Literature DB >> 31412011

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab for Patients with Advanced, Unresectable, or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Ineligible for Cisplatin-based Therapy.

Karl Patterson1, Vimalanand Prabhu2, Ruifeng Xu2, Haojie Li2, Yang Meng1, Natalie Zarabi3, Yichen Zhong4, Rachael Batteson1, James Pellissier2, Stephen Keefe2, Petros Grivas5, Ronald de Wit6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for effective therapies for patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who cannot tolerate cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Cisplatin-ineligible patients experience a high frequency of adverse events from the most commonly used standard of care treatment, carboplatin plus gemcitabine, or alternative treatment with gemcitabine monotherapy. Pembrolizumab is a potent, highly selective humanised monoclonal antibody that releases checkpoint inhibition of the immune response system, and provides a new alternative for these patients.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for first-line treatment of urothelial carcinoma ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy in patients with strongly PD-L1-positive tumours in Sweden. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Parametric survival curves were fitted to overall survival, progression-free survival, and time on treatment data from KEYNOTE-052 to extrapolate clinical outcomes. A simulated treatment comparison and a network meta-analysis were conducted to estimate the comparative efficacy of pembrolizumab versus carboplatin plus gemcitabine and gemcitabine monotherapy. EQ-5D data from KEYNOTE-052 were used to estimate utility, while resource use and cost inputs were estimated using Swedish regional pricing lists and clinician opinion. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The model reported costs, life years, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and results were tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We estimated that pembrolizumab would improve survival by 2.11 and 2.16 years and increase QALYs by 1.71 and 1.75 compared to carboplatin plus gemcitabine and gemcitabine monotherapy, respectively. Pembrolizumab was associated with a cost increase of €90520 versus carboplatin plus gemcitabine and €95055 versus gemcitabine, with corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €53055/QALY and €54415/QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €100000/QALY, pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment versus carboplatin plus gemcitabine and versus gemcitabine. PATIENT
SUMMARY: This is the first analysis to show that pembrolizumab is a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Sweden.
Copyright © 2018 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost effectiveness; Pembrolizumab; Urothelial cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 31412011     DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol        ISSN: 2588-9311


  8 in total

1.  Cost-Effectiveness of Avelumab Maintenance Therapy Plus Best Supportive Care vs. Best Supportive Care Alone for Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

Authors:  Qian Xie; Hanrui Zheng; Ye Chen; Xingchen Peng
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-04-27

Review 2.  Prevention and Treatment of Side Effects of Immunotherapy for Bladder Cancer.

Authors:  Kecheng Lou; Shangzhi Feng; Guoxi Zhang; Junrong Zou; Xiaofeng Zou
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 3.  Circulating tumor cells as Trojan Horse for understanding, preventing, and treating cancer: a critical appraisal.

Authors:  Alexios-Fotios A Mentis; Petros D Grivas; Efthimios Dardiotis; Nicholas A Romas; Athanasios G Papavassiliou
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 9.261

4.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition vs. cisplatin-based chemotherapy in muscle invasive bladder cancer.

Authors:  Ali Raza Khaki; Yong Shan; Richard E Nelson; Sapna Kaul; John L Gore; Petros Grivas; Stephen B Williams
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 2.954

5.  Significant Improvement of Prognosis After the Advent of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients with Advanced, Unresectable, or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching and Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis on Real-World Data.

Authors:  Makito Miyake; Nobutaka Nishimura; Takuto Shimizu; Mikiko Ohnishi; Masaomi Kuwada; Yoshitaka Itami; Takeshi Inoue; Kenta Ohnishi; Yoshihiro Matsumoto; Takanori Yoshida; Yoshihiro Tatsumi; Masatake Shinohara; Shunta Hori; Yosuke Morizawa; Daisuke Gotoh; Yasushi Nakai; Satoshi Anai; Kazumasa Torimoto; Katsuya Aoki; Tomomi Fujii; Nobumichi Tanaka; Kiyohide Fujimoto
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 3.989

6.  The remarkably frequent use of EQ-5D in non-economic research.

Authors:  Aimin Wang; Kim Rand; Zhihao Yang; Richard Brooks; Jan Busschbach
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2021-11-30

7.  Atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic urothelial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Xiaoyan Liu; Yitian Lang; Qingqing Chai; Yan Lin; Yahui Liao; Yizhun Zhu
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 5.988

Review 8.  Immunotherapy in Bladder Cancer: Current Methods and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Mikołaj Wołącewicz; Rafał Hrynkiewicz; Ewelina Grywalska; Tomasz Suchojad; Tomasz Leksowski; Jacek Roliński; Paulina Niedźwiedzka-Rystwej
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-07       Impact factor: 6.639

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.