Objective: Pembrolizumab and dostarlimab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that target programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1). Combination anti-PD-1 regimens have been shown to exhibit favorable survival benefits when treating advanced endometrial cancer (EC). Which treatment was preferable will need to be confirmed by a cost-effectiveness comparison between them. Methods: Based on patient and clinical parameters from RUBY and NRG-GY018 phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy (DC), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (PC), and chemotherapy alone (C) treatment for patients with mismatch repair-proficient microsatellite-stable (pMMR-MSS) and mismatch repair-deficient microsatellite instability-high (dMMR-MSI-H) advanced EC from the American payers’ perspective. The main results include total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay. Results: In the pMMR-MSS population, DC, PC, and C produced costs (QALYs) of $99,205 (3.02), $322,530 (3.25), and $421,923 (4.40), resulting in corresponding ICERs of $974,177/ QALY (PC vs. C), $234,527/QALY (DC vs. C), $86,671/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively; In the dMMR-MSI-H population, DC, PC, and C obtained costs (QALYs) of $120,177 (5.73), $691,399 (8.43), and $708,787 (11.26), yielding ICERs of $266,423/QALY (PC vs. C), $135,165/QALY (DC vs. C), $7,866/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively. Conclusion In the US, DC was a more cost-effective treatment than PC for patients with advanced EC irrespective of MMR status. However, compared to C, DC was associated with more cost-effectiveness in the dMMR-MSI-H population.

Objective: Pembrolizumab and dostarlimab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that target programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1). Combination anti-PD-1 regimens have been shown to exhibit favorable survival benefits when treating advanced endometrial cancer (EC). Which treatment was preferable will need to be confirmed by a cost-effectiveness comparison between them. Methods: Based on patient and clinical parameters from RUBY and NRG-GY018 phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy (DC), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (PC), and chemotherapy alone (C) treatment for patients with mismatch repair-proficient microsatellite-stable (pMMR-MSS) and mismatch repair-deficient microsatellite instability-high (dMMR-MSI-H) advanced EC from the American payers’ perspective. The main results include total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay. Results: In the pMMR-MSS population, DC, PC, and C produced costs (QALYs) of $99,205 (3.02), $322,530 (3.25), and $421,923 (4.40), resulting in corresponding ICERs of $974,177/ QALY (PC vs. C), $234,527/QALY (DC vs. C), $86,671/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively; In the dMMR-MSI-H population, DC, PC, and C obtained costs (QALYs) of $120,177 (5.73), $691,399 (8.43), and $708,787 (11.26), yielding ICERs of $266,423/QALY (PC vs. C), $135,165/QALY (DC vs. C), $7,866/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively. Conclusion In the US, DC was a more cost-effective treatment than PC for patients with advanced EC irrespective of MMR status. However, compared to C, DC was associated with more cost-effectiveness in the dMMR-MSI-H population.

Objective: Pembrolizumab and dostarlimab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that target programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1). Combination anti-PD-1 regimens have been shown to exhibit favorable survival benefits when treating advanced endometrial cancer (EC). Which treatment was preferable will need to be confirmed by a cost-effectiveness comparison between them. Methods: Based on patient and clinical parameters from RUBY and NRG-GY018 phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy (DC), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (PC), and chemotherapy alone (C) treatment for patients with mismatch repair-proficient microsatellite-stable (pMMR-MSS) and mismatch repair-deficient microsatellite instability-high (dMMR-MSI-H) advanced EC from the American payers’ perspective. The main results include total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay. Results: In the pMMR-MSS population, DC, PC, and C produced costs (QALYs) of $99,205 (3.02), $322,530 (3.25), and $421,923 (4.40), resulting in corresponding ICERs of $974,177/ QALY (PC vs. C), $234,527/QALY (DC vs. C), $86,671/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively; In the dMMR-MSI-H population, DC, PC, and C obtained costs (QALYs) of $120,177 (5.73), $691,399 (8.43), and $708,787 (11.26), yielding ICERs of $266,423/QALY (PC vs. C), $135,165/QALY (DC vs. C), $7,866/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively. Conclusion In the US, DC was a more cost-effective treatment than PC for patients with advanced EC irrespective of MMR status. However, compared to C, DC was associated with more cost-effectiveness in the dMMR-MSI-H population.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of using 3 hollow compression screws combined with 1 screw off-axis fixation under the guidance of three-dimensional (3D) printed guide plate with mortise-tenon joint structure (mortise-tenon joint plate) for the treatment of Pauwels type Ⅲ femoral neck fractures. METHODS: A clinical data of 78 patients with Pauwels type Ⅲ femoral neck fractures, who were admitted between August 2022 and August 2023 and met the selection criteria, was retrospectively analyzed. The operations were assisted with mortise-tenon joint plates in 26 cases (mortise-tenon joint plate group) and traditional guide plates in 28 cases (traditional plate group), and without guide plates in 24 cases (control group). There was no significant difference in the baseline data of gender, age, body mass index, cause of injury, and fracture side between groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy, incision length, incidence of postoperative deep vein thrombosis of lower extremity, pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 1 week after operation, and Harris score of hip joint at 3 months after operation were recorded and compared. X-ray re-examination was taken to check the quality of fracture reduction, fracture healing, and the shortening length of the femoral neck at 3 months after operation, and the incidences of internal fixation failure and osteonecrosis of the femoral head during operation. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy reduced in the two plate groups, and the quality of fracture reduction was better, but the incision was longer, and the differences were significant ( P<0.05). The operation time and intraoperative blood loss were significantly higher in the traditional plate group than in the mortise-tenon joint plate group ( P<0.05), the incision was significantly longer ( P<0.05); and the difference in fracture reduction quality and the frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy was not significant between two plate groups ( P>0.05). There was 1 case of deep vein thrombosis of lower extremity in the traditional plate group and 1 case in the control group, while there was no thrombosis in the mortise-tenon joint plate group. There was no significant difference in the incidence between groups ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12-15 months (mean, 13 months). There was no significant difference in VAS score at 1 week and Harris score at 3 months between groups ( P>0.05). Compared with the control group, the fracture healing time and the length of femoral neck shortening at 3 months after operation were significantly shorter in the two plate groups ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two plate groups ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidences of non-union fractures, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, or internal fixation failure between groups ( P>0.05). CONCLUSION For Pauwels type Ⅲ femoral neck fractures, the use of 3D printed guide plate assisted reduction and fixation can shorten the fracture healing time, reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, and be more conducive to the early functional exercise of the affected limb. Compared with the traditional guide plate, the mortise-tenon joint plate can reduce the intraoperative bleeding and shorten the operation time.
Humans ; Femoral Neck Fractures/diagnostic imaging* ; Bone Plates ; Fracture Fixation, Internal/instrumentation* ; Male ; Female ; Retrospective Studies ; Middle Aged ; Bone Screws ; Adult ; Aged ; Treatment Outcome ; Printing, Three-Dimensional ; Operative Time

Objective: The PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) reported final survival benefit associated with olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) based on molecular status. Our aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for overall patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA) mutation, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or HRD without BRCA mutations AOC from the context of the American healthcare system. Methods: Analysis of health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in various molecular status-based AOC patient at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay was performed using a state-transitioned Markov model with a 20-year time horizon. Meanwhile, sensitivity analyses assessments were also used to gauge the model’s stability. Results: The ICERs of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone were $487,428 ($374,758), $249,579 ($191,649), $258,859 ($198,739), and $270,736 ($206,640) per QALY (LY) in the overall patients, patients with BRCA mutations, patients with HRD, and patients with HRD without BRCA mutations AOC, respectively, which indicated that The ICERs was higher than $150,000/QALY in the US. Progression-free survival (PFS) value and olaparib cost emerged as the primary influencing factors of these findings in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion At current cost levels, olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment is not a cost-effective treatment for patients with AOC regardless of their molecular status in the US. However, this maintenance treatment may be more favorable health advantages for patients with BRAC mutations AOC.

Objective: Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV), a new antibody-drug conjugate, versus the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (IC) was the first treatment to demonstrate benefits for progression-free and overall survival in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) with high folate receptor-alpha (high-FRα) expression. Efficacy, safety, and economic effectiveness make MIRV the new standard of care for these patients. Methods: Based on patients and clinical parameters from MIRASOL (GOG 3045/ENGOTov55) phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost and efficacy of MIRV and IC for PROC with high-FRα expression, considering the bevacizumab-pretreated situation from the American healthcare system. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net health benefits were the main outcome indicators and compared with willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: Compared with the IC, MIRV was associated with incremental costs of $538,251, $575,674, and $188,248 with the corresponding QALYs (LYs) increased by 0.90 (1.55), 1.09 (1.88), and 0.53 (0.79), leading to ICERs of $596,189/QALY ($347,995/LY), $530,061/QALY ($306,894/LY), and $1,011,310/QALY ($680,025/LY) in the overall, bevacizumab-naïve, and bevacizumab-pretreated patients, respectively. When MIRV is reduced by more than 75%, it may be a cost-effective treatment. Conclusion At the current price, MIRV for PROC with high-FRα expression is not the cost-effective strategy in the US. However, its treatment has higher health benefits in bevacizumab-naïve patients, which is likely to be an alternative.

Objective: The PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) reported final survival benefit associated with olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) based on molecular status. Our aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for overall patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA) mutation, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or HRD without BRCA mutations AOC from the context of the American healthcare system. Methods: Analysis of health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in various molecular status-based AOC patient at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay was performed using a state-transitioned Markov model with a 20-year time horizon. Meanwhile, sensitivity analyses assessments were also used to gauge the model’s stability. Results: The ICERs of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone were $487,428 ($374,758), $249,579 ($191,649), $258,859 ($198,739), and $270,736 ($206,640) per QALY (LY) in the overall patients, patients with BRCA mutations, patients with HRD, and patients with HRD without BRCA mutations AOC, respectively, which indicated that The ICERs was higher than $150,000/QALY in the US. Progression-free survival (PFS) value and olaparib cost emerged as the primary influencing factors of these findings in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion At current cost levels, olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment is not a cost-effective treatment for patients with AOC regardless of their molecular status in the US. However, this maintenance treatment may be more favorable health advantages for patients with BRAC mutations AOC.

Objective: Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV), a new antibody-drug conjugate, versus the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (IC) was the first treatment to demonstrate benefits for progression-free and overall survival in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) with high folate receptor-alpha (high-FRα) expression. Efficacy, safety, and economic effectiveness make MIRV the new standard of care for these patients. Methods: Based on patients and clinical parameters from MIRASOL (GOG 3045/ENGOTov55) phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost and efficacy of MIRV and IC for PROC with high-FRα expression, considering the bevacizumab-pretreated situation from the American healthcare system. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net health benefits were the main outcome indicators and compared with willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: Compared with the IC, MIRV was associated with incremental costs of $538,251, $575,674, and $188,248 with the corresponding QALYs (LYs) increased by 0.90 (1.55), 1.09 (1.88), and 0.53 (0.79), leading to ICERs of $596,189/QALY ($347,995/LY), $530,061/QALY ($306,894/LY), and $1,011,310/QALY ($680,025/LY) in the overall, bevacizumab-naïve, and bevacizumab-pretreated patients, respectively. When MIRV is reduced by more than 75%, it may be a cost-effective treatment. Conclusion At the current price, MIRV for PROC with high-FRα expression is not the cost-effective strategy in the US. However, its treatment has higher health benefits in bevacizumab-naïve patients, which is likely to be an alternative.

Objective: The PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) reported final survival benefit associated with olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) based on molecular status. Our aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for overall patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA) mutation, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or HRD without BRCA mutations AOC from the context of the American healthcare system. Methods: Analysis of health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in various molecular status-based AOC patient at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay was performed using a state-transitioned Markov model with a 20-year time horizon. Meanwhile, sensitivity analyses assessments were also used to gauge the model’s stability. Results: The ICERs of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone were $487,428 ($374,758), $249,579 ($191,649), $258,859 ($198,739), and $270,736 ($206,640) per QALY (LY) in the overall patients, patients with BRCA mutations, patients with HRD, and patients with HRD without BRCA mutations AOC, respectively, which indicated that The ICERs was higher than $150,000/QALY in the US. Progression-free survival (PFS) value and olaparib cost emerged as the primary influencing factors of these findings in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion At current cost levels, olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment is not a cost-effective treatment for patients with AOC regardless of their molecular status in the US. However, this maintenance treatment may be more favorable health advantages for patients with BRAC mutations AOC.

Objective: Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV), a new antibody-drug conjugate, versus the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (IC) was the first treatment to demonstrate benefits for progression-free and overall survival in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) with high folate receptor-alpha (high-FRα) expression. Efficacy, safety, and economic effectiveness make MIRV the new standard of care for these patients. Methods: Based on patients and clinical parameters from MIRASOL (GOG 3045/ENGOTov55) phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost and efficacy of MIRV and IC for PROC with high-FRα expression, considering the bevacizumab-pretreated situation from the American healthcare system. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net health benefits were the main outcome indicators and compared with willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: Compared with the IC, MIRV was associated with incremental costs of $538,251, $575,674, and $188,248 with the corresponding QALYs (LYs) increased by 0.90 (1.55), 1.09 (1.88), and 0.53 (0.79), leading to ICERs of $596,189/QALY ($347,995/LY), $530,061/QALY ($306,894/LY), and $1,011,310/QALY ($680,025/LY) in the overall, bevacizumab-naïve, and bevacizumab-pretreated patients, respectively. When MIRV is reduced by more than 75%, it may be a cost-effective treatment. Conclusion At the current price, MIRV for PROC with high-FRα expression is not the cost-effective strategy in the US. However, its treatment has higher health benefits in bevacizumab-naïve patients, which is likely to be an alternative.