Cost-Effectiveness of Cabozantinib in the Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Tremelimumab plus durvalumab versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis from the US payer perspective

OBJECTIVE

In a recently published 4-year overall survival (OS) update from the phase III clinical trial named HIMALAYA (NCT03298451), single tremelimumab plus regular interval durvalumab (a regimen termed STRIDE) demonstrated significantly improved OS compared with sorafenib in the first-line setting of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). Although dual immunotherapy represents a novel treatment option for uHCC, the economic implications of these high-priced drugs require further exploration. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of STRIDE in uHCC to inform first-line treatment decisions and help allocate medical resources most effectively.

DESIGN

Using a partitioned survival model, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing STRIDE to sorafenib in the first-line treatment of uHCC. Clinical information was gathered from the phase III HIMALAYA trial. Costs and health state utilities data were derived from previous literature. Uncertainty of the model was assessed through one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

SETTING

US payer perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

393 participants in the STRIDE group and 389 participants in the sorafenib group who were diagnosed with uHCC and had no previous systemic treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Single-dose tremelimumab plus monthly durvalumab (STRIDE) versus sorafenib.

RESULTS

Treatment with STRIDE provided an additional 0.51 QALYs at an incremental total cost of United States dollar ($)9812. The ICER of STRIDE was $19 239 per QALY compared with sorafenib, which falls below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that our results were robust to the variation ranges of key inputs.

CONCLUSION

In this economic evaluation comparing two first-line systemic therapies for uHCC patients, STRIDE was cost-effective compared with sorafenib from a US payer perspective. Our study is the first to demonstrate that immunotherapy can provide both survival benefits and economic viability in uHCC.

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 first-line systemic therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

AIMS

To examine the cost-effectiveness of first-line systemic therapies recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma (uHCC) from the US social and payer's perspective.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a three-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, tremelimumab plus durvalumab, durvalumab, lenvatinib and sorafenib as first-line treatments for uHCC. Clinical efficacy was derived from a published network meta-analysis. Cost and utility inputs were collected from literature. Main outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, as well as scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Over a 10-year time horizon, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab yielded the highest QALYs. Compared to sorafenib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, tremelimumab plus durvalumab and lenvatinib had ICERs of $196 704/QALY, $800 755/QALY and $2 032 756/QALY, respectively. Sorafenib was dominated by durvalumab due to lower QALYs and higher costs. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that durvalumab had a 99.96% probability of providing the highest net monetary benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY, durvalumab is likely the most cost-effective first-line systemic therapy for uHCC compared to sorafenib. Although atezolizumab plus bevacizumab yielded the highest QALYs, their ICERs exceeded the commonly accepted cost-effectiveness threshold ($150 000$ per QALY gained). These findings can inform clinical decision-making, resource allocation and future research priorities in managing uHCC.

Cost-effectiveness of sotorasib as a second-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer with KRASG12C mutation in China and the United States

Purpose

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sotorasib versus docetaxel in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with KRASG12C mutation from the China and United States'social perspective.

Materials and Methods

A Markov model that included three states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and death) was developed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental QALY were calculated for the two treatment strategies. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the factors that had a greater impact on the model results, and tornado diagrams were used to present the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed with 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Assume distributions based on parameter types and randomly sample all parameter distributions each time., The results were presented as cost-effectiveness acceptable curves.

Results

This economic evaluation of data from the CodeBreak 200 randomized clinical trial. In China, sotorasib generated 0.44 QAYL with a total cost of $84372.59. Compared with docetaxel, the ICER value of sotorasib was $102701.84/QALY, which was higher than willingness to pay (WTP), so sotorasib had no economic advantage. In the US, sotorasib obtained 0.35 QALY more than docetaxel, ICER was $15,976.50/QALY, which was more than 1 WTP but less than 3 WTP, indicating that the increased cost of sotorasib was acceptable. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of sotorasib having economic benefits gradually increased when the cost of follow-up examination was reduced in China. And there was no influence on the conclusions within the range of changes in China. When the willingness to pay (WTP) exceeds $102,500, the probability of sotorasib having cost effect increases from 0% to 49%.

Conclusion

Sotorasib had a cost effect from the perspective in the United States. However, sotorasib had no cost effect from the perspective in China, and only when the WTP exceeds $102,500, the probability of sotorasib having cost effect increases from 0% to 49%.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update an evidence-based guideline to assist in clinical decision-making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to update the 2020 guideline on systemic therapy for HCC. The panel updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through October 2023 and updated recommendations.

RESULTS

Ten new RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were added to the evidence base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) or durvalumab + tremelimumab (durva + treme) may be offered first-line for patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Where there are contraindications to these therapies, sorafenib, lenvatinib, or durvalumab may be offered first-line. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), ramucirumab (for patients with alpha-fetoprotein [AFP] ≥400 ng/mL), durva + treme, or nivolumab + ipilimumab (nivo + ipi) may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with durva + treme, second-line therapy with a TKI is recommended. Following first-line treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, ramucirumab (AFP ≥400 ng/mL), nivo + ipi, or durvalumab; atezo + bev or durva + treme may be considered for patients who did not have access to these therapies in the first-line setting, and do not have contraindications. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Third-line therapy may be considered in Child-Pugh class A patients with good PS, using one of the agents listed previously that has a nonidentical mechanism of action with previously received therapy. A cautious approach to systemic therapy is recommended for patients with Child-Pugh class B advanced HCC. Further guidance on choosing between options is included within the guideline.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Personalized treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma in the era of targeted medicine and bioengineering

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major global health burden, causing approximately 8.3 million deaths each year, and it is the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, with a relative 5-year survival rate of around 18%. Due to the advanced stage of diagnosis in most patients, systemic treatment based on targeted therapy has become the only feasible option. Genomic studies have established a profile of molecular alterations in hepatocellular carcinoma with potentially actionable mutations, but these mutations have yet to be translated into clinical practice. The first targeted drug approved for systemic treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma was Sorafenib, which was a milestone. Subsequent clinical trials have identified multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as Lenvatinib, Cabozantinib, and Regorafenib, for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, with survival benefits for the patient. Ongoing systemic therapy studies and trials include various immune-based combination therapies, with some early results showing promise and potential for new therapy plans. Systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma is complicated by the significant heterogeneity of the disease and its propensity for developing drug resistance. Therefore, it is essential to choose a better, individualized treatment plan to benefit patients. Preclinical models capable of preserving in vivo tumor characteristics are urgently needed to circumvent heterogeneity and overcome drug resistance. In this review, we summarize current approaches to targeted therapy for HCC patients and the establishment of several patient-derived preclinical models of hepatocellular carcinoma. We also discuss the challenges and opportunities of targeted therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma and how to achieve personalized treatment with the continuous development of targeted therapies and bioengineering technologies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The KEYNOTE-590 trial showed that individuals with advanced esophageal cancer who received Pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as a first-line regimen achieved a significant extension of survival. However, this treatment option increases the financial burden on patients and the economic benefits remain to be further evaluated.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to simulate 10-year survival of patients with esophageal cancer from the perspective of United States (US) Medicare payers. We evaluated the economics of Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in the PD-L1 positive score (CPS ≥10) and any PD-L1 expression groups, respectively. We estimated total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and calculated incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the results. Subgroup analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

The analysis results showed that the ICER for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone was $293,513.17/QALYs in the any PD-L1 expression group. This exceeded the threshold of willingness to pay ($150,000/QALYs). ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of pembrolizumab and the ICERs exceeded $150,000/QALYs in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that first-line pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy is not a cost-effective option for advanced esophageal cancer in the US, regardless of PD-L1 expression status.

Nivolumab Versus Sorafenib as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective: Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with fewer adverse events than sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with sorafenib treatment for aHCC remains unclear. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib in the treatment of aHCC.

Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model that included three mutually exclusive health states was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib for treating aHCC. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of the patients in the model were obtained from the CheckMate 459. We performed deterministic one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the model. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were measured.

Results: The base case analysis showed that compared with sorafenib, treatment with nivolumab was associated with an increment of 0.50 (2.45 vs. 1.95) life-years and an increment of 0.32 (1.59 vs. 1.27) QALYs, as well as a $69,762 increase in cost per patient. The ICER was $220,864/QALY. The INHB and INMB were −0.15 QALYs and −$22,362 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was only 10.38% at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the costs of sorafenib and nivolumab according to the one-way sensitivity analysis. When the price of sorafenib exceeded $0.93/mg or nivolumab was less than $24.23/mg, nivolumab was more cost-effective. The subgroup analysis illustrated that the probability of cost-effectiveness was >50% in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage B subgroups for nivolumab at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. This study also showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness was <50% in most subgroups.

Conclusion: Nivolumab was not cost-effective, although it was associated with better clinical benefit and a favorable safety profile for the treatment of aHCC compared with sorafenib from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. If the price of nivolumab is substantially reduced, favorable cost-effectiveness can be achieved among patients with aHCC.

Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Updates and Outlook

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has emerged the culprit of cancer-related mortality worldwide with its dismal prognosis climbing. In recent years, ground-breaking progress has been made in systemic therapy for HCC. Targeted therapy based on specific signaling molecules, including sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab, has been widely used for advanced HCC (aHCC). Immunotherapies such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab greatly improve the survival of aHCC patients. More recently, synergistic combination therapy has boosted first-line (atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab) and second-line (ipilimumab in combination with nivolumab) therapeutic modalities for aHCC. This review aims to summarize recent updates of systemic therapy relying on the biological mechanisms of HCC, particularly highlighting the approved agents for aHCC. Adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, as well as a combination with locoregional therapies (LRTs), are also discussed. Additionally, we describe the promising effect of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as systemic therapy on HCC. In this setting, the challenges and future directions of systemic therapy for HCC are also explored.

Cost-effectiveness of enfortumab vedotin in previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Antibody-drug conjugates have recently been introduced as a treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. The EV-301 study demonstrated that enfortumab vedotin (EV) improved overall survival compared with conventional chemotherapy. To assess the cost-effectiveness of EV for the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) from a payer perspective in middle- and high-income countries.

METHODS

A decision analysis model was developed to assess the efficacy and economic viability of EV as a subsequent-line treatment following disease progression in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma already treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. Clinical and utility values were obtained from the published literature and available databases. Cost data were obtained from payer perspectives in the United States, United Kingdom, and China. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to measure health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) used to evaluate cost-effectiveness in comparison to willingness-to-pay in the United States, United Kingdom, and China. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy, EV increased the benefit by 0.16-0.17 QALYs, resulting in ICERs of $2,168,746.71, $2,164,494.38, and $1,775,576.56 per QALY in the United States, United Kingdom, and China, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the largest effect on outcome was the utility value for progression-free survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of EV being cost-effective was 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

EV provides an additional health benefit over chemotherapy for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma but is not cost-effective from a payer perspective in the United States, United Kingdom, or China.

Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Healthcare Costs and Utilization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Patients Treated at a Large Referral Center in Washington State 2007-2018

Introduction

Though the treatment landscape for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has evolved significantly with the refinement of liver-directed therapy techniques and the introduction of new drugs, few studies have investigated the impact of the changing treatment landscape on lifetime treatment costs, particularly in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C disease. We sought to investigate real-world clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and healthcare costs in a cohort of HCC patients treated at a single high-volume institution in Washington (WA) state.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with HCC between 2007 and 2018 using abstracted electronic medical record (EMR) data linked to cancer registry data and health claims from commercial plans, Medicare, and Medicaid. We described clinical and treatment characteristics, including BCLC stage and Child Pugh score. We investigated median survival and mean lifetime treatment costs by BCLC stage using Kaplan-Meier cost estimator methods. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate factors associated with overall survival.

Results

The final cohort included 215 patients, the majority of whom were white (71%), male (68%), and with underlying hepatitis C (61%). Mean per patient lifetime costs were highest in BCLC A and BCLC C patients. Mean lifetime costs in BCLC A patients ($292,134) was driven by surgery, hospital, pharmacy, imaging, and outpatient costs. Chemotherapy costs were highest in BCLC C patients, though not the predominant area of spending. Median survival was highest in patients with BCLC 0 and A disease; BCLC stage C and higher area deprivation index (ADI) were associated with poorer survival.

Conclusion

In a cohort of WA state HCC patients, mean lifetime costs were highest in patients with BCLC A disease, attributable to surgery and hospital costs. As increased utilization of newer and less toxic therapies improves survival in BCLC C patients, mean lifetime costs in this group may also rise.

Quality of Life and Cost Considerations: Y-90 Radioembolization

Objective  Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) offers a minimally invasive and safe treatment option for primary and metastatic hepatic malignancies. The benefits of TARE are manifold including prolonged overall survival, low associated morbidities, and improved time to progression allowing prolonged treatment-free intervals. The rapid development of new systemic therapies including immunotherapy has radically changed the treatment landscape for primary and metastatic liver cancer. Given the current climate, it is critical for interventional oncologists to understand the benefits of TARE relative to these other therapies. Therefore, this report aims to review quality-of-life outcomes and the cost comparisons of TARE as compared with systemic therapies.

Real-Life Clinical Data of Cabozantinib for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Cabozantinib has been approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. Cabozantinib is also being tested in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the frontline setting. Real-life clinical data of cabozantinib for HCC are still lacking. Moreover, the prognostic factors for HCC treated with cabozantinib have not been investigated.

METHODS

We evaluated clinical data and outcome of HCC patients who received cabozantinib in the legal context of named patient use in Italy.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients from 15 centres received cabozantinib. All patients had preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A), mostly with an advanced HCC (77.1%) in a third-line setting (75.0%). The prevalence of performance status (PS) > 0, macrovascular invasion (MVI), extrahepatic spread, and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) >400 ng/mL was 50.0, 30.2, 67.7, and 44.8%, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were 12.1 (95% confidence interval 9.4-14.8) and 5.1 (3.3-6.9) months, respectively. Most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (67.7%), diarrhoea (54.2%), anorexia (45.8%), HFSR (43.8%), weight loss (24.0%), and hypertension (24.0%). Most common treatment-related Grade 3-4 AEs were fatigue (6.3%), HFSR (6.3%), and increased aminotransferases (6.3%). MVI, ECOG-PS > 0, and AFP >400 ng/mL predicted a worse OS. Discontinuation for intolerance and no new extrahepatic lesions at the progression were associated with better outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-life Western scenario (mostly in a third-line setting), cabozantinib efficacy and safety data were comparable with those reported in its registration trial. Data regarding the prognostic factors might help in patient selection and design of clinical trials.

Advances in pharmacotherapeutics for hepatocellular carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Although hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most frequent primary liver cancer, there are limited therapeutic options for the advanced stages. Sorafenib was the first tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) approved for unresectable HCC and remained the only effective choice for a decade. The horizon of systemic treatments drastically expanded in the latest years, opening new interesting possibilities.

AREAS COVERED

In this manuscript, the authors have analysed the recent advances in pharmacotherapy for HCC, discussing their mechanisms of action, the clinical efficacy and the safety profile of currently available first, second-and third-line treatments. The authors have also analysed the role of immune system modulators, in particular immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs), based on the limited data published so far.

EXPERT OPINION

The emergence of new targeted therapies, such as lenvatinib, have changed the landscape of HCC therapy. Tumor extension, differences in objective response rates and adverse events profiles should be considered to tailor the choice of the first-line agent. Sorafenib remains the most studied drug, with much real-world data available. The efficacy of second line therapies has only been proven in non-responder or sorafenib-intolerant patients. Unfortunately, studies directly comparing the second-line agents regorafenib, ramucirumab and cabozantinib are still lacking.

First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Simple Summary

There is a growing body of literature demonstrating high cancer drug costs relative to the benefits provided to patients treated on a large scale. We examined the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab–bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, based on the results of the pivotal phase 3 trial IMbrave 150. Our model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. We found that atezolizumab–bevacizumab was cost-effective if we assumed all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of hepatocellular carcinoma. Otherwise, atezolizumab–bevacizumab was not cost-effective. We concluded that price reduction, duration of therapy capped to ≤12 months, or dosage of bevacizumab reduced to ≤10 mg/kg would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical benefits were modest. The long-term effectiveness of atezolizumab–bevacizumab is a critical factor of its cost-effectiveness. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Abstract

Background: The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo–bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo–bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo–bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Atezo–bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo–bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo–bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo–bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo–bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo–bev cost-effective. Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness of atezo–bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may prolong overall survival among patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, to our knowledge, the cost-effectiveness of using this high-priced therapy for this indication is currently unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the US payer perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib. The characteristics of patients in the model were similar to patients in a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial (IMbrave150) who had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and had not previously received systemic treatment. Key clinical data were generated from the IMbrave150 trial conducted between March 15, 2018, and January 30, 2019, and cost and health preference data were collected from the literature.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for the 2 treatment strategies. Subgroup, 1-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab added 0.530 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $89 807 compared with sorafenib therapy, which had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $169 223 per QALY gained. The incremental net health benefit was -0.068 QALYs, and the incremental net monetary benefit was -$10 202 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab achieved a 35% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival. The subgroup analysis found that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with preferred incremental net health benefits in several subgroups, including patients with hepatitis B and C.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Reducing the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may improve cost-effectiveness. The economic outcomes also may be improved by tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors.

Cost-Effectiveness of Genomic Test-Directed Olaparib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Purpose: The effectiveness of poly (adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (MCRPC) with multiple loss-of-function alterations in genes that are involved in DNA repair has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genomic test-directed olaparib on MCRPC from the US payer perspective.

Methods: A partitioned survival model was adopted to project the disease course of MCRPC had at least one gene alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2 and ATM (Scenario A) and has alterations in any of all 15 prespecified genes (Scenario B) after next-generation sequencing test. The efficacy and toxicity data were gathered from the PROfound trial. Clinical probabilities related to survival were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in each PROfound group. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed for exploring the model uncertainties.

Results: Olaparib yielded an additional 0.063 and 0.068 of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) with the augmented cost of $7,382 and saved the cost of $ 1,980 compared to standard care in scenario A and B, respectively, which yielded an ICER of $116,903/QALY and a cost-saving option. The lower weekly cost related to olaparib treatment led to the dominant findings in scenario B. The varied results between scenario A and B could be partly explained by different the number need to screen for identifying eligible patients who could be administered with olaparib, which sharply augmented the costs of the olaparib arm in scenario A. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis revealed the results were generally robust in both of two scenarios.

Conclusion: The genomic test-directed olaparib is a preferred option compared with standard care strategy for men with MCRPC who had any of all 15 prespecified genes.

Comparison of Prognostic Scores in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated With Sorafenib

INTRODUCTION

Prognostic classifications for patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) facilitate stratification in trials and inform clinical decision making. Recently, 3 different prognostic models (hepatoma arterial-embolization prognosis [HAP] score, sorafenib advanced HCC prognosis [SAP] score, and Prediction Of Survival in Advanced Sorafenib-treated HCC [PROSASH]-II) have been proposed specifically for patients treated with sorafenib. This study aimed to compare the prognostic performance of different scores.

METHODS

We analyzed a large prospective database gathering data of 552 patients treated with sorafenib from 7 Italian centers. The performance of the HAP, SAP, and PROSASH-II models were compared with those of generic HCC prognostic models (including the Barcelona Clinic for Liver Cancer and Italian Liver Cancer staging systems, albumin-bilirubin grade, and Child-Pugh score) to verify whether they could provide additional information.

RESULTS

The PROSASH-II model improved discrimination (C-index 0.62) compared with existing prognostic scores (C-index ≤0.59). Its stratification significantly discriminated patients, with a median overall survival of 21.5, 15.3, 9.3, and 6.0 months for risk group 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The HAP and SAP score were also validated but with a poorer performance compared with the PROSASH-II.

DISCUSSION

Although suboptimal, PROSASH-II is the most effective prognostic classification model among other available scores in a large Italian population of patients treated with sorafenib.

Application of ASCO Value Framework to Treatment Advances in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Determination of the comparative efficacy of one therapy over another for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be challenging. Application of a recognized value framework to published studies could objectively compare the potential benefit across available therapies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An umbrella review of phase III trials for HCC therapies was performed. ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2) scores, the primary analysis, and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 scores, the secondary analysis, were computed using selected drug registration trials. Both scores were compared between drugs that were Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved by 2020 and those that were not.

RESULTS

Of the 22 studies identified, nine were FDA-approved and 13 were not. Across 22 trials, the median overall survival (OS) was 9.2 months (range, 1.9-16.4 months), with a median gain of 0.35 month (range, 2.3-3.3 months). HCC therapies that were FDA-approved showed longer OS (median 10.7 v 7.9 months, P < .01) and higher ASCO NHB scores (+18.4 v -5.7 scores, P < .01). The median gain in OS was 2.2 months in the approved treatments compared with -0.3 months in the unapproved group, with no difference in progression-free survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The nine FDA-approved therapies for HCC have higher mean NHB score than those that were not FDA-approved. The application of ASCO-NHB v2 and other proposed value frameworks could examine data of future therapies for HCC through a patient-oriented approach.

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab as a Second-Line Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for use as a second-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who previously received sorafenib. Pembrolizumab has shown substantial antitumor activity and a favorable toxicity profile as a second-line treatment of HCC. However, considering the high cost of pembrolizumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both the clinical efficacy and cost.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs placebo as second-line therapy in patients with HCC from the US payer perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of pembrolizumab as a second-line treatment of HCC with those of placebo using outcome data from the KEYNOTE-240 randomized placebo-controlled trial, which included 413 patients with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib and randomized patients to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care in a 2:1 ratio.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for the parameter of uncertainty. A cost-threshold analysis was also performed. The study was conducted from January 31 to July 29, 2020.

RESULTS

The base-case model found that treatment with pembrolizumab was associated with increased overall cost by $47 057 and improved effectiveness by 0.138 QALYs compared with placebo, leading to an ICER of $340 409 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival (range, 0.61-1.00), health utility of placebo (range, 0.59-0.93), price of pembrolizumab (range, $5531-$8297), and price of postprogression therapies (range, $5596-$7944 for pembrolizumab and $4770-$7156 for placebo). The ICER of pembrolizumab was larger than $150 000 per QALY in most of the sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The price of pembrolizumab needed to be reduced by 57.7% to $2925 per cycle to achieve cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that, at its current price, pembrolizumab is not a cost-effective second-line therapy for HCC in the US, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of published phase III randomized controlled trials (2007-2020) on systemic therapy for advanced HCC and provide recommended care options for this patient population.

RESULTS

Nine phase III randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) may be offered as first-line treatment of most patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, and following management of esophageal varices, when present, according to institutional guidelines. Where there are contraindications to atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or lenvatinib may be offered as first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and ECOG PS 0-1. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, and until better data are available, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options for appropriate candidates include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, or ramucirumab (for patients with α-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL), or atezo + bev where patients did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also reasonable options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Consideration of nivolumab + ipilimumab as an option for second-line therapy and third-line therapy is discussed. Further guidance on choosing between therapy options is included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Targeting hepatocyte growth factor/c-mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor axis in hepatocellular carcinoma: Rationale and therapeutic strategies

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. The outcome of current standard treatments, as well as targeted therapies in advanced stages, are still unsatisfactory. Attention has been drawn to novel strategies for better treatment efficacy. Hepatocyte growth factor/c-mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (HGF/c-Met) axis has been known as an essential element in the regulation of liver diseases and as an oncogenic factor in HCC. In this review, we collected the evidence of HGF/c-Met as a tumor progression and prognostic marker, discussed the anti-c-Met therapy in vitro, summarized the outcome of c-Met inhibitors in clinical trials, and identified potential impetus for future anti-c-Met treatments. We also analyzed the inconsistency of HGF/c-Met from various publications and offered reasonable explanations based on the current understanding in this area. In conclusion, HGF/c-Met plays a crucial role in the progression and growth of HCC, and the strategies to inhibit this pathway may facilitate the development of new and effective treatments for HCC patients.

Sequencing Systemic Therapy Pathways for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common form of liver cancer worldwide and carries a poor prognosis. Historically, sorafenib was the only available systemic treatment for advanced HCC. However, in recent years, 6 new treatments have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): regorafenib, lenvatinib, cabozantinib, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, and nivolumab. Data are lacking regarding the most appropriate sequencing pathway for these agents. Our objective was to conduct a comprehensive cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of different 1st- and 2nd-line treatment pathways for HCC reflecting all new drug approvals, and then use our data to provide guidance for clinicians on which pathway is the most cost-effective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Markov models were used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of 8 different 1st- and 2nd-line treatment sequences. The model allowed for 9 possible states. Cost effectiveness ratios (CER) and incremental CER (ICER) were calculated to compare costs between different pathways and against a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Efficacy and toxicity data were extracted from the landmark trials for each agent. All agents except ramucirumab were included. The cost of each agent was based on the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) in USD as of June 2019. Monte-Carlo methods were used to simulate the experience of 1,000,000 patients per treatment sequence for a 12-month period.

RESULTS

The pathway with the lowest CER was sorafenib, followed by pembrolizumab (USD 227,741.03/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). ICER analysis supported implementing 2nd-line pembrolizumab-based pathways at a higher WTP threshold of 300,000/quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis did not substantially change these results.

CONCLUSIONS

The most cost-effective strategy was 1st-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy followed by 2nd-line immunotherapy. All pathways exceeded a commonly accepted WTP of USD 100-150,000/QALY. Our preliminary results warrant further studies to best inform real-world practices.

Targeted therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

The last 3 years have seen the emergence of promising targeted therapies for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Sorafenib has been the mainstay of treatment for a decade and newer modalities were ineffective and did not confer any increased therapeutic benefit until the introduction of lenvatinib which was approved based on its non-inferiority to sorafenib. The subsequent success of regorafenib in HCC patients who progress on sorafenib treatment heralded a new era of second-line treatment and was quickly followed by ramucirumab, cabozantinib, and the most influential, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Over the same period combination therapies, including anti-angiogenesis agents with ICIs, dual ICIs and targeted agents in conjunction with surgery or other loco-regional therapies, have been extensively investigated and have shown promise and provided the basis for exciting clinical trials. Work continues to develop additional novel therapeutic agents which could potentially augment the presently available options and understand the underlying mechanisms responsible for drug resistance, with the goal of improving the survival of patients with HCC.

Epidemiologic, humanistic and economic burden of hepatocellular carcinoma in the USA: a systematic literature review

AIM

To describe the epidemiologic, humanistic and economic burdens of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the USA.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Studies describing the epidemiology and economic burden from national cohorts, any economic models, or any humanistic burden studies published 2008-2018 were systematically searched.

RESULTS

HCC incidence was 9.5 per 100,000 person-years in most recent data, but was ∼100-times higher among patients with hepatitis/cirrhosis. Approximately a third of patients were diagnosed with advanced disease. Patients with HCC experienced poor quality of life. Direct costs were substantial and varied based on underlying demographics, disease stage and treatment received. Between 25-77% of patients did not receive surgical, locoregional or systemic treatment.

CONCLUSION

Better treatments are needed to extend survival and improve quality of life for patients with HCC.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib as second-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Germany and the United States

BACKGROUND

Cabozantinib was approved by the European Medicines Agency and the Federal Drug Administration as an option for sorafenib-resistant advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, increasing overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib in the second-line setting for patients with an advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from the German statutory health insurance perspective compared with an US scenario using US prices.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of cabozantinib with best supportive care in the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma over a lifetime horizon. Health outcomes were measured in discounted life years and discounted quality-adjusted life years. Survival probabilities were estimated using parametric survival distributions based on CELESTIAL trial data. Utilities were derived from the literature. Costs contained drugs, monitoring and adverse events measured in US Dollars. Model robustness was addressed in univariable, scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Cabozantinib generated a gain of 0.18 life years (0.15 quality-adjusted life years) compared with best supportive care. The total mean cost per patient was $56,621 for cabozantinib and $2064 for best supportive care in the German model resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cabozantinib of $306,778/life year and $375,470/quality-adjusted life year. Using US prices generated costs of $177,496 for cabozantinib and $4630 for best supportive care and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $972,049/life year and $1,189,706/quality-adjusted life year.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis established that assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $163,371/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the German model and $188,559/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the US model, cabozantinib is not cost-effective compared with best supportive care. Sensitivity analyses showed that cabozantinib was not cost-effective in almost all our scenarios.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ramucirumab treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib with α-fetoprotein concentrations of at least 400 ng/ml

Objective: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab versus placebo for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib with α-fetoprotein concentrations (AFP) of at least 400 ng/ml in the United States.Methods: A Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). With TreeAge software, the disease process was modeled as three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death. Costs were extracted from the REACH-2 trial, and utility was derived from published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare ramucirumab with placebo. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed to examine the robustness of the results.Results: In the base case analysis, ramucirumab therapy had a cost of $55,508.41 and generated 0.54 QALYs, while placebo therapy had a cost of $761.09 and generated 0.47 QALYs, leading to an additional $54,747.32 in costs and 0.07 QALYs. The ICER was $782,104.57 per QALY, which was much higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. According to sensitivity analyses, the utility of PD in the two groups was the dominant parameter influencing the ICER.Conclusion: Although ramucirumab was associated with prolonged survival for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment with an AFP of at least 400 ng/ml, it is not a cost-effective treatment from a United States payer perspective.

Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Advances and Hopes

The majority of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are diagnosed at an advanced stage that can only benefit from systemic treatments. Although HCC is highly treatmentresistant, significant achievements have been made in the molecular targeted therapy and immunotherapy of HCC. In addition to regorafenib, cabozantinib and ramucirumab were approved for the second- line targeted treatment by the FDA after disease progression on sorafenib. Nivolumab failed to demonstrate remarkable benefit in overall survival (OS) as first-line therapy, while pembrolizumab did not achieve pre-specified statistical significance in both OS and progression-free survival (PFS) as second-line treatment. Combinations of targeted agents, immune checkpoint inhibitors and other interventions showed favorable results. In this review, we summarized the progress of systemic therapy in HCC and discussed the future directions of the treatment of HCC.

Review article: new therapeutic interventions for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) portends a poor prognosis; however recent advances in first-line and second-line treatment options should yield significant improvements in survival.

AIM

To summarize the evolving landscape of treatment options for patients with advanced HCC.

METHODS

We reviewed published clinical trials conducted in patients with advanced HCC published in PubMed or presented at national conferences.

RESULTS

Sorafenib was approved for treatment of unresectable HCC in 2007 and remained the only therapy with proven survival benefit in advanced HCC for several years. Lenvatinib, another tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, was recently shown to have non-inferior survival vs sorafenib and is another first-line treatment option. The tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, regorafenib and cabozantinib, were shown to significantly improve survival in the second-line setting after sorafenib failure. Ramucirumab, a VEGF inhibitor, can also improve survival in the second-line setting among patients with AFP ≥ 400 ng/dL. Phase II data highlight potential durable objective responses with immune checkpoint inhibitors, prompting conditional FDA approval of nivolumab and pembrolizumab in the second-line setting; however, recent phase III data have failed to demonstrate improved survival compared to other treatment options. Ongoing trials are evaluating combination immune checkpoint inhibitor and immune checkpoint inhibitors with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors or VEGF inhibitors in hopes of further increasing objective responses and overall survival in this patient population.

CONCLUSION

There are several first-line and second-line therapeutic options available for patients with advanced HCC. Further studies are needed to determine how best to select between and sequence the growing number of therapeutic options.