Abstract
In 2021, KEYNOTE-590 (NCT03189719) showed that pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (PPF) has more benefits than 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (PF) as a first-line regimen to treat individuals with advanced esophageal cancer. However, given that it is expensive, controversies over the value of using this compared to competitive strategies remain. Hence, we conducted a cost-effectiveness evaluation of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. A Markov model was applied in evaluating the efficacy and cost of PPF and PF over a 7-year horizon and measured the health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The economic data included were relevant to patients in the USA and China. We also performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to determine the uncertainties relevant to the model. Willingness to pay thresholds (WTP) of $150,000/QALY (USA) and $35,673/QALY (China) were used to calculate a probability for the cost-effectiveness of PPF. PPF yielded 0.386-0.607QALYs (0.781-1.195LYs) compared with PF. In our analysis, compared with receiving PF, patients with advanced esophageal cancer receiving PPF had an ICER of $577,461/QALY in the USA and $258,261/QALY in China, those for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were $550,211/QALY in the USA and $244,580/QALY in China, and a programmed cell death ligand1 combined positive score (PD-L1 CPS) ≥ 10 was associated with a cost of $479,119/QALY in the USA and $201,355/QALY in China. Sensitivity analysis found the price of pembrolizumab to be the biggest influence. From the economic perspectives of the USA and China, a first-line regimen of PPF for esophageal cancer therapy may not be as cost-effective as PF. However, patients with esophageal cancer and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 may gain the most LYs from initial PPF treatment.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call