A cost-utility analysis of atezolizumab in the second-line treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Authors

null

Ambika Parmar

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Ambika Parmar , Marina Richardson , Beate Sander , Susanna Y. Cheng , Kelvin K. Chan

Organizations

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada

Research Funding

Other

Background: Despite early promising results, IMvigor211 failed to demonstrate an overall survival benefit for atezolizumab, compared to chemotherapy, in the second-line treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma. However, given improvements in adverse events (AE) and quality of life with atezolizumab, there may still be investment value. We conducted a cost-utility analysis (CUA) of atezolizumab compared to chemotherapy from a public-payer healthcare perspective. Methods: We developed a partitioned survival model to evaluate atezolizumab versus chemotherapy (i.e. docetaxel, paclitaxel or vinflunine). IMvigor211 informed rates of treatment receipt (initial and subsequent), AE, effectiveness and utility estimates. Cost for treatment, AE and death were based on published literature (adjusted to 2018 Canadian dollars). Per health state, cost of treatment (initial and subsequent) and AE were incorporated. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), cost per treatment, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). QALY and cost were discounted at 1.5% (Canadian guidelines). Parameter uncertainty was assessed through one-way and scenario analyses. Time horizons of 2 (within trial) and 5 years (extrapolated lifetime) were evaluated. Results: QALY of atezolizumab and chemotherapy over 2 years (lifetime) were 0.65 (0.93) and 0.58 (0.64), respectively. Cost of atezolizumab and chemotherapy over 2 years (lifetime) was $77,614.64, ($92,484.34), and $62,212.35 ($67,606.65), respectively. ICER over 2 years and lifetime was $220,032.71/QALY and $85,785.14/QALY. Scenario analysis from a North American perspective with only taxane chemotherapy with and without third line immunotherapy (IO) revealed an ICER of $80,144.90/QALY, $125,332.76/QALY over a lifetime horizon, respectively. Conclusions: The difference in ICER dependent on time horizon, driven by extrapolated survival benefits, highlights the importance of long-term follow-up to examine whether early evidence for durable response translates into long-term survival and improvements in cost-effectiveness. Thus, CUA of IO require careful interpretation and warrant dynamic assessment as new data becomes available.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2019 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Health Services Research, Clinical Informatics, and Quality of Care

Track

Quality Care/Health Services Research

Sub Track

Value/Cost of Care

Citation

J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 6639)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.6639

Abstract #

6639

Poster Bd #

330

Abstract Disclosures