanced non-melanoma skin cancer

PURPOSE

Non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC) are often localized and associated with an excellent prognosis but a minority present with locally advanced or metastatic disease requiring extensive resection or systemic treatment. Medical factors that increase the risk of advanced skin cancers such as tobacco use, systemic immunosuppression or genetic syndromes have been described but the sociodemographic risk factors are relatively uninvestigated and under reported. In this review a cohort of patients presenting with periorbital NMSC is reviewed for social determinants of health correlated with presentation with advanced disease.

METHODS

Patients presenting with periorbital NMSC during a 10-year period are categorized as advanced (those tumors requiring extensive local resection, sacrifice of the globe or systemic therapy) or non-advanced and demographic features are compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

274 cases of periorbital NMSC were classified as either non-advanced (177) or advanced (97). Patients with public safety net health insurance were twice as likely to present with advanced disease (25% vs 13%). Patients with advanced disease were significantly less likely to be under the care of a primary care physician, lived in economically depressed areas with lower mean household incomes, and lived further from tertiary medical care.

CONCLUSION

Financial and sociodemographic features are strongly associated with presentation with advanced NMSC. Further work is needed to determine which sociodemographic features are independent risk factors. A better understanding of the relevant barriers to care may reduce the burden of advanced disease at presentation in the future.

Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

The disutilities of adverse events (AEs) are important inputs for cost-utility analysis (CUA), reflecting the impacts of AEs on health outcomes. Health technology assessment institutions and scholars have proposed recommendations for applying disutility values in economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the current use of disutilities of AEs as model parameters in the CUA of cancer drug therapy and to compare the discrepancies between the use of disutilities and published recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the official websites of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) for CUAs of drug therapy for cancer published in English from January 2019 to April 2022. Information about the use of disutilities of AEs (whether and how disutilities were used, or why they were not used) in selected studies was extracted and compared with published recommendations. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize the results.

RESULTS

A total of 467 CUAs were included, 54% (254/467) of which included disutilities of AEs in their model. The proportion that included these disutilities increased from 2019 to 2021, ranging from 47% (51/107) to 61% (116/190). Only 6% (15/254) of the CUAs using disutilities of AEs considered all five recommendations about the justification for inclusion and exclusion, description of values and sources, grades of AEs, calculation, and uncertainty analyses. Only 15% (72/467) provided a clear justification for inclusion and exclusion of disutilities of AEs, and 7% (17/254) did not provide values or sources. In total, 69% (175/254) of the analyses focused on AEs of grade 3 or greater, and 11% (28/254) applied utility decrements for grades 1 and 2. Disutilities of AEs were generally calculated using the incidence rates, which were clearly stated in 49% (65/132) of the analyses. Uncertainty analyses were conducted in 84% (214/254) of the CUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of disutilities of AEs in CUAs shows some discrepancies with recommendations proposed in the literature. One is that detailed information about the use of disutilities of AEs was not reported and the other is that essential methods to analyze the impact of AEs on quality-adjusted life-years were not thoroughly conducted. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers should attach importance to the impact of AEs on health-related quality of life. Furthermore, an application process was developed for the disutilities of AEs to remind and guide researchers to correctly use the disutilities of AEs as parameters in the decision-analytic model.

T-box transcription factor 2 mediates antitumor immune response in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma by regulating the expression of programmed death ligand 1

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is the second largest nonmelanoma skin cancer in humans; effective treatment options for metastatic CSCC are still in short. In this study, we aimed to explore the function of T-box transcription factor 2 (TBX2) in CSCC.

METHODS

The expression level of TBX2 was determined in CSCC samples and cell lines. Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression was also analyzed in human CSCC samples. Furthermore, SCC13 cells were transfected with TBX2-DN (loss of function) or normal TBX2 to check its role in regulating PD-L1.

RESULTS

The expression level of TBX2 was positively correlated with the stage of CSCC. CSCC tumor cell lines have significantly higher expression levels of TBX2 than normal skin cell lines, and SCC13 cells showed the highest expression. PD-L1 expressions were upregulated during the progression of CSCC, and positively correlated with TBX2. Furthermore, PD-L1 expression increased in SCC13 cells overexpressing TBX2. However, TBX2 did not regulate the activation of IFNγ signal, but mediated the expression of interferon regulatory factor 1 (IRF1) and PD-L1 in both SCC13 and PDV cells.

CONCLUSION

TBX2 could mediate antitumor immune response in CSCC by regulating the expression of PD-L1 through IRF1. It might be a prognostic marker in CSCC and synergistic target for PD-1 immunotherapy.