Cetuximab in patients with unresectable cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma is safe and effective: A real-life analysis

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

“…The present results also underscore the previous findings on the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab from a US payer perspective 23,24 based on an interim cut of cemiplimab clinical trial data (NCT02760498, median follow-up of 11.9 months) and compared with historical SOC (ie, chemotherapy and EGFR inhibitors). [14][15][16][17]41 The prior evaluation indicated substantial clinical and economic value of cemiplimab in patients with advanced CSCC relative to historically used treatments, driven by favorable OS and PFS for cemiplimab compared with the treatments that collectively comprised SOC prior to the introduction of immunotherapy for advanced CSCC.…”

Comparative Efficacy of Cemiplimab Versus Other Systemic Treatments for Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma

“…In Jarkowski et al [95], chemotherapy with platinum was associated with a median OS of 15.1 months. For treatment with cetuximab, median OS was reported as 13 months (range 1-36) and 17.5 months (95% CI: 9.4-43.1) in Picard et al [24] and Peyrade et al [84], respectively, and a mean OS of 8.1 months (95% CI: 6.9-9.3) was reported in Maubec et al [23]. Survival with gefitinib and erlotinib were comparable, with a median OS of 12.9 months (95% CI: 8.5-25.0) in William et al [25] for the former and 14.9 months (95% CI: 11.7-25.2) in Gold et al [22] for the latter.…”

“…From the 27 studies identified in the SLR, 11 single-arm or retrospective observational studies (representing data from 617 patients) were deemed suitable for inclusion in the comparisons given that they involved systemic drug monotherapy (without RT) and reported OS or PFS via KM survival curves. Analyses were conducted using data from the registrational trial of cemiplimab (i.e., the Phase II study; NCT02760498); therefore, the Phase I trial of [24] (n = 31), Maubec et al [23] (n = 36) and Peyrade et al [84] (n = 58) evaluated cetuximab; William et al [25] (n = 40) evaluated gefitinib; Cavalieri et al [64] (n = 42) evaluated dacomitinib and Foote et al (n = 16) evaluated panitumumab. The remaining three studies were Maubec et al 2019 [96] (n = 39) and Grob et al [32] (n = 105) who evaluated pembrolizumab and Jarkowski et al [95] (n = 18) who evaluated chemotherapy with platinum.…”

“…Gold et al [22] and William et al [25] had the same restriction and also could have only received up to one prior chemotherapy regimen (i.e., patients were receiving their first-or second-line of systemic treatment). The population in Peyrade et al [84] had not received prior EGFR inhibitors or chemotherapy in the advanced stage of the disease. Maubec et al [23] and Maubec et al (2019) [96] had the most restrictive eligibility criteria and only included patients who were receiving their first-line of systemic treatment.…”

“…Median PFS was 9.8 months for platinum-based chemotherapy in Jarkowski et al [95]. Treatment with cetuximab resulted in a median PFS of 4.1 months (95% CI: 1.7-5.0) in Maubec et al (2011) [23], 9 months (range 0-36) in Picard et al [24] and 9.7 months (95% CI: 4.8-43.4) in Peyrade et al [84]. PFS estimates for gefitinib and erlotinib were comparable, with medians of 3.8 months (95% CI: 2.2-5.7) in William et al [25] for the former and 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.6-7.1) in Gold et al [22] for the latter.…”