Modelling the Effectiveness of Tepotinib in Comparison to Standard-of-Care Treatments in Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Harbouring METex14 Skipping in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Patients with non-small cell lung cancer harbouring mesenchymal-epithelial transition exon 14 (METex14) skipping typically demonstrate poorer prognosis than overall non-small cell lung cancer. Until recently, no targeted treatments were available for patients with non-small cell lung cancer harbouring METex14 skipping in the UK, with limited treatments available. OBJECTIVE: This study estimates the long-term survival and quality-adjusted life-year benefit of MET inhibitor tepotinib versus current standard of care from a UK perspective. METHODS: A partitioned-survival model assessed the survival and quality-adjusted life-year benefits of tepotinib versus immunotherapy ± chemotherapy and chemotherapy for untreated and previously treated patients, respectively, using evidence from the single-arm VISION trial (NCT02864992). Two approaches were used to inform an indirect treatment comparison: (1) published clinical trials in overall non-small cell lung cancer and (2) real-world evidence in the METex14 skipping population. Results are presented as median and total quality-adjusted life-year gain and survival for progression-free survival and overall survival. Survival curves were validated against the external literature and uncertainty assessed using a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Using the indirect treatment comparison against the published literature, tepotinib is estimated to have a median progression-free survival gain versus pembrolizumab ± chemotherapy (11.0 and 9.2 months) in untreated patients, and docetaxel ± nintedanib (5.1 and 6.4 months) in previously treated patients. Across the populations, tepotinib is estimated to have a median survival gain of 15.4 and 9.2 months versus pembrolizumab ± chemotherapy in untreated patients and 12.8 and 5.1 months versus docetaxel ± nintedanib in previously treated patients. The total quality-adjusted life-year gain ranges between 0.56 and 1.17 across the untreated and previously treated populations. Results from the real-world evidence of indirect treatment comparisons are consistent with these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations of the evidence base, the numerous analyses conducted have consistently indicated positive outcomes for tepotinib versus the current standard of care.

Health Utility Analysis of Tepotinib in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring MET Exon 14 Skipping.

OBJECTIVES: The VISION trial showed durable activity of tepotinib in MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping non-small cell lung cancer. We analyzed health state utilities using patient-reported outcomes from VISION. METHODS: 5-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 responses were collected at baseline, every 6 to 12 weeks during treatment, and at the end of treatment and safety follow-up. EQ-5D-5L and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) utilities were derived using United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and Taiwan value sets, where available. Utilities were analyzed with linear mixed models including covariates for progression or time-to-death (TTD). RESULTS: Utilities were derived for 273/291 patients (EQ-5D-5L, 1545 observations; QLU-C10D, 1546 observations). Mean (± SD) US EQ-5D-5L utilities increased after tepotinib initiation, from 0.687 ± 0.287 at baseline to 0.754 ± 0.250 before independently assessed progression, and decreased post progression (0.704 ± 0.288). US QLU-C10D utilities showed similar trends (0.705 ± 0.215, 0.753 ± 0.195, and 0.708 ± 0.209, respectively). Progression-based models demonstrated a statistically significant impact of progression on utilities and predicted higher utilities pre versus post progression. TTD-based models showed statistically significant associations of TTD with utilities and predicted declining utilities as TTD decreased. Prior treatment (yes/no) did not significantly predict utilities in progression- or TTD-based models. Utilities for Canada, United Kingdom, and Taiwan showed comparable trends. CONCLUSIONS: In this first analysis of health state utilities in patients with METex14 skipping non-small cell lung cancer, who received tepotinib, utilities were significantly associated with progression and TTD, but not prior treatment.

Modelling Survival of Patients Treated with Adjuvant Nivolumab Who Have Melanoma with Lymph Node Involvement or Metastatic Disease After Complete Resection.

INTRODUCTION: Nivolumab demonstrated significant recurrence-free survival (RFS) gains versus ipilimumab in the CheckMate-238 trial, whereas the CA184-029 trial showed superior RFS gains for ipilimumab versus placebo. No head-to-head trial data were available to compare the efficacy of nivolumab to that of observation, so indirect treatment comparisons were required. Additionally, overall survival (OS) data were not available from CheckMate-238, and the clinical pathway for melanoma has changed significantly over the last decade. Four modelling options were developed using different methods and evidence sources to estimate OS and the impact of nivolumab on predicted life-years in the adjuvant setting; however, this article focuses on two primary methods. METHODS: RFS for nivolumab and observation were informed by a patient-level data meta-regression. The first model was a partitioned survival model, where the parametric OS curve for observation was derived from CA184-029 and nivolumab OS was based on a surrogacy relationship between RFS and OS specific to adjuvant melanoma. The other option used a state-transition model to estimate post-recurrence survival using different data sources. RESULTS: The modelling options estimated different OS for both nivolumab and observation but demonstrated at least a 32% increase in life-years gained for nivolumab versus observation. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrated the difficulties in modelling within the adjuvant setting. Each model produced different survival projections, showing the need to explore different techniques to address the extent of uncertainty. This also highlighted the importance of understanding the impact of RFS in the long term in a setting where the aim of treatment is to remain disease free.

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab for Patients with Advanced, Unresectable, or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Ineligible for Cisplatin-based Therapy.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for effective therapies for patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who cannot tolerate cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Cisplatin-ineligible patients experience a high frequency of adverse events from the most commonly used standard of care treatment, carboplatin plus gemcitabine, or alternative treatment with gemcitabine monotherapy. Pembrolizumab is a potent, highly selective humanised monoclonal antibody that releases checkpoint inhibition of the immune response system, and provides a new alternative for these patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for first-line treatment of urothelial carcinoma ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy in patients with strongly PD-L1-positive tumours in Sweden. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Parametric survival curves were fitted to overall survival, progression-free survival, and time on treatment data from KEYNOTE-052 to extrapolate clinical outcomes. A simulated treatment comparison and a network meta-analysis were conducted to estimate the comparative efficacy of pembrolizumab versus carboplatin plus gemcitabine and gemcitabine monotherapy. EQ-5D data from KEYNOTE-052 were used to estimate utility, while resource use and cost inputs were estimated using Swedish regional pricing lists and clinician opinion. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The model reported costs, life years, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and results were tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We estimated that pembrolizumab would improve survival by 2.11 and 2.16 years and increase QALYs by 1.71 and 1.75 compared to carboplatin plus gemcitabine and gemcitabine monotherapy, respectively. Pembrolizumab was associated with a cost increase of €90520 versus carboplatin plus gemcitabine and €95055 versus gemcitabine, with corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €53055/QALY and €54415/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €100000/QALY, pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment versus carboplatin plus gemcitabine and versus gemcitabine. PATIENT SUMMARY: This is the first analysis to show that pembrolizumab is a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Sweden.