Dataset Information

Cetuximab Plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The EXTREME clinical trial revealed that cetuximab plus chemotherapy improved the overall survival time of patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) versus chemotherapy alone. The current study examined the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in HNSCC patients from the perspective of China.

Materials and methods

A partitioned survival model was implemented for R/M HNSCC patients. Survival information was derived from the CHANGE-2 trial. The model was designed as a ten-year time horizon, a 3-week cycle, and a 3% discount rate for costs and utilities. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value is less than $30,201/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was considered cost-effective in China. We analyzed the uncertainty by performing one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

In the base-case analysis, we found that the ICER of cetuximab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone is $172,702/QALY. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic analysis showed that the fluctuations of each variable in its ranges do not cause ICERs to reach acceptable thresholds.

Conclusion

The current observations suggested that treatment with cetuximab plus chemotherapy is not a cost-effective strategy for R/M HNSCC patients in China at a $30,201 willingness to pay threshold.

SUBMITTER: Lang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7661788 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cetuximab Plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Lang Yitian Y Dong Deshi D

Cancer management and research 20201106

<h4>Objective</h4>The EXTREME clinical trial revealed that cetuximab plus chemotherapy improved the overall survival time of patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) versus chemotherapy alone. The current study examined the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in HNSCC patients from the perspective of China.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A partitioned survival model was implemented for R/M HNSCC patients. ...[more]

PMID: 33204154

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMET signaling is a well described mechanism of resistance to anti-EGFR therapy, and MET overexpression is common in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs). In the current trial, the authors compared the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ197) in combination with cetuximab (the TC arm) versus a control arm that received cetuximab monotherapy (C) in patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC.MethodsIn total, 78 evaluable patients with cetuximab-naive, platinum-refractory HNSCC were enrolled, including 40 on the TC arm and 38 on the C arm (stratified by human papillomavirus [HPV] status). Patients received oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily and intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), and secondary outcomes included progression-free and overall survival. After patients progressed on the C arm, tivantinib monotherapy was optional.ResultsThe response rate was 7.5% in the TC arm (N = 3; 1 complete response) and 7.9% in the C arm (N = 3; not significantly different [NS]). The median progression-free survival in both arms was 4 months (NS), and the median overall survival was 8 months (NS). Both treatments were well tolerated, with a trend toward increased hematologic toxicities in the TC arm (12.5% had grade 3 leukopenia). The response rate in 31 HPV-positive/p16-positive patients was 0% in both arms, whereas the response rate in HPV-negative patients was 12.7% (12.5% in the TC arm and 13% in the C arm). Fifteen patients received tivantinib monotherapy, and no responses were observed.ConclusionsCombined tivantinib plus cetuximab does not significantly improve the response rate or survival compared with cetuximab alone but does increase toxicity in an unselected HNSCC population. Cetuximab responses appear to be limited to patients who have HPV-negative HNSCC. MET-aberration-focused trials for HNSCC and the use of higher potency, selective MET inhibitors remain of interest.

Project description:BackgroundAngiogenesis is a hallmark of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), and a mechanism of resistance to EGFR inhibition. We investigated the safety and potential activity of pazopanib, an angiogenesis inhibitor, plus cetuximab, an EGFR inhibitor, in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC.MethodsWe did an open-label, single-centre, dose-escalation phase 1b trial using a standard 3 + 3 design, followed by an expansion cohort phase. Eligible participants were patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, aged at least 18 years, had measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. During dose escalation, pazopanib oral suspension was administered daily in 8-week cycles at doses of 200 mg/day, 400 mg/day, 600 mg/day, or 800 mg/day, with cetuximab given intravenously once per week (400 mg/m2 first dose and 250 mg/m2 in consecutive cycles). The primary endpoint was to determine the maximum tolerated dose or recommended phase 2 dose of pazopanib in combination with cetuximab. Analyses were done per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01716416, and it is ongoing but closed to accrual.FindingsBetween June 5, 2013, and April 4, 2017, we enrolled 22 patients into the phase 1b, dose-escalation phase of the trial. A maximum tolerated dose of pazopanib in combination with cetuximab was not reached. Single dose-limiting toxic events (all grade 3) during dose escalation occurred with pazopanib 400 mg/day (neutropenia with infection), 600 mg/day (proteinuria), and 800 mg/day (fatigue). The established recommended phase 2 dose for the combination was 800 mg/day of pazopanib during cycles of 8 weeks each, plus cetuximab 400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1, then cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly. A further nine patients were enrolled into the expansion cohort and treated with the established recommended phase 2 dose. The most common (grade 3-4) adverse events for all patients were hypertension (ten [32%] of 31), lymphocyte count decrease (seven [23%]), and dysphagia (seven [23%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. 11 (35%; 95% CI 19·2-54·6) of 31 patients achieved an overall response, as assessed by the investigator; two (6%) had a complete response and nine (29%) a partial response. Tumour responses were also observed in six (55%) of 11 patients with platinum-naive and cetuximab-naive disease, three (25%) of 12 patients with cetuximab-resistant disease, and five (28%) of 18 patients with platinum-resistant disease.InterpretationPazopanib oral suspension at a dose of 800 mg/day was feasible to administer in combination with standard weekly cetuximab for patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. Encouraging preliminary antitumour activity was observed with this combination therapy and warrants further validation in randomised trials.FundingGlaxoSmithKline and Novartis.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment options for patients with platinum-refractory, recurrent, metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (r/m HNSCC) are limited and prognosis is poor. The recent CheckMate 141 clinical trial demonstrated that nivolumab, an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 monoclonal antibody, was efficacious in extending the median overall survival (OS) in this patient population compared with standard therapies. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine whether nivolumab is a cost-effective treatment in this patient population and examined various subgroups to determine for which, if any, the treatment is more cost-effective.Materials and methodsWe implemented a state transition model for HNSCC with a patient cohort who had tumor progression 6 months after the last dose of platinum-containing chemotherapy and compared the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab with docetaxel. Treatment effect estimates and adverse event rates were obtained from CheckMate 141. Costs, utilities, and other model inputs were gathered from published sources. We used a Canadian perspective, a 5-year time horizon, and a 1.5% discount rate for the analysis.ResultsNivolumab extended mean OS by 4 months compared with docetaxel and resulted in fewer treatment-related adverse events, producing an incremental effectiveness of 0.13 quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The incremental cost of treatment with nivolumab was $18,823. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, nivolumab was not a cost-effective treatment option for r/m HNSCC, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $144,744/QALY. Nivolumab would be cost-effective if its price was reduced by 20%. Our subgroup analysis seemed to indicate that nivolumab might be cost-effective for tumors with expression of programmed death-ligand 1 >5%.ConclusionWe conclude that although nivolumab offers clinical benefit for the treatment of r/m HNSCC over current regimens, it is not cost-effective based on its list price. We have also established a value-based price estimate for nivolumab to be cost-effective in this patient population. Further study is required to draw a definitive conclusion on biomarkers for cost-effectiveness.Implications for practiceIn health care settings in which cost considerations are a constraint on choice of therapy, patient selection should be carefully considered to maintain efficiency in the system. Until a biomarker for response to therapy is identified for nivolumab, this medication is unlikely to be cost-effective for most patients with recurrent, metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Project description:Cetuximab remains to date the only targeted therapy approved for the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The EGFR pathway plays a key role in the tumorigenesis and progression of this disease as well as in the resistance to radiotherapy (RT). While several anti-EGFR agents have been tested in HNSCC, cetuximab, an IgG1 subclass monoclonal antibody against EGFR, is the only drug with proven efficacy for the treatment of both locoregionally-advanced (LA) and recurrent/metastatic (R/M) disease. The addition of cetuximab to radiotherapy is a validated treatment option in LA-HNSCC. However, its use has been limited to patients who are considered unfit for standard of care chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with single agent cisplatin given the lack of direct comparison of these two regimens in randomized phase III trials and the inferiority suggested by metanalysis and phase II studies. The current use of cetuximab in HNSCC is about to change given the recent results from randomized prospective clinical trials in both the LA and R/M setting. Two phase III studies evaluating RT-cetuximab vs. CRT in Human Papillomavirus (HPV)-positive LA oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (De-ESCALaTE and RTOG 1016) showed inferior overall survival and progression-free survival for RT-cetuximab combination, and therefore CRT with cisplatin remains the standard of care in this disease. In the R/M HNSCC, the EXTREME regimen has been the standard of care as first-line treatment for the past 10 years. However, the results from the KEYNOTE-048 study will likely position the anti-PD-1 agent pembrolizumab as the new first line treatment either alone or in combination with chemotherapy in this setting based on PD-L1 status. Interestingly, cetuximab-mediated immunogenicity through antibody dependent cell cytotoxicity (ADCC) has encouraged the evaluation of combined approaches with immune-checkpoint inhibitors in both LA and R/M-HNSCC settings. This article reviews the accumulated evidence on the role of cetuximab in HNSCC in the past decade, offering an overview of its current impact in the treatment of LA and R/M-HNSCC disease and its potential use in the era of immunotherapy.

Dataset Information

Cetuximab Plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Cetuximab Plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets