scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Surveillance Scanning Strategies after Curative Treatment of Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2020 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2097816 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henri B. Wolff ◽  
Leonie Alberts ◽  
Elisabeth A. Kastelijn ◽  
Sherif Y. El Sharouni ◽  
Franz M. N. H. Schramel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Curative Treatment ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Discounted Costs ◽  
The Impact

Background After curative treatment of primary non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), patients undergo intensive surveillance with the aim to detect recurrences from the primary tumor or metachronous second primary lung cancer as early as possible and improve overall survival. However, the benefit of surveillance is debated. Available evidence is of low quality and conflicting. Microsimulation modeling facilitates the exploration of the impact of different surveillance strategies and provides insight into the cost-effectiveness of surveillance. Methods A microsimulation model was used to simulate a range of computed tomography (CT)–based surveillance schedules, differing in the frequency and duration of CT surveillance. The impact on survival, quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and cost-effectiveness of each schedule was assessed. Results Ten of 108 strategies formed the cost-effectiveness frontier; that is, these were the strategies with the optimal cost-health benefit balance. Per person, the discounted QALYs of these strategies varied between 5.72 and 5.81 years, and discounted costs varied between €9892 and €19,259. Below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY, no scanning is the preferred option. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY, surveillance scanning every 2 y starting 1 y after curative treatment becomes the best option, with €11,860 discounted costs and 5.76 discounted QALYs per person. The European Society for Medical Oncology guideline strategy was more expensive and less effective than several other strategies. Conclusion Model simulations suggest that limited CT surveillance scanning after the treatment of primary NSCLC is cost-effective, but the incremental health-benefit remains marginal. However, model simulations do suggest that the guideline strategy is not cost-effective.

Examining the cost and cost-effectiveness of adding bevacizumab to carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6057-6057 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. A. Grusenmeyer ◽  
R. J. Gralla
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Medicare Reimbursement ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

6057 Background: Two-drug platinum-containing regimens are considered the standard of care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. A recent randomized trial (ECOG 4599) compared carboplatin + paclitaxel (PC) with PC + bevacizumab (PCB). PCB was found to result in a modest improvement in survival (12.5 months vs 10.2 months with PC, p = .007). This finding was exceptional in showing a survival benefit with the addition of a molecularly targeted agent to chemotherapy in a largely unselected population, and doing so in this most common cause of malignant death in the US. Additionally, new therapies can have a major impact on health care costs. Using the known survival data and costs, we analyzed the cost-effectiveness of the addition of bevacizumab to this chemotherapy regimen. Methods: Medicare reimbursement (cost) of the two regimens was developed using the CMS Drug Payment Table and Physician Fee Schedule for January, 2005. Incremental cost effectiveness was calculated. Results: Carboplatin and paclitaxel regimen costs $14,073 for 6 cycles (the number of cycles planned in the clinical trial.) The addition of bevacizumab increases cost by $66,270 to $80,343. Given an increase of 2.3 months in median overall survival over chemotherapy alone, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy costs $345,762 per year of life gained. Conclusions: Adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy is not cost effective even at the $100,000 per Year of Life Gained (YLG) threshold. To be cost effective at the $100,000/YLG level, bevacizumab reimbursement would have to be reduced to $14.70/10 mg. ($1,764/cycle) or 26% of 2005 Medicare reimbursement of $57.08/10 mg. ($6,849/cycle). Prior analyses have examined the impact of chemotherapy on survival and cost-effectiveness. Several factors beneficially influence survival in NSCLC, as shown in meta-analyses, including: chemotherapy vs supportive care, two-agents vs one, and the choice of which platinum agent to use. While all of these may increase costs, some are cost-effective, while others are not. The addition of bevacizumab is the most costly and least cost-effective of any of these interventions. [Table: see text]

Modeling the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant osimertinib in resected EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8527-8527
Author(s):  
Christopher Lemmon ◽  
Emily Craig Zabor ◽  
Nathan A. Pennell
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Egfr Mutant ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

8527 Background: Adjuvant Osimertinib (Osi) was recently approved for resected EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on disease free survival (DFS) benefits from the ADAURA trial. Prior studies of adjuvant EGFR inhibitors yielding DFS benefits have lacked an overall survival (OS) benefit, leading to debate over early clinical implementation given the associated drug costs. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of Osi in this setting. Methods: We constructed Markov models using post-resection health state transitions with digitized DFS data from the ADAURA trial to compare cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of the use of 3 years of adjuvant Osi versus placebo in the ADAURA patient population of stage IB to IIIA NSCLC patients over a 10-year time horizon. All patients entering the progressive disease (PD) state were assigned for re-treatment with Osi. Cost and utility values were derived from Medicare reimbursement data and literature (Table). A CE threshold of 3 times the GDP per capita was used. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of a range of OS benefit, as the impact of adjuvant Osi on OS has not yet been reported. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adjuvant Osi was $317,119.90 per QALY gained. Initial costs of Osi are higher in the first 3 years, but become lower than the placebo group in year 4 onward, with similar costs after year 7. Costs due to PD are higher in the placebo group through the first 6.5 years. Average pre-PD, post-PD, and total costs were $2,388, $379,047, and $502,937, respectively in the placebo group, compared to $505,775, $255,638, and $800,697, respectively in the Osi group. QALYs were higher in the Osi arm throughout. Sensitivity analysis using incremental OS gains reaches the CE threshold of $195,000 between 25-30% OS benefit of Osi over placebo. A 50% discount to the Osi annual cost yielded an ICER of $115,419. Conclusions: 3 years of adjuvant Osi is more cost-effective than placebo if one is willing to pay $317,119 more per QALY gained, with most costs accruing in the first 3 years as drug cost. This strategy became cost-effective with an OS benefit between 25-30% over placebo. Discount to Osi annual costs improves the ICER significantly. True cost-effectiveness of adjuvant Osi will require further study due to immaturity of ADAURA OS data and model limitations.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Accounting for the Effect of Indeterminate Findings

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iakovos Toumazis ◽  
Emily B Tsai ◽  
S Ayca Erdogan ◽  
Summer S Han ◽  
Wenshuai Wan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Numerous health policy organizations recommend lung cancer screening, but no consensus exists on the optimal policy. Moreover, the impact of the Lung CT screening reporting and data system guidelines to manage small pulmonary nodules of unknown significance (a.k.a. indeterminate nodules) on the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening is not well established. Methods We assess the cost-effectiveness of 199 screening strategies that vary in terms of age and smoking eligibility criteria, using a microsimulation model. We simulate lung cancer-related events throughout the lifetime of US-representative current and former smokers. We conduct sensitivity analyses to test key model inputs and assumptions. Results The cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier consists of both annual and biennial screening strategies. Current guidelines are not on the frontier. Assuming 4% disutility associated with indeterminate findings, biennial screening for smokers aged 50–70 years with at least 40 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy using $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold yielding the highest health benefit. Among all health utilities, the cost-effectiveness of screening is most sensitive to changes in the disutility of indeterminate findings. As the disutility of indeterminate findings decreases, screening eligibility criteria become less stringent and eventually annual screening for smokers aged 50–70 years with at least 30 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy yielding the highest health benefit. Conclusions The disutility associated with indeterminate findings impacts the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening. Efforts to quantify and better understand the impact of indeterminate findings on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening are warranted.

Cost effectiveness of combination ipilimumab-nivolumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19387-e19387
Author(s):  
Patrick T Courtney ◽  
Anthony T Yip ◽  
Daniel R Cherry ◽  
Mia A Salans ◽  
Abhishek Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
The Cost

e19387 Background: The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab was found to improve overall survival compared to chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the Checkmate 227 trial. However, nivolumab and ipilimumab are significantly more expensive than chemotherapy, and given the high incidence of advanced lung cancer, incorporating dual checkpoint inhibitors into the standard of care could have substantial economic consequences. In this study, we evaluated the cost effectiveness of combination ipilimumab and nivolumab for the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Methods: We designed a Markov model simulating the three treatment arms of the Checkmate 227 trial: nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab monotherapy, and chemotherapy. Transition probabilities, such as disease progression, survival, and treatment toxicities, were derived from trial data. Costs (in 2019 United States dollars) and health utilities were estimated from published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed as dollar per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), were calculated, with results less than $100,000/QALY considered cost-effective from a healthcare payer perspective. We assessed model uncertainty with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: In our base-case model, nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy increased overall cost by $227,700 and improved effectiveness by 0.55 QALY compared to chemotherapy, resulting in an ICER of $413,400/QALY. Nivolumab monotherapy increased overall cost by $98,500 and improved effectiveness by 0.05 QALY compared to chemotherapy, resulting in an ICER of $1,885,400/QALY. Our model was most sensitive to both the cost and duration of dual immunotherapy. Combination immunotherapy became cost effective at an ICER under $100,000/QALY if monthly costs of treatment were reduced from $26,586 to $8,844 (a 67% reduction) or if maximum allowed duration of immunotherapy was reduced from 24 to 4 months. The model was not sensitive to assumptions about survival differences between the study arms. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, dual immunotherapy was less cost-effective than chemotherapy 99.99% of the time. Conclusions: Combination nivolumab and ipilimumab immunotherapy is not cost-effective at current prices despite increasing overall survival for patients with advanced NSCLC.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marscha S. Holleman ◽  
Maiwenn J. Al ◽  
Remziye Zaim ◽  
Harry J. M. Groen ◽  
Carin A. Uyl-de Groot
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Egfr Mutations ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Objectives To compare the cost-effectiveness of first-line gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Methods A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in EGFR-mutated NSCLC. To assess the cost-effectiveness of these treatments, a Markov model was developed from Dutch societal perspective. The model was based on the clinical studies included in the NMA. Incremental costs per life-year (LY) and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results Total discounted per patient costs for gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib were €65,889, €64,035, €69,418, and €131,997, and mean QALYs were 1.36, 1.39, 1.52, and 2.01 per patient, respectively. Erlotinib dominated gefitinib. Afatinib versus erlotinib yielded incremental costs of €27,058/LY and €41,504/QALY gained. Osimertinib resulted in €91,726/LY and €128,343/QALY gained compared to afatinib. PSA showed that gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib had 13%, 19%, 43%, and 26% probability to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY. A price reduction of osimertinib of 30% is required for osimertinib to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY. Conclusions Osimertinib has a better effectiveness compared to all other TKIs. However, at a Dutch threshold of €80,000/QALY, osimertinib appears not to be cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of afatinib vs gefitinib in EGFR-mutated population with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20548-e20548
Author(s):  
Christos Chouaid ◽  
Laura Luciani ◽  
Katell Le Lay ◽  
Gerard De Pouvourville
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Egfr Mutation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
The Cost

e20548 Background: The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib were compared in the multicenter, international, randomized, head-to-head phase 2b LUX-Lung 7 trial (LL7) for first-line treatment of advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EGFRm+ NSCLC). We aimed to assess the cost and health outcomes of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods: A partitioned survival model was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of afatinib versus geftinib in the French context for EGFRm+ NSCLC.Outcomes and safety are taken primarily from the head-to-head LL7 trial. Only direct medical costs were considered. Resources use and utilities were derived from the trial, expert panel and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated in the common EGFR population and also, in the sub-groups with EGFR Exon 19 deletion (del 19) and EGFR Exon 21 L858R (L858R) mutation over a 10 year-time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: For common EGFR+ NSCLC, the ICER of afatinib versus gefitinib was €45,211 per QALY (with a gain of 0.170 QALYs, and an incremental cost of €7,697). The ICERs for del 19 and L858R populations were €38,970 and €52,518 respectively. Afatinib had a probability of 100% to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €70,000 for patients with common EGFR mutation, and also in the del 19 and L858R subgroups. Conclusions: Afatinib is a cost-effective treatment compared to geftinib in patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC with an ICER varying between €38,970/QALYs and €52,518/QALYs.

scholarly journals Camrelizumab In Patients With Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effective Analysis In China

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qian Xie ◽  
Hanrui Zheng ◽  
Na Su ◽  
Qiu Li
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Multiple Tumor ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Camrelizumab is a selective, humanized, high-affinity IgG4 kappa monoclonal antibody against programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) that shows effective antitumor activity with acceptable toxicity in multiple tumor types. The CameL trial demonstrated that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy significantly prolonged the median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Because of a rapid cancer burden increase in China, our study was conducted to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the two strategies in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC.Methods A Markov simulation model was generated based on the CameL trial. The two simulated treatments included camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (CC) and chemotherapy alone (CA). Utility was derived from published literature, and costs were calculated based on those at our hospital in Chengdu, China. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two treatment arms.Results The total costs were $64,874.51 and $13,531.38 for CC and CA treatment, respectively. The CC treatment produced 1.19 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the CA treatment produced 0.96 QALYs. Hence, patients who were in the CC group spent an additional $51,343.44 and generated an increase of 0.23 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $223,232.35 per QALY. Currently, in China, CC treatment is not cost-effective when considering a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $28,130 per QALY gained.Conclusions For chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is not considered a cost-effective therapy versus chemotherapy alone in China.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Non–small-cell Lung Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuezhi Hao ◽  
Aizong Shen ◽  
Bin Wu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
The Cost

Purpose: The effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been demonstrated. Decisions have to be made about allocating healthcare resources. Economic evidence could support policy decisions to fund expensive interventions. The current analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC harboring no EGFR or ALK mutations. It is set in the context of the US and China, representing developed and resource-constrained settings, respectively.Patients and Methods: A Markov model consisting of three discrete health states was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy. The key clinical data were derived from the CheckMate-227 trial, and the cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net health benefits (INHBs) were calculated for the two strategies. Subgroup, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results: In the United States, nivolumab plus ipilimumab increased by 1.260 QALYs with an additional cost of $95,617 compared with the features of chemotherapy, which led to an ICER of $75,871 per QALY gained. INHB indicated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment had a 99% probability of being cost-effective at the ICER threshold of $100,000/QALY in all subgroups. The results of sensitivity analyses revealed that the model outcomes were robust. In China, the ICER of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy was $59,773/QALY, and the INHB was -1.972 QALY at the threshold of $27,351/QALY.Conclusion: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment is a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC harboring no EGFR or ALK mutations in the United States. However, nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not a preferred option in China.

scholarly journals Modelled Economic Analysis for Dacomitinib–A Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Treating Patients With EGFR-Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong-feng Yu ◽  
Luan Luan ◽  
Fan-fan Zhu ◽  
Peng Dong ◽  
Li-Heng Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Egfr Mutation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Healthcare System Perspective ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesTo establish the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib compared to gefitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.PatientsAdvanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.MethodsPartitioned survival analysis was undertaken to examine the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib utilising individual patient data (IPD) from the pivotal randomised controlled trial (RCT) (ARCHER 1050). The three health states modelled were progression-free, post-progression, and death. Parametric survival distributions were fitted to IPD against the Kaplan-Meier survival curves corresponding to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes by randomised groups. Costs included drug acquisition and administration, outpatient management (outpatient consultation and examinations), and best supportive care costs. Utility weights were sourced from the pivotal trial and other published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.ResultsIn the base case, dacomitinib (CNY 265,512 and 1.95 QALY) was associated with higher costs and QALY gains compared to gefitinib (CNY 247,048 and 1.61 QALYs), resulting in an ICER of CNY 58,947/QALY. Using the empirical WTP/QALY threshold, dacomitinib is a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with EGFR-mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that dacomitinib had a 97% probability of being cost-effective.ConclusionsDacomitinib is a cost-effective treatment strategy in treating patients with EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib could be reduced if long-term survival data become available. Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT01024413

Cost–effectiveness of second-line nivolumab for platinum-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (18) ◽  
pp. 1301-1309
Author(s):  
Longfeng Zhang ◽  
Xiaofang Zeng ◽  
Hongfu Cai ◽  
Na Li ◽  
Maobai Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Aim: To analyze the economic impact of nivolumab and chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who developed disease progression after platinum-containing dual-drug chemotherapy. Materials & methods: The partitioned survival model was used to analyze the cost-utility of two NSCLC treatments by nivolumab and docetaxel. The clinical data resulted from the Phase III clinical trial. The cost parameters were derived from our previous studies, and the utility parameters were derived from the literature. Results: The quality-adjusted life-years of nivolumab and docetaxel were 0.778 and 0.336. The lifetime direct medical expenses of nivolumab and docetaxel were US$44,707.17 and US$12,826.72. The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio was $72,127.71/quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusion: The combination of chemotherapy, nivolumab is not a cost-effective choice in the second-line treatment of NSCLC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document