Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with axitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma

Abstract Objective Pembrolizumab/axitinib significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and increased objective response rate versus sunitinib in the phase III trial KEYNOTE-426 among previously untreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab/axitinib versus other first-line treatments of advanced RCC from a US public healthcare payer perspective. Methods A partitioned survival model with three states (progression-free, progressed, death) evaluated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for pembrolizumab/axitinib and other first-line regimens: sunitinib, pazopanib and avelumab/axitinib in the overall population; and sunitinib, cabozantinib and nivolumab/ipilimumab in the subgroup with intermediate/poor prognostic risk. Costs of treatments, adverse events and medical resources were estimated. OS, PFS and treatment duration were extrapolated using parametric models fitted to KEYNOTE-426 data and hazard ratios from network meta-analyses. Utilities were derived through mixed-effects regressions of KEYNOTE-426 EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Levels data. Results In the overall population, pembrolizumab/axitinib was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $95,725/QALY versus sunitinib and $128,210/QALY versus pazopanib, and was dominant (lower cost, higher effectiveness) versus avelumab/axitinib, with incremental QALY gains of 2.73, 2.40 and 1.80 versus these therapies, respectively. In the intermediate/poor-risk subgroup, base-case ICERs for pembrolizumab/axitinib were $101,030/QALY versus sunitinib, $6989/QALY versus cabozantinib, and $130,934/QALY versus nivolumab/ipilimumab, with incremental QALY gains of 2.62, 1.78 and 1.06 versus these therapies. Conclusions In this economic evaluation, pembrolizumab/axitinib was associated with higher life expectancy and QALYs and, based on typical willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150,000–$180,000/QALY, was found cost-effective versus other first-line treatments for advanced RCC in the US.

[1]  Chad A. LaGrange,et al.  Testicular Cancer, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. , 2019, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[2]  R. Perini,et al.  PCN45 PEMBROLIZUMAB PLUS AXITINIB (P+A) VERSUS OTHER FIRST-LINE (1L) SYSTEMIC THERAPIES FOR ADVANCED/METASTATIC CLEAR-CELL RENAL CELL CARCINOMA (CCMRCC) — A NETWORK META-ANALYSIS (NMA) , 2019, Value in Health.

[3]  C. Porta,et al.  Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. , 2019, The Lancet. Oncology.

[4]  J. Wolchok,et al.  Treatment-Free Survival: A Novel Outcome Measure of the Effects of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition—A Pooled Analysis of Patients With Advanced Melanoma , 2019, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  Chongqing Tan,et al.  First-line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs Sunitinib for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis , 2019, JAMA oncology.

[6]  C. Porta,et al.  Thirty-month follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial of first-line nivolumab + ipilimumab (N+I) or sunitinib (S) in patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). , 2019, Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  T. Powles,et al.  Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal‐Cell Carcinoma , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  R. Motzer,et al.  Avelumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal‐Cell Carcinoma , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  Charity J Morgan Landmark analysis: A primer , 2019, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology.

[10]  M. Leshno,et al.  A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Intermediate- to Poor-Risk Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. , 2019, The oncologist.

[11]  Q. Zhang,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy in advanced renal-cell carcinoma , 2018, Journal of Immunotherapy for Cancer.

[12]  C. Porta,et al.  Treatment-free interval (TFI) following discontinuation of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I) or sunitinib (S) in patients (Pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): CheckMate 214 analysis. , 2018, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[13]  J. Reeves,et al.  Clinical activity and molecular correlates of response to atezolizumab alone or in combination with bevacizumab versus sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma , 2018, Nature Medicine.

[14]  R. Motzer,et al.  Long-term follow-up of overall survival for cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma , 2018, British Journal of Cancer.

[15]  Bohuslav Melichar,et al.  Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal‐Cell Carcinoma , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  T. Choueiri,et al.  Cabozantinib versus sunitinib as initial therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma of intermediate or poor risk (Alliance A031203 CABOSUN randomised trial): Progression-free survival by independent review and overall survival update , 2018, European journal of cancer.

[17]  T. Choueiri,et al.  Axitinib in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced renal cell cancer: a non-randomised, open-label, dose-finding, and dose-expansion phase 1b trial. , 2018, The Lancet. Oncology.

[18]  Charles Swanton,et al.  Renal cell carcinoma , 2017, Nature Reviews Disease Primers.

[19]  T. Choueiri,et al.  Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib As Initial Targeted Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma of Poor or Intermediate Risk: The Alliance A031203 CABOSUN Trial. , 2017, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  T. Trikalinos,et al.  Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. , 2016, JAMA.

[21]  A. Ravaud,et al.  Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  J. Larkin,et al.  Lenvatinib, everolimus, and the combination in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial. , 2015, The Lancet. Oncology.

[23]  T. Delea,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for renal cancer in the United States. , 2015, Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy.

[24]  S. Ramsey,et al.  Health care costs among renal cancer patients using pazopanib and sunitinib. , 2015, Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy.

[25]  C. Porta,et al.  Final results from the large sunitinib global expanded-access trial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma , 2015, British Journal of Cancer.

[26]  L. Garrison,et al.  Lifetime cost of everolimus vs axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who failed prior sunitinib therapy in the US , 2015, Journal of medical economics.

[27]  D. Rowen,et al.  Patient-reported utilities in advanced or metastatic melanoma, including analysis of utilities by time to death , 2014, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[28]  R. Motzer,et al.  Randomized phase III trial of temsirolimus versus sorafenib as second-line therapy after sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[29]  D. Madoff,et al.  Epidemiology and Staging of Renal Cell Carcinoma , 2014, Seminars in Interventional Radiology.

[30]  R. Motzer,et al.  Tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a phase III trial. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[31]  J. Reeves,et al.  Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  R. Motzer,et al.  Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[33]  Lauren McCann,et al.  A randomised, double-blind phase III study of pazopanib in patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: final overall survival results and safety update. , 2013, European journal of cancer.

[34]  Han Yong Choi,et al.  The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. , 2011, European urology.

[35]  R. Figlin,et al.  Economic evaluation of new targeted therapies for the first‐line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma , 2011, BJU international.

[36]  David Pérol,et al.  Temsirolimus and bevacizumab, or sunitinib, or interferon alfa and bevacizumab for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TORAVA): a randomised phase 2 trial. , 2011, The Lancet. Oncology.

[37]  N. Halpern,et al.  Critical care medicine in the United States 2000–2005: An analysis of bed numbers, occupancy rates, payer mix, and costs* , 2010, Critical care medicine.

[38]  E. Small,et al.  Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa compared with interferon alfa monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: CALGB 90206. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[39]  R. Motzer,et al.  Economic evaluation of sunitinib malate for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[40]  C. Charbonneau,et al.  Epidemiologic and socioeconomic burden of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): a literature review. , 2008, Cancer treatment reviews.

[41]  R. Figlin,et al.  Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.