Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone, based on the results of the NRG-GY018 trial, in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC), stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups. Methods: A Markov model was used to simulate patients receiving either pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated using a willingnessto-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of our findings. Results: The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to an incremental gain of 4.05 QALYs at an additional cost of $167,224, resulting in an ICER of $41,305.09/QALY compared to chemotherapy alone in dMMR EC. Additionally, there were 0.93 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $83,661, which resulted in an ICER of $90,284.80/QALY in pMMR EC.Sensitivity analyses indicated that the cost of pembrolizumab, utility of progressed disease, and utility of progression-free survival had the greatest impact on the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that pembrolizumab was considered cost-effective at a 100% probability at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Conclusion Pembrolizumab, when combined with chemotherapy, was found to be costeffective compared to chemotherapy alone both for patients with advanced or recurrent dMMR and pMMR EC from the perspective of a payer in the United States.

Objective: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in combination with chemotherapy for patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) from the U.S. payer’s perspective. Methods: A cost-effectiveness study was conducted using a Markov model based on ENGOT-en7/MaNGO/AtTEnd clinical trials. The population consisted of patients with EC, stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups. The model simulated patients receiving either atezolizumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated using a Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy in dMMR EC resulted in an incremental gain of 3.31 QALYs but at an additional cost of $855,042, leading to an ICER of $258,391.07/QALY compared to chemotherapy alone. In pMMR EC, there was a gain of 0.50 QALYs with an additional cost of $140,502, resulting in an ICER of $279,239.72/QALY. The overall ICER for EC was $216,459.34/QALY. Scenario analysis indicated that administering atezolizumab for a maximum of 2 years improved cost-effectiveness in dMMR EC, with an ICER of $70,695.96/ QALY falling within the predetermined WTP threshold. Conclusion For patients with advanced or recurrent EC, the combination of atezolizumab and chemotherapy may not prove cost-effective. However, administering atezolizumab for a limited period of maximum 2 years could improve cost-effectiveness in dMMR EC.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tisotumab vedotin to treat recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in second- or third-line from the U.S. payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model with three-state was employed to simulate recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients who were administered either tisotumab vedotin or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy based on the phase III, open-labeled innovaTV 301 randomized clinical trial. The data on cost and health preferences were collected from the literature. Results: Tisotumab vedotin generated an additional 0.25 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared to chemotherapy, but at an additional cost of $206,779. This results in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $839,107.88 per QALY. The results of the univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that cost of tisotumab vedotin, utility of progressive disease and progression-free survival had the greatest impacts on the outcomes. Probability sensitivity analysis showed that tisotumab vedotin had a 0% chance of being considered cost-effective. Conclusion Tisotumab vedotin was unlikely cost-effective compared to chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/ QALY from the perspective of a U.S. payer. Lowering the prices of tisotumab vedotin could potentially enhance its cost-effectiveness.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone, based on the results of the NRG-GY018 trial, in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC), stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups. Methods: A Markov model was used to simulate patients receiving either pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated using a willingnessto-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of our findings. Results: The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to an incremental gain of 4.05 QALYs at an additional cost of $167,224, resulting in an ICER of $41,305.09/QALY compared to chemotherapy alone in dMMR EC. Additionally, there were 0.93 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $83,661, which resulted in an ICER of $90,284.80/QALY in pMMR EC.Sensitivity analyses indicated that the cost of pembrolizumab, utility of progressed disease, and utility of progression-free survival had the greatest impact on the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that pembrolizumab was considered cost-effective at a 100% probability at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Conclusion Pembrolizumab, when combined with chemotherapy, was found to be costeffective compared to chemotherapy alone both for patients with advanced or recurrent dMMR and pMMR EC from the perspective of a payer in the United States.

Objective: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in combination with chemotherapy for patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) from the U.S. payer’s perspective. Methods: A cost-effectiveness study was conducted using a Markov model based on ENGOT-en7/MaNGO/AtTEnd clinical trials. The population consisted of patients with EC, stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups. The model simulated patients receiving either atezolizumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated using a Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy in dMMR EC resulted in an incremental gain of 3.31 QALYs but at an additional cost of $855,042, leading to an ICER of $258,391.07/QALY compared to chemotherapy alone. In pMMR EC, there was a gain of 0.50 QALYs with an additional cost of $140,502, resulting in an ICER of $279,239.72/QALY. The overall ICER for EC was $216,459.34/QALY. Scenario analysis indicated that administering atezolizumab for a maximum of 2 years improved cost-effectiveness in dMMR EC, with an ICER of $70,695.96/ QALY falling within the predetermined WTP threshold. Conclusion For patients with advanced or recurrent EC, the combination of atezolizumab and chemotherapy may not prove cost-effective. However, administering atezolizumab for a limited period of maximum 2 years could improve cost-effectiveness in dMMR EC.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tisotumab vedotin to treat recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in second- or third-line from the U.S. payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model with three-state was employed to simulate recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients who were administered either tisotumab vedotin or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy based on the phase III, open-labeled innovaTV 301 randomized clinical trial. The data on cost and health preferences were collected from the literature. Results: Tisotumab vedotin generated an additional 0.25 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared to chemotherapy, but at an additional cost of $206,779. This results in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $839,107.88 per QALY. The results of the univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that cost of tisotumab vedotin, utility of progressive disease and progression-free survival had the greatest impacts on the outcomes. Probability sensitivity analysis showed that tisotumab vedotin had a 0% chance of being considered cost-effective. Conclusion Tisotumab vedotin was unlikely cost-effective compared to chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/ QALY from the perspective of a U.S. payer. Lowering the prices of tisotumab vedotin could potentially enhance its cost-effectiveness.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone, based on the results of the NRG-GY018 trial, in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC), stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups. Methods: A Markov model was used to simulate patients receiving either pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated using a willingnessto-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of our findings. Results: The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to an incremental gain of 4.05 QALYs at an additional cost of $167,224, resulting in an ICER of $41,305.09/QALY compared to chemotherapy alone in dMMR EC. Additionally, there were 0.93 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $83,661, which resulted in an ICER of $90,284.80/QALY in pMMR EC.Sensitivity analyses indicated that the cost of pembrolizumab, utility of progressed disease, and utility of progression-free survival had the greatest impact on the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that pembrolizumab was considered cost-effective at a 100% probability at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Conclusion Pembrolizumab, when combined with chemotherapy, was found to be costeffective compared to chemotherapy alone both for patients with advanced or recurrent dMMR and pMMR EC from the perspective of a payer in the United States.

Objective: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in combination with chemotherapy for patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) from the U.S. payer’s perspective. Methods: A cost-effectiveness study was conducted using a Markov model based on ENGOT-en7/MaNGO/AtTEnd clinical trials. The population consisted of patients with EC, stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups. The model simulated patients receiving either atezolizumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated using a Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy in dMMR EC resulted in an incremental gain of 3.31 QALYs but at an additional cost of $855,042, leading to an ICER of $258,391.07/QALY compared to chemotherapy alone. In pMMR EC, there was a gain of 0.50 QALYs with an additional cost of $140,502, resulting in an ICER of $279,239.72/QALY. The overall ICER for EC was $216,459.34/QALY. Scenario analysis indicated that administering atezolizumab for a maximum of 2 years improved cost-effectiveness in dMMR EC, with an ICER of $70,695.96/ QALY falling within the predetermined WTP threshold. Conclusion For patients with advanced or recurrent EC, the combination of atezolizumab and chemotherapy may not prove cost-effective. However, administering atezolizumab for a limited period of maximum 2 years could improve cost-effectiveness in dMMR EC.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tisotumab vedotin to treat recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in second- or third-line from the U.S. payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model with three-state was employed to simulate recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients who were administered either tisotumab vedotin or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy based on the phase III, open-labeled innovaTV 301 randomized clinical trial. The data on cost and health preferences were collected from the literature. Results: Tisotumab vedotin generated an additional 0.25 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared to chemotherapy, but at an additional cost of $206,779. This results in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $839,107.88 per QALY. The results of the univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that cost of tisotumab vedotin, utility of progressive disease and progression-free survival had the greatest impacts on the outcomes. Probability sensitivity analysis showed that tisotumab vedotin had a 0% chance of being considered cost-effective. Conclusion Tisotumab vedotin was unlikely cost-effective compared to chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/ QALY from the perspective of a U.S. payer. Lowering the prices of tisotumab vedotin could potentially enhance its cost-effectiveness.

[Abstract] Objective: To investigate the effects of antibiotics on the treatment efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC (non-small cell lung cancer) with Meta-analysis. Methods: Literatures regarding the effects of antibiotics on the treatment efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC were searched in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, EBSCO, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database(CBM) and Chinese Journal Full-text Database(CNKI). RevMan 5.3 software was used in this Meta-analysis. Results: Fourteen articles involving 2 505 NSCLC patients were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed that the application of antibiotics could significantly shorten the PFS (HR=1.14, 95%CI =1.04-1.26, P=0.005) and OS (HR=1.30, 95%CI =1.14-1.47, P<0.0001) of NSCLC patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Conclusion: Application of antibiotics before, concurrently or after immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of NSCLC may significantly shorten PFS and OS, resulting in adverse effect on treatment efficacy.