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 PARTICIPANTSA 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 MEASURESLife-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.

BackgroundInduction chemotherapy (IC) followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for non-metastatic locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) has gained considerable attention. However, the most efficacious IC regimens remain investigational. We aimed to compare the survival benefits of all available IC regimens followed by CCRT in this network meta-analysis.MethodsAll randomized-controlled trials of CCRT with or without IC in non-metastatic locoregionally advanced NPC were included, with an overall nine trials of 2,705 patients counted in the analysis. CCRT alone was the reference category. Eight IC regimens followed by CCRT were analyzed: docetaxel + cisplatin (DC), gemcitabine + carboplatin + paclitaxel (GCP), gemcitabine + cisplatin (GP), mitomycin + epirubicin + cisplatin + fluorouracil + leucovorin (MEPFL), cisplatin + epirubicin + paclitaxel (PET), cisplatin + fluorouracil (PF), cisplatin + capecitabine (PX) and cisplatin + fluorouracil (PF), cisplatin + capecitabine (PX). Fixed-effects frequentist network meta-analysis models was applied and P-score was used to rank the treatments.ResultsDC, GP, and PX were the top three IC regimens with the highest probability of benefit on overall survival (OS). Their corresponding hazard ratios (HRs) (95% CIs) compared with CCRT alone were of 0.24 (0.08–0.73), 0.43 (0.24–0.77), and 0.54 (0.27–1.09) and the respective P-scores were 94%, 82%, and 68%. The first three IC regimens showing significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) were PX, followed by GP and DC with respective HRs of 0.46 (0.24–0.88), 0.51 (0.34–0.77), and 0.49 (0.20–1.20), and P-scores of 82%, 78%, and 74%. Among the studies in the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) era, GP and PX were the best performed IC regimens, whilst DC performed the best among non-IMRT studies. Doublet and gemcitabine-based IC regimens had better survival benefits compared to triplet and taxane-based IC regimens, respectively.ConclusionsGiven its consistent superiority in both OS and PFS, DC, GP, and PX ranked among the three most efficacious IC regimens in both the overall and subgroup analysis of IMRT or non-IMRT studies. Exploratory analyses suggested that doublet and gemcitabine-based IC regimens showed better survival performance.

No abstract