Kathryn R Tringale1, Kate T Carroll1, Kaveh Zakeri2, Assuntina G Sacco3, Linda Barnachea4, James D Murphy2. 1. School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, CA. 2. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego. 4. Department of Pharmacy, University of California San Diego, CA.
Abstract
Background: The CheckMate 141 trial found that nivolumab improved survival for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC). Despite the improved survival, nivolumab is much more expensive than standard therapies. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for the treatment of HNC. Methods: We constructed a Markov model to simulate treatment with nivolumab or standard single-agent therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic platinum-refractory HNC. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and probability of toxicity, were derived from clinical trial data, while costs (in 2017 US dollars) and health utilities were estimated from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed as dollar per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), were calculated, with values of less than $100 000/QALY considered cost-effective from a health care payer perspective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess model uncertainty. Results: Our base case model found that treatment with nivolumab increased overall cost by $117 800 and improved effectiveness by 0.400 QALYs compared with standard therapy, leading to an ICER of $294 400/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the cost of nivolumab, though nivolumab only became cost-effective if the cost per cycle decreased from $13 432 to $3931. The model was not particularly sensitive to assumptions about survival. If one assumed that all patients alive at the end of the CheckMate 141 trial were cured of their disease, nivolumab was still not cost-effective (ICER $244 600/QALY). Conclusion: While nivolumab improves overall survival, at its current cost it would not be considered a cost-effective treatment option for patients with HNC.
Background: The CheckMate 141 trial found that nivolumab improved survival for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC). Despite the improved survival, nivolumab is much more expensive than standard therapies. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for the treatment of HNC. Methods: We constructed a Markov model to simulate treatment with nivolumab or standard single-agent therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic platinum-refractory HNC. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and probability of toxicity, were derived from clinical trial data, while costs (in 2017 US dollars) and health utilities were estimated from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed as dollar per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), were calculated, with values of less than $100 000/QALY considered cost-effective from a health care payer perspective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess model uncertainty. Results: Our base case model found that treatment with nivolumab increased overall cost by $117 800 and improved effectiveness by 0.400 QALYs compared with standard therapy, leading to an ICER of $294 400/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the cost of nivolumab, though nivolumab only became cost-effective if the cost per cycle decreased from $13 432 to $3931. The model was not particularly sensitive to assumptions about survival. If one assumed that all patients alive at the end of the CheckMate 141 trial were cured of their disease, nivolumab was still not cost-effective (ICER $244 600/QALY). Conclusion: While nivolumab improves overall survival, at its current cost it would not be considered a cost-effective treatment option for patients with HNC.
Authors: Joseph R Acevedo; Katherine E Fero; Bayard Wilson; Assuntina G Sacco; Loren K Mell; Charles S Coffey; James D Murphy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Yousuf Zafar; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Deborah Schrag; Donald H Taylor; Amy M Goetzinger; Xiaoyin Zhong; Amy P Abernethy Journal: Oncologist Date: 2013-02-26
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Klazien Matter-Walstra; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Stefan Aebi; Konstantin Dedes; Joachim Diebold; Mario Pietrini; Dirk Klingbiel; Roger von Moos; Oliver Gautschi Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Valesca P Retèl; Lisette van der Molen; Frans J M Hilgers; Coen R N Rasch; Annemiek A A M H J L'Ortye; Lotte M G Steuten; Wim H van Harten Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Lucia R I Millham; Justine A Scott; Paul E Sax; Fatma M Shebl; Krishna P Reddy; Elena Losina; Rochelle P Walensky; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Vivek Verma; Tanja Sprave; Waqar Haque; Charles B Simone; Joe Y Chang; James W Welsh; Charles R Thomas Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 13.751