Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy in the third-line treatment of small cell lung cancer

References

• GLOBOCAN. New global cancer data: GLOBOCAN 2018; 2018. [updated 12 Sept 2018; cited 11 August 2020]; Available from: https://www.uicc.org/new-global-cancer-data-globocan-2018
   Google Scholar
• Gazdar AF, Bunn PA, Minna JD. Small-cell lung cancer: what we know, what we need to know and the path forward. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(12):725–737.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lally BE, Urbanic JJ, Blackstock AW, et al. Small cell lung cancer: have we made any progress over the last 25 years? Oncologist. 2007;12(9):1096–1104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amini A, Byers LA, Welsh JW, et al. Progress in the management of limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(6):790–798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chute JP, Chen T, Feigal E, et al. Twenty years of phase III trials for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: perceptible progress. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(6):1794–1801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fruh M, De Ruysscher D, Popat S, et al. Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC): ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(Suppl 6):vi99–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. FDA grants nivolumab accelerated approval for third-line treatment of metastatic small cell lung cancer 2018. [updated August 16, 2018; cited 11 August 2020]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/ApprovedDrugs/ucm617370.htm
   Google Scholar
• Antonia SJ, López-Martin JA, Bendell J, et al. Nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in recurrent small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(7):883–895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ready N, Farago AF, de Braud F, et al. Third-line nivolumab monotherapy in recurrent SCLC: CheckMate 032. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(2):237–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Small cell lung cancer. Version 2; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Kalemkerian GP, Loo BW, Akerley W, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: small cell lung cancer, version 2.2018. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16(10):1171–1182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smare C, Lakhdari K, Doan J, et al. Evaluating partitioned survival and Markov decision-analytic modeling approaches for use in cost-effectiveness analysis: estimating and comparing survival outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(1):97–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullement A, Cranmer HL, Shields GE. A review of recent decision-analytic models used to evaluate the economic value of cancer treatments. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17(6):771–780.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Hang Y, Liu M, et al. First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Front Oncol. 2020;10:602185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson CH. Flexsurv: a platform for parametric survival modeling in R. J Stat Softw. 2016;70:i08.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CheckMate 032 clinical trial report (data on file). Princeton (NJ): Bristol Myers Squibb; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Keeping ST, Cope S, Chan K, et al. Comparative effectiveness of nivolumab versus standard of care for third-line patients with small-cell lung cancer. J Comp Eff Res. 2020;9(18):1275–1284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flatiron Heath, Flatiron health records (data on file). Princeton (NJ): Bristol Myers Squibb; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Eckardt JR, von Pawel J, Pujol J-L, et al. Phase III study of oral compared with intravenous topotecan as second-line therapy in small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(15):2086–2092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 2018. CMS physician fee schedule 2018 [cited 11 August 2020]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/
   Google Scholar
• Bremner KE, Krahn MD, Warren JL, et al. An international comparison of costs of end-of-life care for advanced lung cancer patients using health administrative data. Palliat Med. 2015;29(10):918–928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latimer NR. NICE DSU technical support document 14: survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials – extrapolation with patient-level data. Report by the Decision Support Unit; 2013. [cited 2020 August 11]. Available from: http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NICE-DSU-TSD-Survival-analysis.updated-March-2013.v2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• CheckMate 003 clinical trial report (data on file). Princeton (NJ): Bristol Myers Squibb; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJNM, et al. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Pawel J, Jotte R, Spigel DR, et al. Randomized phase III trial of amrubicin versus topotecan as second-line treatment for patients with small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(35):4012–4019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santi I, Smare C, Juarez-Garcia A, et al. The impact of landmark response on overall survival: implications for the economic evaluation of immune-therapy (I-O) treatment in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Barcelona, Spain: PRM157 ISPOR Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Ouwens MJNM, Mukhopadhyay P, Zhang Y, et al. Estimating lifetime benefits associated with immuno-oncology therapies: challenges and approaches for overall survival extrapolations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(9):1129–1138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santi I, Johal S, Yuan Y, et al. The impact of response at a landmark on overall survival: implications for the economic evaluation of the value of immune-oncology (I-O) treatment in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Value Health. 2018:21(suppl1):S211.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Nivolumab for previously treated squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Technology appraisal guidance [TA483]; 2017. [cited 2020 August 11]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta483/chapter/4-Committee-discussion
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pembrolizumab for treating PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer after chemotherapy. Technology approasial guidance [TA428]. 2017. [updated 2017 September 12; cited 2020 August 11]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta428.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Atezolizumab in combination for treating metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Technology appraisal guidance [TA584]. 2019. [updated 2019 5 June; cited March 2021]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta584/chapter/1-Recommendations
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Atezolizumab for treating locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after chemotherapy. Technology appraisal guidance [TA520]. 2018. [updated 16 May 2018; cited March 2021]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta520/chapter/1-Recommendations.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pembrolizumab for untreated PD-L1-positive metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Technology appraisal guidance [TA531]. 2018. [updated 18 July 2018; cited March 2021]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta531/chapter/1-Recommendation.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pembrolizumab with carboplatin and paclitaxel for untreated metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Technology appraisal guidance [TA600]. 2019. [updated 11 September 2019; cited March 2021]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta600/chapter/1-Recommendations.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pembrolizumab with pemetrexed and platinum chemotherapy for untreated, metastatic, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Technology appraisal guidance [TA683]. 2021. [updated 10 March 2021; cited March 2021]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta683/chapter/1-Recommendations.
   Google Scholar
• Becker G, Murphy K, Philipson T. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 13333: the value of life near its end and terminal care. 2007. [cited 11 August 2020]. Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w13333.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Nadler E, Eckert B, Neumann PJ. Do oncologists believe new cancer drugs offer good value? Oncologist. 2006;11(2):90–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seabury SA, Goldman DP, Maclean JR, et al. Patients value metastatic cancer therapy more highly than is typically shown through traditional estimates. Health Aff. 2012;31(4):691–699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young KC, Kelly AG, Holloway RG. Reading a cost-effectiveness or decision analysis study: five things to consider. Neurol Clin Pract. 2013;3(5):413–420.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer statistics review 1975-2012. [cited 2020 August 11]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2012/results_merged/topic_historical_mort_trends.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Enstone A, Greaney M, Povsic M, et al. The economic burden of small cell lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Pharmacoecon Open. 2018;2(2):125–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horn L, Mansfield AS, Szczęsna A, et al. First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(23):2220–2229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar