This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Penpulimab versus placebo in treating metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of Chinese payers. A three-state Markov model was developed to simulate clinical efficacy and cost consumption using Kaplan-Meier curves from clinical trials. The model considered only direct medical costs, with utility values derived from the published literature. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the model's robustness. The base case analysis indicated that the Penpulimab group incurred higher costs ($33,592 vs. $9,351) than the placebo group, while also providing more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (3.30 vs. 2.11), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $20,389.38 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost of Penpulimab, along with the utilities of progression-free survival (PFS) and progression of disease (PD), were the parameters that most significantly influenced the model's outcomes. From the perspective of Chinese payers, Penpulimab offers a cost-effectiveness advantage over placebo in treating metastatic squamous NSCLC.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The results of the ETER701 trial showed that benmelstobart and anlotinib plus chemotherapy have potential advantages in the treatment of extensive small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, it must be noted that the high cost cannot be ignored. This study was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of benmelstobart (B) and anlotinib (A) plus etoposide and carboplatin (EC) as first-line treatment options for patients with ES-SCLC in China. From the perspective of Chinese healthcare system, a three-state partitioned survival model was employed. The cycle length was set at three weeks, and the time horizon of the study was set as lifetime horizon. Total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as primary outputs of the model. Among them, the cost, and utility values were respectively derived from the YAOZHI database, and published literature on the subject. At the same time, in order to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the model outputs, scenario and sensitivity analyses were carried out. The results showed that compared with the EC group, the ICER for the B + A + EC group was $141,623.44/QALY, and the ICER for the A + EC group was $45,353.46/QALY, which were both higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold ($38,024.68/QALY). Sensitivity analysis verified the robustness of the model. Scenario analysis showed that charitable donations and cut-price could raise the likelihood of being cost-effective for benmelstobart and anlotinib. B + A + EC and A + EC are considered unlikely to be cost-effective strategies for first-line treatment of ES-SCLC in China. However, reducing the costs of benmelstobart and anlotinib may enhance the cost-effectiveness of these treatment regimens.

Extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) remains a challenging malignancy with a poor prognosis. The integration of immunochemotherapy and combined consolidative thoracic radiotherapy (cTRT) presents a potential paradigm shift in treatment. This study aims to evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of this approach.

In a single-center retrospective study conducted at Shandong Cancer Hospital, electronic medical records of 828 ES-SCLC patients treated between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023, were reviewed. Patients were divided into three cohorts based on treatment strategies: chemoradiotherapy (cohort A), immunochemotherapy without/with cTRT (cohort B/C). Propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for baseline differences. The primary outcomes were real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included the incidence and severity of specific interested adverse events (AEs).

Of the 374 patients analyzed, cohort C showed significant improvements in rwPFS and OS compared to cohort A. The median rwPFS in cohort C (10.9 months) was longer than that of cohorts A (7.6 months) and B (8.0 months). The 12-month rwPFS rate was highest in cohort C (41%), compared to cohorts A (19%) and B (34%). The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was comparable across cohorts, with myelosuppression being the most common. However, the incidence of grade 3 or higher pneumonitis was notably higher in cohorts B and C, aligning with previous reports.

The combination of cTRT with immunochemotherapy for ES-SCLC showed improved rwPFS and OS, indicating potential benefit in this population. The overall safety profile remained manageable. These findings highlight the need for further prospective studies to confirm the optimal integration of cTRT in ES-SCLC treatment strategies.

This study evaluated the economic value of administering trilaciclib to prevent myelosuppression in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients receiving etoposide, carboplatin, and atezolizumab (E/P/A) from both the Chinese and the United States (US) perspectives. A decision tree model was constructed to estimate and compare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net health benefits (INHBs), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness and uncertainty of the economic analysis. The base case analysis indicated that from the perspective of US payers, trilaciclib was cost-saving at the WTP threshold of $241,230.00, with an incremental cost of $-12,626.08, an INMB of $16,788.02, and an INHB of 0.07 QALYs. Conversely, from the perspective of Chinese payers, the use of trilaciclib was not economical at the WTP threshold of $35,817.44, with an ICER of $691,541.63/QALY, an INMB of -$8,765.52, and an INHB of -0.24 QALYs. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of these results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that, from the Chinese payers' perspective, trilaciclib treatment was not economical, with a probability of 100%. In contrast, from the US payers' perspective, it was economical, with a probability of 90.05%. Given the limited clinical data available for trilaciclib in the Chinese population, the cost-effectiveness of trilaciclib may improve with the inclusion of new data or changes in health insurance policies.

Research focused on the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to radiotherapeutic regimens in patients with cancer has become increasingly common, revealing promising improvements in efficacy outcomes. In patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), combining immunotherapy with chemoradiotherapy can facilitate the significant prolongation of survival, emphasizing the need for pharmacoeconomic studies focused on the clinical uptake of these innovative treatment regimens.

A three-state Markov model was developed based on clinical data from the randomized phase 3 CONTINUUM trial and used to compare the cost-effectiveness of chemoradiotherapy plus sintilimab (sintilimab group) to chemoradiotherapy alone (standard group), analyzing outcomes including incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net-health benefit (INHB) values at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold corresponding to three times the Chinese GDP per capita ($37 035 per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]).

The total costs for patients in the sintilimab and standard groups (QALYs [LYs]) were $92 116 (6.68 [10.03]) and $53 255 (3.75 [5.55]), respectively, for an ICER of $13 230/QALY ($8672/LY), an INMB of $70 021 with INHB of 1.89 QALYs. Using the selected WTP threshold. On the standard WTP threshold, the prevalence of sintilimab group as the primary treatment was 90.55% in China. The establishment of the model is stable.

Adding sintilimab to chemoradiotherapeutic regimens represents an innovative and cost-effective means for patients with locoregionally advanced NPC management in China.

The Phase 3 RATIONALE-312 trial (NCT04005716) showed that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy led to a noteworthy enhancement resulted in a significant improvement in overall survival among patients diagnosed with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) compared to chemotherapy alone. The treatment also had an acceptable level of safety. Nevertheless, the debate over the efficacy of implementing several treatment plans in competition continues due to the significant expenses involved. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the potential efficacy and cost of tislelizumab treatment as a first-line treatment for the ES-SCLC patient population in China. The study assessed primary health outcomes by measuring life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). This was done using a Markov model considering three health states with a 15-year horizon. To assess its model resilience, we conducted one-way sensitivity analyses with probability. In addition, subgroup analyses of some pre-specified patients was performed. Compared to chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy resulted in an additional 0.34 ($8,028) QALYs, leading to an ICER of $23,553 per QALY for the overall patient population. The ICER was lower than the assumed willingness-to-pay threshold of $35,367 per QALY. Approximately 60% of simulations suggested that tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy was cost-effective, while 40% suggested that chemotherapy alone was cost-effective. The subsequent sensitivity analyses revealed that the health utility value associated with the disease progression parameter had the greatest influence on ICER. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was a preferable treatment option for regimens for patients with ES-SCLC in China. This finding is important in guiding the Chinese healthcare system.

Tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy has shown significant clinical benefits in improving overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective and the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

We conducted an economic evaluation using a Markov state-transition model, reflecting the US payer perspective and the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Baseline patient characteristics and essential clinical data were obtained from the RATIONALE-312 trial. The costs and utilities were derived from open-access databases and published literature. The primary outcomes measured included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefit (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Uncertainties in the model were addressed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA).

In the base-case analysis, the addition of tislelizumab to chemotherapy provided an incremental gain of 0.16 QALYs at an additional cost of $7430.73, resulting in an ICER of $46,132.33 per QALY. Although above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China of $38,042.49 per QALY, the cost-effectiveness was marginal, with an INHB of - 0.03 QALYs and an INMB of $- 1303.06. In the US, despite a slightly higher effectiveness gain of 0.28 QALYs, the increased cost of $45,157.35 resulted in an unfavorable ICER of $163,885.06 per QALY, exceeding the US WTP threshold of $150,000.00. PSA showed probabilities of cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy at 17.18% in China and 40.41% in the US.

Tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy was not a cost-effective first-line treatment option for ES-SCLC in China or the US; however, the margin of cost-effectiveness was narrow.

This study explores the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab monotherapy compared with chemotherapy as first-line treatment for stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer (IIIB/IV-NSCLC) ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy from a US payer perspective.

This is based on the IPSOS clinical trial. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab monotherapy versus single-agent chemotherapy over a 15-year duration. Employing a robust Markov model incorporating data from 453 patients, we calculated total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150 000 per QALY. We performed one-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to validate our model.

The US payer perspective.

A cohort with NSCLC ineligible for treatment with a platinum-containing regimen from IPSOS clinical trial.

Atezolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy.

Cost, QALYs, LYs and ICER.

Chemotherapy resulted in an average survival of 0.930 QALYs (1.528 LYs) per patient at an average cost of $67 579. Atezolizumab treatment provided an additional 0.309 QALYs but incurred an extra cost of $66 472, leading to an ICER of $215 069 per QALY compared with chemotherapy. The cost of atezolizumab had the most significant impact on the model outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that atezolizumab had a 30.2% probability of being considered cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY in the USA. These results remained consistent across various scenarios and sensitivity analyses employing both deterministic and probabilistic approaches.

The current price of atezolizumab renders it an unlikely cost-effective treatment option for patients with IIIB/IV-NSCLC from the payer's perspective in the USA. To achieve cost-effectiveness, substantial discounts are necessary.

The IMpower-110, an open-label, randomised, phase 3 clinical trial (NCT02409342). The IPSOS clinical trial (NCT03191786).

The LUNAR trial demonstrated the significant efficacy and safety of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) plus standard-of-care (SOC) [immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and docetaxel (DTX)] for patients with previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). However, it remains uncertain as to whether the high costs are justified by the corresponding survival benefits. Here, the cost-effectiveness of using TTFields plus SOC for treating mNSCLC was evaluated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

A Markov model with a 15-year time horizon was established and used to comparedeveloped to enable the simulation of treatment-associated costs and patient outcomes when comparing TTFields plus SOC to SOC alone. Primary outcomes for these analyses included total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values. The impact of paramere uncertainty on model outcomes was evaluated through sensitivity analyses. Additional subgroup and scenario analyses were also performed to extend these results.

While TTFields plus SOC exhibited a $74,688 increase in total costs relative to SOC ($96,092 vs. $21,404), it was associated with 0.38 additional QALYs (1.08 vs. 0.82 QALYs) for an ICER of $284,490/QALY. This value exceeded the $35,983/QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold selected for these analyses by a wide margin. Relative to ICI and DTX treatment, the incremental costs of TTFields plus ICI and TTFields plus DTX were $78,115 and $71,307, respectively, with corresponding gains of 0.42 and 0.13 QALYs, yielding ICERs of $187,434/QALY, and $546,386/QALY. The parameter that most strongly impacted the results of these analyses was the cost of TTFields.

The results indicated that given current treatment costs, TTFields plus SOC was insufficiently cost-effective in treating patients with mNSCLC in China, although TTFields plus ICI yields substantial health benefits.

In the ASTRUM-004 trial, serplulimab plus chemotherapy demonstrated significantly improved survival and controllable safety. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC), considering the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

A decision tree and a Markov model were constructed to simulate the treatment. The interesting results included total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model instability.

Compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy had an ICER of $55,539.46/QALY ($47,278.84/LY). The ICERs were estimated to be $58,706.03/QALY, $48,978.34/QALY and $59,709.54/QALY inpatients with programmed death-ligand 1 expression level of tumor proportion score (TPS) < 1%, 1% ≤ TPS < 50%, and TPS ≥ 50%. The cost-effective prices of serplulimab were $168.276/100 mg, $349.157/100 mg, and $530.039/100 mg at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $12,574.30/QALY, $25,148.60/QALY, and $37,722.90/QALY. Patient weight and price of serplulimab created the most significant impact. Presently, the probability of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 14.15%.

Compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy might not be cost-effective in the first-line treatment for advanced sqNSCLC.

TAS-102 (trifluridine/tipiracil) plus bevacizumab demonstrated a significant survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Physicians and patients are uncertain whether this treatment option is clinically acceptable in different countries, underscoring the need for analyses of the cost-effectiveness of this regimen.

To guide doctors and patients to choose TAS-102 plus bevacizumab or TAS-102 monotherapy in cancer treatment.

The cost-effective analysis.

A comprehensive Markov model of the 10-year horizon for three health states was established using data from the SUNLIGHT trial to evaluate the cost and health effects of TAS-102 with or without bevacizumab at particular willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds, analyzing parameters including quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net monetary benefit, as well as incremental net-health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were additionally conducted.

Treatment with TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy increased effectiveness (cost) by 0.39 ($151,474), 0.38 ($26,794), and 0.41 ($8596) QALYs, with an ICER of $388,171, $69,617, and $20,919 per QALY and an INHB of -0.62, -0.03, and 0.18 QALYs in the United States, United Kingdom, and China, respectively. The utility of progression-free survival was the most important factor in this model. At respective WTP thresholds of $150,000, $65,000, and $37,653 per QALY in the United States, United Kingdom, and China, the odds of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab being the dominant treatment were 0%, 49.6%, and 87.8%, respectively. In addition, mCRC patients with an Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group performance status ⩾ 1 may be the best candidates for treatment.

TAS-102 plus bevacizumab treatment represents a cost-effective third-line treatment for refractory mCRC from a Chinese payers' perspective, although the same was not true in the United States or United Kingdom at current drug prices.

Aim: To identify the optimal first-line treatment for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).Materials & methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis (CRD42023486863) to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of eight first-line treatment regimens for ES-SCLC, including 15 clinical trials.Results: Our analysis showed that the PD-1/PD-L1 + etoposide combined with platinum (EP) and PD-L1 + vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) + EP regimens significantly enhanced overall survival and progression-free survival, with subgroup analysis revealing that serplulimab ranked as the most promising option for improving overall survival. Integrating anti-angiogenesis drugs into immunochemotherapy presents potential benefits, with an increased incidence of adverse events necessitating further investigation.Conclusion: Our findings offer valuable insights for future research and for developing more effective treatment strategies for ES-SCLC, underscoring the critical need for continued innovation in this therapeutic area.

In accordance with the World Health Organization data, cancer remains at the forefront of fatal diseases. An upward trend in cancer incidence and mortality has been observed globally, emphasizing that efforts in developing detection and treatment methods should continue. The diagnostic path typically begins with learning the medical history of a patient; this is followed by basic blood tests and imaging tests to indicate where cancer may be located to schedule a needle biopsy. Prompt initiation of diagnosis is crucial since delayed cancer detection entails higher costs of treatment and hospitalization. Thus, there is a need for novel cancer detection methods such as liquid biopsy, elastography, synthetic biosensors, fluorescence imaging, and reflectance confocal microscopy. Conventional therapeutic methods, although still common in clinical practice, pose many limitations and are unsatisfactory. Nowadays, there is a dynamic advancement of clinical research and the development of more precise and effective methods such as oncolytic virotherapy, exosome-based therapy, nanotechnology, dendritic cells, chimeric antigen receptors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, natural product-based therapy, tumor-treating fields, and photodynamic therapy. The present paper compares available data on conventional and modern methods of cancer detection and therapy to facilitate an understanding of this rapidly advancing field and its future directions. As evidenced, modern methods are not without drawbacks; there is still a need to develop new detection strategies and therapeutic approaches to improve sensitivity, specificity, safety, and efficacy. Nevertheless, an appropriate route has been taken, as confirmed by the approval of some modern methods by the Food and Drug Administration.

The CAPSTONE-1 trial demonstrated that adebrelimab-based immunotherapy yielded a favourable survival benefit compared with chemotherapy for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this immunotherapy in the treatment of ES-SCLC from a healthcare system perspective in China.

The TreeAge Pro software was used to establish a three-state partitioned survival model. Survival data came from the CAPSTONE-1 trial (NCT03711305), and only direct medical costs were included. Utility values were obtained from the published literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the robustness of the model. The cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy was investigated through scenario and exploratory analyses in various settings.

Total costs, incremental costs, life years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

The basic analysis revealed that the adebrelimab group achieved a total of 1.1 QALYs at a cost of US$65 385, while the placebo group attained 0.78 QALYs at a cost of US$12 741. ICER was US$163 893/QALY. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the model was robust. Results from scenario and exploratory analyses indicated that the combination of adebrelimab and chemotherapy did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness in any scenario.

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, adebrelimab in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of ES-SCLC was not economical compared with chemotherapy.

Cystic brain metastases (BMs) are rare in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and there are limited data on the treatment and prognosis of cystic BMs. Whole brain radiotherapy has been the mainstay for BMs since several years. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in extensive stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) have been shown to be suitable for patients who experienced better overall survival and progress-free survival and have been approved as the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC. In this report, we described two ES-SCLC patients developed cystic BMs after immunotherapy, after which the patients continued to treat the primary lesion with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the cystic BMs with radiotherapy.

Two male patients were diagnosed with ES-SCLC at the first admission and were subsequently treated with immunotherapy plus platinum therapy, during which cystic BMs developed. One patient received whole brain radiotherapy and the other received whole brain radiotherapy and Gamma knife radiosurgery (GKRS). Immunotherapy was continued after the brain lesions were controlled. It has been 33 months since the first patient was diagnosed and is now in stable condition. The other patient achieved an overall survival of 30 months.

This report describes two patients with cystic brain metastases in ES-SCLC. Whole brain radiotherapy has a good effect on local control of cystic brain metastases in small cell lung cancer and can significantly improve the symptoms of patients. At the same time, we treat immunotherapy as the first-line treatment, and then perform cross-immunotherapy after disease progression, combined with anti-vascular targeting drugs. The patient did not develop severe iRAEs.

Although nivolumab has shown clinical benefits for relapsed malignant mesothelioma, its cost-effectiveness requires further investigation.

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared to placebo for relapsed malignant mesotheliomas from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

A three-state Markov model was developed based on data from the phase 3 randomized CONFIRM clinical trial. The drug cost and utility values for the health state were obtained from the relevant literature. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model.

Patients receiving nivolumab gained more health benefits (0.65 QALYs vs. 0.43 QALYs). The cost was higher ($25,806.08 vs. $9,310.74) than for patients in the placebo group, resulting in an ICER of $75,805.11/QALY, which was above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of three times per capita GDP ($35,864.61) in China. The result of OWSA indicated that the cost of nivolumab, the utility of the disease progression, and the discount rate were the most significant factors. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that the probability that nivolumab was not cost-effective as was 100.00% above the specified WTP threshold.

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, nivolumab was not as cost-effective as placebo for relapsed malignant mesothelioma.

Combined serplulimab and chemotherapy demonstrated improved clinical survival outcomes in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and PD-L1 combined positive scores (CPS) ≥ 1. The present study aimed to evaluate the economic viability of integrating serplulimab in combination with chemotherapy as a potential therapeutic approach for treating ESCC in China.

A Markov model was constructed to evaluate the economic and health-related implications of combining serplulimab with chemotherapy. With the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), costs and results in terms of health were estimated. For assessing parameter uncertainty, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity studies were carried out.

The combination of serplulimab and chemotherapy yielded incremental costs and QALYs of $3,163 and 0.14, $2,418 and 0.10, and $3,849 and 0.15, respectively, for the overall population as well as patients with PD-L1 CPS1-10 and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10. This corresponds to ICER values per QALY of $23,657, $23,982, and $25,134. At the prespecified WTP limit, the probabilities of serplulimab with chemotherapy being the preferred intervention option were 74.4%, 61.3%, and 78.1% for the entire patient population, those with PD-L1 1 ≤ CPS < 10, and those with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, respectively. The stability of the presented model was confirmed through sensitivity studies.

In conclusion, the combination of Serplulimab and chemotherapy showed excellent cost-effectiveness compared to chemotherapy alone in treating PD-L1-positive patients with ESCC in China.

Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody, pembrolizumab, is a promising drug for platinum-pretreated, recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy for Chinese patients in this NPC.

The cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy was evaluated using a partitioned survival model with a 5-year boundary. Efficacy and toxicity data were derived from the KEYNOTE-122 trials. Economic indicators including life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and lifetime cost were used. One-way analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to explore the uncertainties. Additionally, various scenario analyses, including different pembrolizumab price calculations and discount rates were performed.

Pembrolizumab or chemotherapy alone respectively yielded 2.82 QALYs (3.96 LYs) and 2.73 QALYs (3.93 LYs) with an ICER of $422,535 per QALYs ($1,232,547 per LYs). This model was primarily influenced by the price of pembrolizumab. Furthermore, PSA indicated that pembrolizumab had none probability of being cost-effective compared with chemotherapy at a willingness-to- pay (WTP) of $38223. Scenario analyses revealed that irrespective of any potential price reduction or adjustments in the discount rate, no discernible impact on the ultimate outcome was observed.

Pembrolizumab was less cost-effective for patients with platinum-pretreated, recurrent or metastatic NPC compared with chemotherapy in China.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy (NC) was recently approved as the first-line intervention for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC). Moreover, in the latest KEYNOTE-859 (NCT03675737), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (PC) was demonstrated to produce remarkable patient survival outcomes.

The clinicians and patients need to assess NC and PC preference for cancer drugs.

The cost-effective analysis.

In an economic assessment of the United States, United Kingdom, and Chinese healthcare systems using a Markov model simulated patients with GC/GEJC, two treatment decision branches with three health states and a tracked time horizon of 15 years were developed. The overall cost and efficacy outcomes of first-line strategies PC and NC were evaluated at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of different national, including life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were considered.

Given a WTP threshold of $150,000, $60,161, and $37,653 per QALY in the United States, United Kingdom, and China, respectively, both PC and NC achieved QALYs of 1.67 and 1.65 (2.51 and 2.48 LYs), 1.65 and 1.63 (2.48 and 2.45 LYs), and 1.60 and 1.58 (2.40 and 2.37 LYs), with total costs of $242,444 and $232,617, $148,367 and $127,737, and $16,693 and $24,016, respectively. Based on our sensitivity analysis, the programmed death-1 inhibitors cost produced the largest impact on the outcome. In addition, the cost-effectiveness probabilities of PC were 38.3%, 4.1%, and 100% in the three aforementioned countries, respectively.

In the case of the Chinese payers' perspective, PC appeared more dominant as first-line therapy for advanced GC/GEJC patients, whereas NC was preferred in the United States and United Kingdom.

The "hotness" or "coldness" of the tumors are determined by the information of the cancer cells themselves, tumor immune characteristics, tumor microenvironment, and signaling mechanisms, which are key factors affecting cancer patients' clinical efficacy. The switch mechanism of "hotness" and "coldness" and its corresponding pathological characteristics and treatment strategies are the frontier and hot spot of tumor treatment. How to distinguish the "hotness" or "coldness" effectively and clarify the causes, microenvironment state, and characteristics are very important for the tumor response and efficacy treatments. Starting from the concept of hot and cold tumor, this review systematically summarized the molecular characteristics, influencing factors, and therapeutic strategies of "hot and cold tumors," and analyzed the immunophenotypes, the tumor microenvironment, the signaling pathways, and the molecular markers that contribute to "hot and cold tumors" in details. Different therapeutic strategies for "cold and hot tumors" based on clinical efficacy were analyzed with drug targets and proteins for "cold and hot tumors." Furthermore, this review combines the therapeutic strategies of different "hot and cold tumors" with traditional medicine and modern medicine, to provide a basis and guidance for clinical decision-making of cancer treatment.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a rapidly growing malignancy with early distant metastases. Up to 70% will develop brain metastases, and the poor prognosis of these patients has not changed considerably. The potential of checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) in treating recurrent (r/r) SCLC and their effect on brain metastases remain unclear.

In this retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed r/r SCLC patients receiving second or further-line CPI versus chemotherapy between 2010 and 2020. We applied multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analysis to test for differences in 1-year mortality and real-world progression. We then used interaction analysis to evaluate whether brain metastases (BM) and/or cranial radiotherapy (CRT) modified the effect of CPI versus chemotherapy on overall survival.

Among 285 patients, 99 (35%) received CPI and 186 (65%) patients received chemotherapy. Most patients (93%) in the CPI group received nivolumab/ipilimumab. Chemotherapy patients were entirely CPI-naïve and only one CPI patient had received atezolizumab for first-line treatment. CPI was associated with a lower risk of 1-year mortality (adjusted Hazard Ratio [HRadj] 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.82, p=0.002). This benefit was modified by BM and CRT, indicating a pronounced effect in patients without BM (with CRT: HRadj 0.34, p=0.003; no CRT: HRadj 0.50, p=0.05), while there was no effect in patients with BM who received CRT (HRadj 0.85, p=0.59).

CPI was associated with a lower risk of 1-year mortality compared to chemotherapy. However, the effect on OS was significantly modified by intracranial disease and radiotherapy, suggesting the benefit was driven by patients without BM.

For patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), serplulimab plus chemotherapy is beneficial as the first-line treatment. It is uncertain whether serplulimab plus chemotherapy will be more cost-effective. The aim of this study was to evaluate from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system to assess the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy for patients with ES-SCLC.

This study employed a partitioned survival model. Patients in the model were selected from ASTRUM-005 for their clinical characteristics and outcomes. In order to assess the robustness of the model, we conducted deterministic one-way sensitivity analyzes as well as probabilistic sensitivity analyzes. Subgroup analyzes were also conducted. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were analyzed.

Based on the base-case analysis, serplulimab plus chemotherapy contributed to an increase in 0.826 life-years and 0.436 QALYs; an incremental cost of $52,331, yielded ICER of $120,149/QALY. Based on the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $37,669/QALY and $86,569/QALY, the INHB was -0.954 QALYs and - 0.169 QALYs and the INMB was -$35,924 and -$14,626, respectively. Based on the probabilistic sensitivity analysis results, serplulimab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $37,669/QALY and $86,569/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that cost of serplulimab and body weight had the greatest impact on the model. Serplulimab plus chemotherapy could be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $86,569/QALY when the cost of serplulimab was less than $5.24/mg or when the weight of the patient was less than 40.96 kg. Regardless of the WTP threshold at $37,669/QALY or $86,569. Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was not cost-effective in all subgroups.

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was not cost-effective, despite having a prior clinical benefical and a relative safety profile compared with chemotherapy. With the reduction in the price of serplulimab, ES-SCLC patients treated with serplulimab plus chemotherapy may be able to achieve a favorable cost-effectiveness rate.

The combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) was primarily carried out with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and platinum-etoposide (EP). It is likely to be more effective in treating ES-SCLC than EP alone, but could result in high healthcare costs. The study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy for ES-SCLC.

We searched literature from the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies on cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy for ES-SCLC. The literature search period was up to April 20, 2023. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

A total of 16 eligible studies were included in the review. All studies met CHEERS recommendations, and all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in these studies were rated as having low risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The treatment regimens compared were ICIs plus EP or EP alone. All studies mainly used incremental quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes. Most ICIs plus EP treatment regimens were not cost-effective based on corresponding willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Adebrelimab plus EP and serplulimab plus EP were probably cost-effective for ES-SCLC in China, and serplulimab plus EP was probably cost-effective for ES-SCLC in the U.S. Lowering the price of ICIs and selecting ES-SCLC patients who were sensitive to ICIs could improve the cost-effectiveness of the ICIs-combined treatment.

The ASTRUM-007 trial (NCT03958890) demonstrated that serplulimab plus chemotherapy administered every 2-week significantly improved progression-free and overall survival in patients with previously untreated, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC). This study was aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC.

A partitioned survival model with a 2-week cycle and a 10-year time horizon was constructed from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The survival data, direct medical costs and utilities were derived from the ASTRUM-007 trial, YAOZHI database and published sources. Total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around model parameters.

Compared with chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy provided additional 0.27 QALYs with an incremental cost of $33,460.86, which had an ICER of $124,483.07 per QALY. The subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of serplulimab plus chemotherapy were $134,637.42 and $105,589.71 in advanced ESCC patients with 1 ≤ CPS < 10 and CPS ≥ 10, respectively. The price of serplulimab, patient weight, utility values and discount rate were the most influential parameters on base-case results. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times per capita GDP ($40,587.59) in 2022, the probability of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0% compared with chemotherapy. When the price of serplulimab decreased by 70%, the probabilities of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective were 81.42%, 67.74% and 96.75% in advanced ESCC patients with PD-L1-positive, PD-L1 1≤CPS<10 and CPS≥10, respectively.

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC might not be cost-effective in China.

The addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to chemotherapy is the new standard of care in the first-line treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, although the concomitant use of immunotherapy and chemotherapy can increase the antitumor efficacy, it can also increase toxicity. The present study evaluated the tolerability of immune-based combinations in the first-line treatment of SCLC.

Relevant trials were identified by searching electronic databases and conference meetings. Seven phase II and III randomized controlled trials and 3766 SCLC patients were included in the meta-analysis (immune-based combinations = 2133; chemotherapy = 1633). Outcomes of interest included treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and the rate of discontinuation due to TRAEs.

Immune-based combination treatment was associated with a higher risk of grade 3-5 TRAEs (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.35). Immune-based combinations were associated with a higher risk of TRAEs leading to discontinuation (OR, 2.30; 95% CI: 1.17-4.54). No differences were observed in grade 5 TRAEs (OR, 1.56; 95% CI: 0.93-2.63).

This meta-analysis indicates that the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy in SCLC patients is associated with a higher risk of toxicity and probably of treatment discontinuation. Tools for identifying SCLC patients that would not benefit from immune-based therapy are urgently needed.

Objective: This study was aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of all available programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A partitioned survival model with a 3-week cycle and a 10-year time horizon was constructed based on a network meta-analysis. The survival data and utility values were derived from clinical trials, and the direct medical costs were collected from public drug bidding database and published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around model parameters. Results: Compared with mono-chemotherapy, toripalimab, sintilimab and camrelizumab plus chemotherapy were cost-effective treatment regimens, while serplulimab, pembrolizumab and nivolumab plus chemotherapy were not cost-effective options. Toripalimab plus chemotherapy provided the highest QALYs of 0.95 with the lower cost of $8,110.53 compared to other competing alternatives. The robustness of the base-case results was confirmed by scenario and one-way sensitivity analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times per capita gross domestic product ($38,351.20) in 2021, the probability of toripalimab plus chemotherapy being the optimal option was 74.25% compared with other six competing alternatives. Conclusion: Toripalimab plus chemotherapy represented the most cost-effective option as the first-line therapy for advanced ESCC patients in China.