Immune checkpoint inhibitors versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10903196 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and purpose: The latest RATIONALE-302 trial (NCT03430843) showed that tislelizumab therapy significantly improved overall survival benefits for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) compared with traditional chemotherapy. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic ESCC in China. Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to predict patients' lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the Chinese healthcare payers' perspective. We extracted efficacy and safety data from the RATIONALE-302 trial and the local cost and resource use data from online databases and published studies. One-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to explore model uncertainty. Results: Compared with chemotherapy, tislelizumab generated a higher cost (US$ 10211.78 vs. US$ 7294.72) but yielded more QALY (0.78 vs. 0.51 QALYs). The ICER for tislelizumab was US$11073.85 per QALY gained. The PSA results indicated that the probability of tislelizumab being economical was 76% under a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 1.5 times per capita GDP ($17915) in China. Conclusion: Tislelizumab could be a promising cost-effective strategy as the second-line treatment for patients with ESCC compared with chemotherapy in the Chinese setting.
| S-EPMC9708733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEsophageal cancer (EC) is the seventh most common cancer in the world, with 604,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) including programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors have demonstrated a considerable survival advantage over chemotherapy in numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs), particularly in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). In this analysis, we aimed to demonstrate that ICIs are more safe and effective than chemotherapy when used as a second-line treatment for advanced ESCC.MethodsPublications on the safety and efficiency of ICIs in advanced ESCC that were available prior to February 2022 were searched in the Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases. Studies with missing data were eliminated, and studies that compared the treatments between the immunotherapy group and chemotherapy group were included. Statistical analysis was carried out using RevMan 5.3, and risk and quality were evaluated with relevant evaluation tools.ResultsFive studies met the inclusion criteria were selected, involving 1,970 patients with advanced ESCC. We compared chemotherapy and immunotherapy in the second-line treatment of advanced ESCC. ICIs considerably enhanced both the objective response rate (P=0.007) and overall survival (OS; P=0.001). However, the effect of ICIs on progression-free survival (PFS) was not significant (P=0.43). ICIs presented fewer grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and there was also a suggested linkage between both PD-L1 expression and the effectiveness of the therapeutic intervention.ConclusionsFor patients with advanced ESCC, ICIs are more effective and safer than chemotherapy, and thus have a higher treatment value.
| S-EPMC10089833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSintilimab plus chemotherapy significantly prolongs overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of this high-priced therapy is currently unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone as fist-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.MethodsA partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states was constructed to assess the cost and effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy as first-line treatment of OSCC. Key clinical data in the model came from the ORIENT-15 trial. Costs and utilities were collected from published sources. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were calculated for the two treatment strategies. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for uncertainty and model stability. Additional subgroup and scenario analyses were performed.ResultsTreatment with sintilimab plus chemotherapy provided an additional 0.37 QALYs and an incremental cost of $8,046.58 compared with chemotherapy, which resulted in an ICER of $21,782.24 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the model was most sensitive to utility of progression-free survival (PFS) and the cost of sintilimab. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the probability of sintilimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0.01%, 76.80% and 98.60% at the threshold of 1, 2 or 3 times GDP per capita per QALY, respectively. Subgroup analysis found that all subgroups other than PD-L1 expression combined positive scores < 1 subgroup favored sintilimab plus chemotherapy treatment due to its association with positive INHBs by varying the hazard ratios for OS and PFS. The scenario analyses showed altering the time horizon of the model or fitting survival curves separately did not reverse results of the model.ConclusionSintilimab plus chemotherapy was associated with improved QALYs and an additional cost but was estimated to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC at the commonly adopted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times GDP per capita per QALY in China.
| S-EPMC9899904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe therapeutic landscape for advanced urothelial carcinoma (mUC) has changed significantly since studies establishing superiority of cisplatin as first-line therapy were conducted. Most patients who are eligible now receive either maintenance or second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and data comparing first-line platinum chemotherapy agents in this setting is limited.Patients and methodsThe objective of this study was to determine the impact of first-line platinum chemotherapy agent on survival for patients who receive second-line ICI. This is a retrospective cohort study of real-world data, performed from January 1, 2015, to March 21, 2021, included patients with a diagnosis of metastatic or locally advanced urothelial carcinoma. Exposure of interest was first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy (gemcitabine and/or cisplatin or gemcitabine and/or carboplatin) followed by single-agent second-line ICI. The primary endpoint was overall survival from start of second-line therapy.Results2,042 patients received either gemcitabine and cisplatin (gem/cis) or gemcitabine and carboplatin (gem/carbo) as first-line therapy. The primary analysis of 890 patients who received second-line single-agent ICI had a median follow-up was 24.2 months from initiation of second-line therapy. Important differences in baseline demographics and/or clinical factors between groups were age, performance status, incidence of upper tract disease, and cisplatin eligibility. Unadjusted overall survival (OS) calculated from start of second-line therapy was longer in patients who received gem/cis compared to gem/carbo followed by ICI (median 9.3 vs. 8.8 months, P = 0.0009). However, OS adjusted for covariates was not significantly different with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.79-1.13; P = 0.50). A separate time-varying covariate model also showed no association between OS and first-line gem/cis (HR 1.00 [95% CI, 0.84-1.19]) while receiving second-line ICI.ConclusionsSurvival time on ICI in the second-line setting is the same regardless of choice of prior platinum agent (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) suggesting against specific synergy for one of these agents with ICI. However, a significantly greater proportion of patients in a landmark analysis had long-term benefit with cisplatin strongly supporting it is as the preferred first-line platinum agent.
| S-EPMC9529860 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: This study aimed to analyze the cost effectiveness of camrelizumab in the second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China. Methods: On the basis of the ESCORT clinical trial, a partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate the patient's lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity and probability sensitivity analyses were performed to test the stability of the model. Results: Treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with camrelizumab added 0.36 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $1,439.64 compared with chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $3,999 per QALY gained. The ICER was far lower than the threshold of willingness to pay for one time the GDP per capita in China. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of drugs, but the parameters did not have a major effect on the results of the model. Conclusion: Camrelizumab is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. This informs patient selection and clinical path development.
| S-EPMC8634950 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEsophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has a poor prognosis, with limited second-line systemic therapy options, and represents an increasing disease burden in Japan. In the phase 3 RATIONALE-302 study, the anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibody, tislelizumab, significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment for advanced/metastatic ESCC. Here, we report the Japanese patient subgroup results.MethodsPatients with advanced/metastatic ESCC, with disease progression during/after first-line systemic therapy were randomized 1:1 to open-label tislelizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or investigator's choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel/docetaxel). Efficacy and safety were assessed in all randomized Japanese patients.ResultsThe Japanese subgroup comprised 50 patients (n = 25 per arm). Tislelizumab improved OS versus chemotherapy (median: 9.8 vs. 7.6 months; HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.31, 1.12). Among patients with programmed death-ligand 1 score ≥ 10%, median OS was 12.5 months with tislelizumab (n = 10) versus 2.9 months with chemotherapy (n = 6) (HR 0.31; 95% CI 0.09, 1.03). Tislelizumab improved progression-free survival versus chemotherapy (median: 3.6 vs. 1.7 months, respectively; HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.27, 0.95). Objective response rate was greater with tislelizumab (32.0%) versus chemotherapy (20.0%), and responses were more durable (median duration of response: 8.8 vs. 2.6 months, respectively). Fewer patients experienced ≥ grade 3 treatment-related adverse events with tislelizumab (24.0%) versus chemotherapy (47.8%). Tislelizumab demonstrated an improvement in health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy.ConclusionsAs second-line therapy for advanced/metastatic ESCC, tislelizumab improved OS versus chemotherapy, with a favorable safety profile, in the Japanese patient subgroup, consistent with the overall population.Clinical trial registryClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03430843.
| S-EPMC10957685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To determine the effectiveness and toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy or immunotherapy alone as first‐line treatment of advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
| S-EPMC6494557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have altered the treatment paradigm across a range of tumour types, including gastro-oesophageal cancers. For patients with any cancer type who respond, ICIs can confer long-term disease control and significantly improve survival and quality of life, but for patients with gastro-oesophageal cancer, ICIs can be transformative, as durable responses in advanced disease have hitherto been rare, especially in those patients who are resistant to first-line cytotoxic therapies. Results from trials in patients with advanced-stage gastro-oesophageal cancer have raised hopes that ICIs will be successful as adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments in early-stage disease, when the majority of patients relapse after potential curative treatments, and several trials are ongoing. Unfortunately, however, ICI-responding patients appear to constitute a minority subgroup within gastro-oesophageal cancer, and resistance to ICI therapy (whether primary or acquired) is common. Understanding the biological mechanisms of ICI resistance is a current major research challenge and involves investigation of both tumour and patient-specific factors. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms underlying ICI resistance and their potential specific applications of this knowledge towards precision medicine strategies in the management of gastro-oesophageal cancers in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC8505606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePatients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) have poor prognosis. For these patients, treatment options are limited after first-line systemic therapy.Patients and methodsIn this open-label phase III clinical study, patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC, whose tumor progressed after first-line systemic treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous tislelizumab, an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibody, 200 mg every 3 weeks or chemotherapy (investigator's choice of paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in all patients. The key secondary end point was OS in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 tumor area positivity (TAP) score ≥ 10%.ResultsIn total, 512 patients across 11 countries/regions were randomly assigned. At final analysis, conducted after 410 death events occurred, OS was significantly longer with tislelizumab versus chemotherapy in all patients (median, 8.6 v 6.3 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.85]; one-sided P = .0001), and in patients with TAP ≥ 10% (median, 10.3 months v 6.8 months; HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79]; one-sided P = .0006). Survival benefit was consistently observed across all predefined subgroups, including those defined by baseline TAP score, region, and race. Treatment with tislelizumab was associated with higher objective response rate (20.3% v 9.8%) and a more durable antitumor response (median, 7.1 months v 4.0 months) versus chemotherapy in all patients. Fewer patients experienced ≥ grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (18.8% v 55.8%) with tislelizumab versus chemotherapy.ConclusionTislelizumab significantly improved OS compared with chemotherapy as second-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC, with a tolerable safety profile. Patients with programmed death-ligand 1 TAP ≥ 10% also demonstrated statistically significant survival benefit with tislelizumab versus chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC9462531 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited treatment options exist for relapsed advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), leading to poor outcomes compared with adenocarcinoma. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of second-line afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung SCC who progressed after first-line chemotherapy.MethodsIn this retrospective, multisite cohort study, we recruited patients with initial locally advanced or metastatic lung SCC from four institutes in Taiwan between June 2014 and October 2020. The primary endpoint of this study was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival (OS).ResultsThe present study enrolled 108 patients: 19 received second-line afatinib, and 89 received second-line chemotherapy. The median ages were 71 and 67 years, respectively. PFS was significantly longer among patients who received afatinib than among those who received chemotherapy (median 4.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.1-7.5] vs. 2.6 months [95% CI, 0.9-6.7]; hazard ratio (HR) 0.53 [95% CI 0.32-0.88], p = 0.013). Compared with the chemotherapy group, OS was longer in the afatinib group but did not reach significance (median 16.0 months [95% CI, 6.1-22.0] vs. 12.3 months [6.2-33.9]; HR 0.65 [95% CI 0.38-1.11], p = 0.112).ConclusionsAfatinib offered a longer PFS and comparable OS to chemotherapy in advanced lung SCC patients in a real-world setting, it may be considered as a 2nd line alternative treatment choice for immunotherapy unfit advanced lung SCC patients.
| S-EPMC8594240 | biostudies-literature