Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Zhiwei Zheng, Huide Zhu, Ling Fang
Author Information
  1. Zhiwei Zheng: Department of Pharmacy, Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China. ORCID
  2. Huide Zhu: Department of Pharmacy, Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
  3. Ling Fang: Department of Pharmacy, Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab in combination with platinum and etoposide compared to the standard treatment of etoposide and platinum as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer(ES-SCLC) from the Chinese medical system perspective.
METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed utilizing data from the RATIONALE-312 trial to accurately simulate the clinical and economic outcomes of both treatment arms. This model incorporates three distinct health states, namely progression-free survival, disease progression, and death. These states are exclusive of each other, and patients can transition between them as their disease progresses.The model accounted for various cost components such as drug therapy, management of adverse events, disease progression, and overall survival. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were chosen as the metrics. The analysis employed a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $39,855.79 per QALY. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness and reliability of the model.
RESULTS: The tislelizumab group had a total cost of $52,749.69, whereas the chemotherapy group's total expenses amounted to $8,811.62. Additionally, the tislelizumab group experienced a gain of 2.21 QALY compared to the chemotherapy group, albeit incurring an additional cost of $43,938.07. Consequently, this led to an ICER of $19,881.48, which falls below the Chinese WTP threshold of $39,855.79. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings across a range of scenarios.
CONCLUSION: This cost-effectiveness analysis based on the RATIONALE-312 trial demonstrates that tislelizumab plus platinum and etoposide is a cost-effective treatment option for ES-SCLC compared to the standard chemotherapy from the Chinese medical system perspective.

References

  1. Ann Oncol. 2021 Jul;32(7):839-853 [PMID: 33864941]
  2. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022 Jan 15;205(2):P3-P4 [PMID: 35029526]
  3. Curr Opin Oncol. 2022 Jan 1;34(1):83-88 [PMID: 34698669]
  4. Front Oncol. 2024 Jan 11;13:1259574 [PMID: 38282674]
  5. PLoS One. 2024 Feb 08;19(2):e0297450 [PMID: 38329955]
  6. Cancer. 2023 Nov 15;129(22):3525-3534 [PMID: 37602492]
  7. Semin Cancer Biol. 2022 Nov;86(Pt 2):543-554 [PMID: 35398266]
  8. J Thorac Oncol. 2024 Jul;19(7):1073-1085 [PMID: 38460751]
  9. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2023 Jun 5;21(1):37 [PMID: 37277820]
  10. J Cancer. 2022 Jul 18;13(9):2945-2953 [PMID: 35912017]
  11. Front Pharmacol. 2022 Sep 12;13:996914 [PMID: 36172187]
  12. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2022 Nov;20(6):893-904 [PMID: 35934772]
  13. Front Pharmacol. 2024 Jun 04;15:1386533 [PMID: 38895618]
  14. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024 May-Jun;74(3):229-263 [PMID: 38572751]
  15. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021 Dec;19(12):1441-1464 [PMID: 34902832]
  16. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Feb;32(2):101-8 [PMID: 24338265]
  17. Lancet. 2011 Nov 12;378(9804):1741-55 [PMID: 21565397]
  18. Lung. 2021 Dec;199(6):579-587 [PMID: 34757446]
  19. JAMA. 2022 Sep 27;328(12):1223-1232 [PMID: 36166026]
  20. Front Pharmacol. 2024 Jun 28;15:1396761 [PMID: 39005941]
  21. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jul 20;38(21):2369-2379 [PMID: 32468956]
  22. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Sep;6(9): [PMID: 34518200]
  23. PLoS One. 2022 Apr 14;17(4):e0266934 [PMID: 35421181]
  24. Lancet. 2019 Nov 23;394(10212):1929-1939 [PMID: 31590988]
  25. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021 Jan 14;7(1):4 [PMID: 33446659]
  26. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2024 Jan 20;150(1):22 [PMID: 38245636]
  27. PLoS One. 2021 Nov 15;16(11):e0258605 [PMID: 34780478]
  28. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2020 Jan;14(1):5-13 [PMID: 31622114]
  29. Front Immunol. 2023 Jan 04;13:1044678 [PMID: 36685541]
  30. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2024 Oct;24(8):1017-1025 [PMID: 38979829]
  31. J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Aug 5;7(1):205 [PMID: 31383005]
  32. Front Oncol. 2022 Jan 19;11:740091 [PMID: 35127468]
  33. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Dec;25(6):487-93 [PMID: 24126787]
  34. Ann Oncol. 2020 Feb;31(2):310-317 [PMID: 31959349]

MeSH Term

Humans
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
Small Cell Lung Carcinoma
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Lung Neoplasms
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Etoposide
Male
Female
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Chemicals

Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
tislelizumab
Etoposide

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0cost-effectivenesschemotherapyanalysistislelizumabtreatmentmodelplatinumetoposidecomparedChinesesurvivaldiseasecostQALYgroupstandardfirst-linetherapyextensive-stagesmallcelllungES-SCLCmedicalsystemperspectiveRATIONALE-312trialstatesprogressionICERWTPthreshold$3985579AdditionallyanalysesrobustnesstotalplusOBJECTIVE:studyaimsconductcombinationcancerMETHODS:partitioneddevelopedutilizingdataaccuratelysimulateclinicaleconomicoutcomesarmsincorporatesthreedistincthealthnamelyprogression-freedeathexclusivepatientscantransitionprogressesTheaccountedvariouscomponentsdrugmanagementadverseeventsoverallevaluateinterventionsquality-adjustedlife-yearincrementalratiochosenmetricsemployedwillingnesspaypersensitivityconductedassessreliabilityRESULTS:$5274969whereasgroup'sexpensesamounted$881162experiencedgain221albeitincurringadditional$4393807Consequentlyled$1988148fallsSensitivityconfirmedfindingsacrossrangescenariosCONCLUSION:baseddemonstratescost-effectiveoptionTislelizumabversuscancer:

Similar Articles

Cited By