Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib versus carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A Markov analysis.
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
/ economics
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ economics
Carboplatin
/ economics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
/ methods
Decision Trees
Drug Costs
Endometrial Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Female
Humans
Markov Chains
Microsatellite Instability
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
/ drug therapy
Neoplasm Staging
Paclitaxel
/ economics
Phenylurea Compounds
/ economics
Progression-Free Survival
Quality of Life
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Quinolines
/ economics
Advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer
Cost-effectiveness
Immunotherapy
Journal
Gynecologic oncology
ISSN: 1095-6859
Titre abrégé: Gynecol Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0365304
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
received:
03
04
2021
accepted:
31
05
2021
pubmed:
10
6
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
9
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab/lenvatinib (P/L) versus standard-of-care carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/T) as first-line systemic therapy for patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer. We designed a Markov model to simulate treatment outcomes for advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer patients whose tumors are either microsatellite stable (MSS) or have high microsatellite instability (MSI-high). We adopted a healthcare sector perspective for the analysis. Model inputs for costs, health utility, and clinical estimates were obtained from the literature including data from GOG0209 and KEYNOTE-146. Primary outcomes included costs of care, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The time-horizon was three years and the discount rate was 3% annually. In a MSS cohort, compared to C/T, first-line treatment with P/L increased treatment costs by $212,670 and decreased QALYs by 0.28 per patient. In a MSI-high cohort, compared to C/T, P/L increased costs by $313,487 and increased QALYs by 0.11 per patient, representing an ICER of $2,849,882 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found that the price of the new drugs was the most important determinant of the ICER and that the price of the new drugs would need to decrease by 85% to $2817 per cycle to reach a $150,000/QALY threshold. In the MSS model, we found that first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer with P/L increased costs and worsened outcomes compared to C/T. In the MSI-high model, P/L improved survival and QALYs compared to C/T but was not cost-effective at the current cost of the drugs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34103196
pii: S0090-8258(21)00444-3
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.05.038
pmc: PMC8663341
mid: NIHMS1759195
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
0
Phenylurea Compounds
0
Quinolines
0
Carboplatin
BG3F62OND5
pembrolizumab
DPT0O3T46P
lenvatinib
EE083865G2
Paclitaxel
P88XT4IS4D
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
249-255Subventions
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : P30 DK092949
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest statement SAA, EH, and NKL declare no conflict of interest. KCK served on an Advisory Board for LEAP Therapeutics through GOG Foundation, outside of the submitted work.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2014 Aug 28;371(9):796-7
pubmed: 25162885
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Oct 1;3(10):e2016144
pubmed: 33052401
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 1;21(11):2110-4
pubmed: 12775736
N Engl J Med. 1977 Mar 31;296(13):732-9
pubmed: 402577
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jun;137(3):490-6
pubmed: 25766118
Gynecol Oncol. 2009 May;113(2):216-20
pubmed: 19217148
Oncologist. 2006 Feb;11(2):90-5
pubmed: 16476830
Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Aug 1;26(15):3928-3935
pubmed: 32601075
Palliat Med. 2014 Feb;28(2):130-50
pubmed: 23838378
Cancer. 2000 Oct 15;89(8):1758-64
pubmed: 11042571
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Oct 1;22(19):3902-8
pubmed: 15459211
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jan 4;4(1):e2033761
pubmed: 33464318
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Mar;156(3):575-582
pubmed: 31955859
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Sep 10;38(26):2981-2992
pubmed: 32167863
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jun 1;29(16):2259-65
pubmed: 21537039
Oncologist. 2021 Feb;26(2):e290-e297
pubmed: 32918790
Cancer J Sci Am. 1999 Sep-Oct;5(5):283-92
pubmed: 10526669
Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Jun;101(3):520-9
pubmed: 16556457
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 1;38(1):1-10
pubmed: 31682550
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar 10;33(8):930-6
pubmed: 25624430
Med Care. 2000 Jun;38(6):583-637
pubmed: 10843310
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 May;153(2):381-384
pubmed: 30808517
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Sep;154(3):461-466
pubmed: 31257009
J Clin Oncol. 1996 Feb;14(2):357-61
pubmed: 8636744
Br J Cancer. 2006 Sep 18;95(6):683-90
pubmed: 16967055
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;35(22):2535-2541
pubmed: 28489510
Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Jan;160(1):214-218
pubmed: 33393480
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Nov 20;38(33):3841-3850
pubmed: 33078978
Science. 2017 Jul 28;357(6349):409-413
pubmed: 28596308
Nat Med. 2016 Nov;22(11):1342-1350
pubmed: 27694933