Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab vs. placebo in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for local advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Cadonilimab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Immunotherapy has made significant advancements in cervical cancer (CC) treatment; however, its efficacy remains limited in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-negative patients. Cadonilimab, the first bispecific antibody targeting both programmed death 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4), demonstrated superior efficacy and manageable safety as a first-line treatment for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic CC (p/r/m CC) in the phase III COMPASSION-16 trial. Notably, it showed significant survival benefits in PD-L1-negative patients. This study aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was developed based on data derived from the COMPASSION-16 trial. The model utilized a 3-week cycle length and a 10-year time horizon. The primary outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net health benefit (INHB). Additionally, sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and subgroup analyses were performed.

Results

The cadonilimab plus chemotherapy regimen provided an additional 0.61 QALYs compared to chemotherapy alone, at an incremental cost of $42,486.54. This yielded an ICER of $70,220.88/QALY, exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,042/QALY. The corresponding INMB and INHB were -$19,469.55 and -0.51 QALYs, respectively. Consequently, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy was not deemed to be cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results remained consistent when each parameter varied within the predetermined range, indicating the model's robustness. Subgroup analyses demonstrated no significant positive correlation between economic outcomes and PD-L1 expression levels. Notably, in the subgroup of patients who did not receive bevacizumab, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy emerged as a cost-effective alternative.

Conclusion

In China, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy is not considered cost-effective compared to standard chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for the general p/r/m CC population. However, it represents a cost-effective option for patients ineligible for bevacizumab therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line sintilimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line sintilimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the perspective of the Chinese health service system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios over a patient's lifetime based on a phase III clinical trial.

RESULTS

Sintilimab plus chemotherapy increased by 0.316 QALY and 0.285 QALY with the additional cost of $5692 and $5269, which led to the ICER of $18000/QALY and $18519/QALY gained in the overall population and the patients with CPS ≥ 10, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with chemotherapy alone, sintilimab may be a cost-effective first-line treatment choice for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of benmelstobart, anlotinib, and chemotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

Background

The ETER701 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of benmelstobart combined with anlotinib plus etoposide/cisplatin (BEN-AL-EC) as a first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Results indicated that BEN-AL-EC, when compared with placebo in combination with etoposide/cisplatin (PLB-EC), significantly enhanced both progression-free and overall survival rates, while demonstrating an acceptable safety profile among patients with ES-SCLC. However, BEN-AL-EC is expensive, necessitating its cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods

A Markov model with three health states was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BEN-AL-EC, AL-EC and PLB-EC for the treatment of ES-SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Drug costs were derived from national tender prices, whereas other costs and utility values were derived from published literature. The key outcomes assessed included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic analyses, were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results

The total cost of BEN-AL-EC was $55,117.42, yielding 1.09 QALYs, whereas that of PLB-EC was $15,238.15, yielding 0.71 QALYs. The ICER of BEN-AL-EC compared with PLB-EC was $106,249.42 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,133 per QALY, BEN-AL-EC had a 0% probability of being cost-effective relative to PLB-EC. The key parameters influencing these outcomes included utility values for PFS, the cost of benmelstobart, and the discount rate.

Conclusion

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, BEN-AL-EC as a first-line treatment for ES-SCLC is unlikely to be cost-effective when compared with PLB-EC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for HER2-negative advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer in the Chinese healthcare system

BACKGROUND

This study compares first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone for patients with HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) in China.

METHODS

A Markov state-transition model was developed based on the phase 3 randomized KEYNOTE-859 clinical trial data. The health state utility values and direct medical costs were derived from the KEYNOTE-859 clinical trial, the relevant literature, and local charges. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

In the base analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were 0.22 QALYs and $16,627.31, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $76,936.60/QALY, which is higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold in China ($35,864.61/QALY). Subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were $72,762.68 and $34,813.70 in the populations with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or higher (CPS ≥ 1) and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 (CPS ≥ 10), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

As first-line therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative GC/GEJC in China, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is less cost-effective than chemotherapy alone, however, in the CPS ≥ 10 subgroup is more.

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.

Cost-utility of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer in China

OBJECTIVES

ORIENT-16, a phase III clinical trial conducted at 62 hospitals in China, reported that add-on sintilimab (Sin) to chemotherapy (Chemo) had favorable efficacy (p < 0.05) for patients with advanced HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of the Sin+Chemo based on results of ORIENT-16 from the perspective of Chinese healthcare payers.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate the 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs for patients with advanced HER2-negative GC/GEJC. Primary measure outcomes were: cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). Sensitivity/scenario analyses were conducted to assess the model robustness.

RESULTS

In all patients, Sin+Chemo vs Chemo increased costs by $6,472, additionally providing 0.61 QALYs, resulting in an ICUR of $10,610/QALY. While, in PD-L1 combined positive score ≥ 5 cohort, the ICUR was $9,738/QALYs. The ICUR was most sensitive to the utility of progression-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that add-on Sin had a 100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $18,625/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Sin+Chemo is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced HER2-negative GC/GEJC in China.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ORIENT-16, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT03745170.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors as the second-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated superior clinical efficacy in prolonging overall survival (OS) as the second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and were recommended by the guidelines. However, it remains uncertain which ICI is the most cost-effective. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ICIs as the second-line treatment for ESCC based on the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to obtain the Hazard ratios (HRs) for indirect comparisons. A three-state Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness. The state transition probabilities were calculated with Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves data from clinical trial and HRs from the NMA. Utilities and costs were derived from local charges or previously published studies. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to examine model robustness. The results were assessed based on the total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

Five clinical trials (ATTRACTION-3, ESCORT, KEYNOTE-181, ORIENT-2, RATIONALE-302) with a total of 1797 patients were included in the NMA. The NMA showed that both camrelizumab and tislelizumab received relatively high rankings for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Compared with sintilimab, treatment with tislelizumab and camrelizumab gained 0.018 and 0.034 additional QALYs, resulting in incremental ICERs of $75,472.65/QALY and $175,681.9/QALY, respectively. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab produced lower QALYs and greater costs, suggesting that both were dominated in comparison to sintilimab. HRs and health state utilities were the most influential parameters in most univariate sensitivity analyses of paired comparisons. PSA results suggested that sintilimab had an 84.4% chance of being the most cost-effective treatment regimen at the WTP threshold of $38,223.34/QALY. In the scenario analysis, sintilimab would no longer be cost-effective, if the price of camrelizumab was assumed to decrease by 64.6% or the price of tislelizumab was assumed to decrease by 16.9%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among the five potential competing ICIs, sintilimab was likely to be the most cost-effective regimen as the second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

Introduction

First-line treatment with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy has shown clinical benefits for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) in China, while its economic burden is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

We constructed a partitioned survival model to compare the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy in patients with advanced OSCC. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted from RATIONALE-306. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were selected as the study outcomes. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted to test the stability of the results.

Results

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy provided additional 0.48 QALYs with the incremental cost of $16,587.2 than chemotherapy, of which ICER was $34,699.72 per QALY. When the willingness-to-pay threshold was set as $37,260, the novel therapy had a probability of 77% to be cost-effective. Our base-case analysis results were sensitive to utilities of progression-free survival and progression of disease. Our subgroup analysis showed that the novel therapy was associated with cost-effectiveness in patients with a high expression of PD-L1.

Conclusion

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was likely to be more cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first-line therapy of advanced OSCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Our findings can provide clinicians and decision-makers with evidence of the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of amivantamab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in NSCLC with EGFR Exon 20 insertions

Objective

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy has been proved to be an efficient treatment strategy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertions. The aim of this study was to conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis of amivantamab-chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

Methods

We constructed a Markov model based on the data derived from the PAPILLON trial. We evaluated the cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the influence of different parameters on this model.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy alone, amivantamab combined with chemotherapy treatment gained an incremental effectiveness of 0.473 QALYs and an incremental cost of $361,950.952, which resulted in an ICER of $765,224/QALY. The ICER was much higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of 15,0000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that amivantamab cost was the leading influential factor in the model.

Conclusions

Compared with chemotherapy alone, amivantamab plus chemotherapy is not a cost-effective first-line treatment choice for NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions. The costly price of amivantamab is one of the major reasons for the high cost of this combined treatment strategy. Therefore, it is imperative to take into account the high cost of amivantamab in the subsequent clinical application and strive to attain a relative equilibrium between its significant clinical benefit and economic encumbrance.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background

Recently, several novel programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors have been approved for second-line treating advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), including camrelizumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, sintilimab and tislelizumab. However, the optimal treatment regimen remained ambiguous.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety and economy of available PD-1 inhibitors to determine the optimal treatment from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Design

A systematic review and economic evaluation.

Data sources and methods

A systematic review was undertaken utilizing PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus databases to identify eligible studies until 31 August 2023. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). We also developed a partitioned survival model at 3-week intervals based on five clinical trials to predict long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for various treatment options. Direct medical costs and utility values were obtained from public drug bidding databases, clinical trials or published literature. The parameter uncertainties within the model were determined via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials involving 2837 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with other treatments examined, camrelizumab provided the best PFS benefits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.86], and pembrolizumab provided the best OS benefits (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.82). Nivolumab caused a relatively lower incidence of treatment-related AEs (HR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.05-0.20) and grade 3-5 AEs (HR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) than other immunotherapy regimens. In the economic evaluation, average 10-year costs ranged from $5,433.86 (chemotherapy) to $50,617.95 (nivolumab) and mean QALYs ranged from 0.55 (chemotherapy) to 0.82 (camrelizumab). Pembrolizumab was eliminated because of dominance. Of the remaining strategies, when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were 1, 2 and 3 times GDP per capita in 2022, sintilimab, tislelizumab and camrelizumab were the most cost-effective treatment options, respectively.

Conclusion

Sintilimab might be the optimal treatment alternative for second-line therapy of advanced OSCC in China, followed by tislelizumab and camrelizumab.

Trial registration

This study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42023495204.

Economic evaluation of sintilimab versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES

The current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was established to track 3-week patients' transition and project the health and economic outputs in 15-year horizon of the two competing options among sintilimab and docetaxel. Clinical data were obtained from the ORIENT-3 trial, and cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and published studies. Total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were evaluated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model outcomes.

RESULTS

Base-case results revealed that sintilimab yield marginal cost of $4,700.53 and additional 0.32 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $14,615.31 per QALY gained, which is lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,224/QALY in China. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the cost of best supportive care was the main driver of the ICER, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model outputs were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Sintilimab could be considered the cost-effective second-line strategy for patients with advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC compared with docetaxel in China.

Economic evaluation of serplulimab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

OBJECTIVE

The ASTRUM-007 study confirmed the significant efficacy and safety of serplulimab plus chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced/metastatic, programmed cell death-ligand 1 positive oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). The economics of this regimen, however, is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced OSCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

DESIGN

A partitioned survival model was established to simulate the costs and outcomes of chemotherapy versus serplulimab plus chemotherapy. The survival data came from the ASTRUM-007 study. Only direct medical costs were considered, and utility values were referred to the literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of parameter uncertainty on the model.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Total costs, incremental costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The base case analysis showed that the cost of serplulimab plus chemotherapy (US$69 356) was US$41 607 higher than that of chemotherapy (US$27 749), but it also gained 0.38 QALYs more (1.38 vs 1 QALYs), with an ICER of US$110 744.36/QALY, which was higher than the willingness to pay. The factors that most influenced the ICER were the price of serplulimab, weight and utility value of the progression-free survival stage. The subgroup analysis and scenario analysis also demonstrated that serplulimab plus chemotherapy was not economical.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with chemotherapy, serplulimab coupled with chemotherapy was not cost-effective for the treatment of advanced OSCC in China.

Cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A systematic review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently been introduced into the treatment algorithm of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with pre-existing therapies for HCC has not been assessed. We performed a meta-analysis to understand the incremental cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with sorafenib.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched (2000-2022). The incremental cost, incremental effectiveness, incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ICI compared with sorafenib and willingness to pay (WTP) were extracted from each study. The variables were used to derive the incremental net benefit (INB). Random-effect meta-analysis was then conducted to derive the pooled INB of ICI compared with sorafenib.

RESULTS

Five studies (3265 patients, 82.1 % male) met inclusion criteria. All studies assessed the cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with sorafenib. Studies used Quality adjusted life years to assess incremental effectiveness and reported ICER values ranging from $21,000 to $221,000 for ICIs and sorafenib. Four out of five studies reported that ICI had a higher ICER compared with sorafenib at WTP $150,000. The overall pooled INB was US$-42,000 (95 % CIUS$-96,000, US$11,528) suggesting that ICI was not cost effective compared with sorafenib.

CONCLUSION

When compared with sorafenib, ICIs were not a cost-effective option for systemic therapy for patients with HCC. More work focusing on cost effective options for patients with HCC is warranted.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

Objective

The ASTRUM-007 trial (NCT03958890) demonstrated that serplulimab plus chemotherapy administered every 2-week significantly improved progression-free and overall survival in patients with previously untreated, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC). This study was aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC.

Methods

A partitioned survival model with a 2-week cycle and a 10-year time horizon was constructed from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The survival data, direct medical costs and utilities were derived from the ASTRUM-007 trial, YAOZHI database and published sources. Total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around model parameters.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy provided additional 0.27 QALYs with an incremental cost of $33,460.86, which had an ICER of $124,483.07 per QALY. The subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of serplulimab plus chemotherapy were $134,637.42 and $105,589.71 in advanced ESCC patients with 1 ≤ CPS < 10 and CPS ≥ 10, respectively. The price of serplulimab, patient weight, utility values and discount rate were the most influential parameters on base-case results. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times per capita GDP ($40,587.59) in 2022, the probability of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0% compared with chemotherapy. When the price of serplulimab decreased by 70%, the probabilities of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective were 81.42%, 67.74% and 96.75% in advanced ESCC patients with PD-L1-positive, PD-L1 1≤CPS<10 and CPS≥10, respectively.

Conclusion

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC might not be cost-effective in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PD-1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma in China

Objective: This study was aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of all available programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A partitioned survival model with a 3-week cycle and a 10-year time horizon was constructed based on a network meta-analysis. The survival data and utility values were derived from clinical trials, and the direct medical costs were collected from public drug bidding database and published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around model parameters. Results: Compared with mono-chemotherapy, toripalimab, sintilimab and camrelizumab plus chemotherapy were cost-effective treatment regimens, while serplulimab, pembrolizumab and nivolumab plus chemotherapy were not cost-effective options. Toripalimab plus chemotherapy provided the highest QALYs of 0.95 with the lower cost of $8,110.53 compared to other competing alternatives. The robustness of the base-case results was confirmed by scenario and one-way sensitivity analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times per capita gross domestic product ($38,351.20) in 2021, the probability of toripalimab plus chemotherapy being the optimal option was 74.25% compared with other six competing alternatives. Conclusion: Toripalimab plus chemotherapy represented the most cost-effective option as the first-line therapy for advanced ESCC patients in China.