Search

Background: Older patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma lack systemic therapy standards. These people have a high risk of chemotherapy, accompanied by adverse reactions and even discontinuation of treatment. Case presentation: We report a 78-year-old female subject with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma presenting with unresectable lesions involving the hepatic veins, along with extensive metastatic lymph nodes. After the geriatric assessment, capecitabine was utilized for only one cycle owing to adverse events (AEs). Next, a combination of low-dose lenvatinib and tislelizumab was administrated as a second-line treatment, which resulted in remarkable early tumor shrinkage. The following individual lenvatinib taper enabled a manageable safety profile and durable deep response. A near-complete response was achieved, with the primary tumor significantly reducing from 5.6 cm × 4.7 cm to nearly complete disappearance, accompanied by complete regression of lymph nodes, and both progression-free survival and overall survival exceeding 24 months. Conclusion: The case provides valuable insights that could influence future treatment strategies for older patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma who are unsuitable for chemotherapy. The dose-individualized chemotherapy-free regime of lenvatinib and tislelizumab might be used in similar cases to improve their outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma lack systemic therapy standards. These people have a high risk of chemotherapy, accompanied by adverse reactions and even discontinuation of treatment. Case presentation: We report a 78-year-old female subject with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma presenting with unresectable lesions involving the hepatic veins, along with extensive metastatic lymph nodes. After the geriatric assessment, capecitabine was utilized for only one cycle owing to adverse events (AEs). Next, a combination of low-dose lenvatinib and tislelizumab was administrated as a second-line treatment, which resulted in remarkable early tumor shrinkage. The following individual lenvatinib taper enabled a manageable safety profile and durable deep response. A near-complete response was achieved, with the primary tumor significantly reducing from 5.6 cm × 4.7 cm to nearly complete disappearance, accompanied by complete regression of lymph nodes, and both progression-free survival and overall survival exceeding 24 months. Conclusion: The case provides valuable insights that could influence future treatment strategies for older patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma who are unsuitable for chemotherapy. The dose-individualized chemotherapy-free regime of lenvatinib and tislelizumab might be used in similar cases to improve their outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeThe efficacy of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in improving progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in unresectable gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) has recently been emphasized. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for the United States (US) and Chinese populations.MethodsUsing data from the RATIONALE-305 phase 3 trial, a Markov model was developed to analyze quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net health benefits (INHBs), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs). The health state utilities and direct medical costs were obtained from the relevant literature and local cost databases. The model uncertainty was evaluated using sensitivity analyses.FindingsIn the base-case analysis, the addition of tislelizumab to chemotherapy yielded an ICER of $37,768.48 per QALY in China, slightly below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,042.49 per QALY, showing marginal cost-effectiveness with an INHB of 0.05 QALYs and an INMB of $1,852.49. Subgroup analyses revealed ICERs of $23,853.52 for patients with a PD-L1 TAP score ≥ 5% (TAP ≥ 5%). In the US, the ICER was $502,786.22 per QALY in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and $321,395.28 per QALY in the TAP ≥ 5% subgroup, exceeding the US WTP threshold of $150,000.00.ImplicationsIn China, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective first-line therapy for unresectable GC/GEJC in both ITT and TAP ≥ 5% subgroups. In the US, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is not cost-effective.

IntroductionGemcitabine and cisplatin remain the cornerstone for the treatment of advanced or unresectable biliary tract cancers, but the incidence rate of the grade 3 or 4 toxic effects is high (70.7%). In recent years, significant progress has been achieved in the systemic treatment of cholangiocarcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), targeted therapy, and hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC). HAIC may elevate the local drug concentration in the liver to 10–100 times the drug plasma concentration; therefore, it may enhance tumor cytotoxicity while minimizing systemic adverse effects. HAIC combined with immunotherapy and targeted therapy resulted in acceptable tumor responses and tolerable toxic effects in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, whether this combination strategy can benefit patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma remains unclear.Methods and AnalysisWe describe a single-arm, open label, prospective clinical trial of HAIC sequential transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) combined with tislelizumab and surufatinib in patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. TAE + HAIC was performed at an interval of at least 3 weeks, and oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) and rituximab (3 mg/m2) were infused. TAE was performed using undrugged microspheres. Tislelizumab was infused every 3 weeks and surufatinib was administered orally once a day, with 3-5 capsules (50 mg/capsule) each time. We plan to enroll 28 participants in this study. The primary study endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), conversion to surgical resection rate, overall survival (OS), 1-year OS rate, disease control rate (DCR), quality of life (QoL), and incidence of adverse events.Trial registration numberNCT06239532.

Introduction: First-line treatment with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy has shown clinical benefits for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) in China, while its economic burden is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: We constructed a partitioned survival model to compare the costeffectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy in patients with advanced OSCC. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted from RATIONALE-306. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were selected as the study outcomes. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted to test the stability of the results. Results: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy provided additional 0.48 QALYs with the incremental cost of $16,587.2 than chemotherapy, of which ICER was $34,699.72 per QALY. When the willingness-to-pay threshold was set as $37,260, the novel therapy had a probability of 77% to be cost-effective. Our base-case analysis results were sensitive to utilities of progression-free survival and progression of disease. Our subgroup analysis showed that the novel therapy was associated with cost-effectiveness in patients with a high expression of PD-L1. Conclusion: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was likely to be more costeffective compared with chemotherapy in the first-line therapy of advanced OSCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Our findings can provide clinicians and decision-makers with evidence of the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The RATIONALE-309 trial confirmed the significant efficacy and safety of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (R/M NPC). However, the economic benefits of this regimen are unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding tislelizumab to chemotherapy for R/M NPC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A Markov model was established to simulate the costs and outcomes of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. The survival data came from the RATIONALE-309 trial. Only direct medical costs were considered, and utility values were referred to the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the main outcome measure. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of parameter uncertainty on the model. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed. Results: The basic analysis showed that the cost of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy ($33,693) was $17,711 higher than that of chemotherapy ($15,982), but it also gained 1.05 QALYs more (2.72 QALYs vs. 1.67 QALYs), with an ICER of $16,859/QALY, which was lower than the willing-to-pay (WTP) of $36,289/QALY. The factors that most influenced the model were the utility of PD, the cost of tislelizumab, and the risk of platelet count decreased in tislelizumab plus chemotherapy group. The subgroup analysis also demonstrated that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective in the whole population regardless of EBV DNA level and PD-L1 expression level. Conclusion: Compared with chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective for the treatment of R/M NPC in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Pembrolizumab and tislelizumab have demonstrated significant clinical benefits in first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC. However, no head-to-head clinical trial has ever compared the optimal choice. Therefore, we conducted an indirect comparison to explore the optimal choice for advanced NSCLC combined with chemotherapy. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials; the clinical outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Indirect comparisons between tislelizumab and pembrolizumab were conducted with the Bucher method. Results: Data were abstracted from 6 randomized trials involving more than 2,000 participants. Direct meta-analysis showed that both treatment regimens improved clinical outcomes compared with chemotherapy alone (PFS: hazard ratio (HR)tis+chemo/chemo 0.55, 95% CI 0.45-0.67; HRpem+chemo/chemo 0.53, 95% CI 0.47-0.60; ORR: relative risk (RR)tis+chemo/chemo 1.50, 95% CI 1.32-1.71; RRpem+chemo/chemo 1.89, 95% CI 1.44-2.48). Regarding safety outcomes, tislelizumab and pembrolizumab have a higher risk in the incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs (RRtis+chemo/chemo 1.12, 95% CI 1.03-1.21; RRpem+chemo/chemo 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.24). The indirect comparison showed that there was no significant difference between tislelizumab plus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in terms of PFS (HR: 1.04, 95% CI 0.82-1.31), ORR (RR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.07), the incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.12), and AEs leading to death (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.23-2.09). In progressionfree survival subgroup analysis, the results demonstrate no significant differences in PFS by PD-L1 TPS expression level, age, liver metastasis status, and smoking status between tislelizumab plus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. Conclusion: The efficacy and safety of tislelizumab combination chemotherapy were not substantially different from pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: The latest RATIONALE-302 trial (NCT03430843) showed that tislelizumab therapy significantly improved overall survival benefits for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) compared with traditional chemotherapy. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to predict patients’ lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the Chinese healthcare payers’ perspective. We extracted efficacy and safety data from the RATIONALE-302 trial and the local cost and resource use data from online databases and published studies. One-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to explore model uncertainty.Results: Compared with chemotherapy, tislelizumab generated a higher cost (US$ 10211.78 vs. US$ 7294.72) but yielded more QALY (0.78 vs. 0.51 QALYs). The ICER for tislelizumab was US$11073.85 per QALY gained. The PSA results indicated that the probability of tislelizumab being economical was 76% under a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 1.5 times per capita GDP ($17915) in China.Conclusion: Tislelizumab could be a promising cost-effective strategy as the second-line treatment for patients with ESCC compared with chemotherapy in the Chinese setting.

Objective: Domestic PD-1inhibitor tislelizumab has emerged as a promising treatment for Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of our study to evaluate whether tislelizumab is cost-effective as a second- or third-line treatment for this population compared with docetaxel (conventional chemotherapy) and nivolumab (imported PD-1inhibitor), from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Material and Methods: A Markov model with a 3-week Markov cycle and a 30-year time horizon was built to compare the cost-effectiveness of second- or third-line tislelizumab versus docetaxel and nivolumab. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and adverse events (AEs)-related treatment discontinuation event, were estimated from the clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were collected from local hospitals, public database and published literature. Results: Compared with docetaxel, tislelizumab provided an additional 0.33 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.37 vs. 1.04 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $9,286 ($23,646 vs. $14,360) for Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic NSCLC, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,959/QALY under the WTP threshold of $35,663/QALY used in the model. Compared with nivolumab, tislelizumab was associated with a lower cost ($23,646 vs. $59,447) and higher QALYs (1.37 vs. 1.20 QALYs), resulting in its dominance of nivolumab. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, domestic PD-1inhibitor tislelizumab immunotherapy represents a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with conventional docetaxel chemotherapy and imported PD-1inhibitor nivolumab immunotherapy in the treatment of driver-negative advanced or metastatic NSCLC beyond the first-line setting. In the era of "Universal Medical Insurance System", the rational use of domestic anticancer drugs guided by cost-benefit evidence would be an effective means to balance the limited expenditure of medical insurance fund and the growing demand for cancer treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of adding Chinese-developed anti-PD-1 antibody tislelizumab to first-line pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy in (1) a study population of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsqNSCLC) and without known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements and (2) its subgroups from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. Material and Methods: Separate Markov models were constructed for the entire study population and its subgroups; 10,000 patients with locally advanced or metastatic nsqNSCLC and without driver gene mutations were simulated in the first-line tislelizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum (TPP) arm and first-line pemetrexed-platinum (PP) arm, respectively. Transition probabilities were extracted from the RATIONALE 304 trial. Public health state utilities and costs were obtained from published literature, public national databases, and local general hospitals. The main outputs were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The ICERs were compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of $35,663 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to determine the cost-effective treatment. Sensitivity analyses were employed to assess the uncertainty in the model. Results: For the entire patient population, first-line TPP versus PP use increased the effectiveness by 0.99 QALYs and healthcare costs by $28,749, resulting in an ICER of $28,749/QALY that was lower than the prespecified WTP threshold. For patient subgroups, first-line TPP conferred the greatest survival benefit in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%, followed by patients with liver metastasis and those who are current or former smokers. Overall, the ICERs for the first-line TPP versus PP ranged from $27,018/ QALYs to $33,074/QALYs, which were consistently below the WTP threshold. Conclusion: For Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic nsqNSCLC who had no known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements, adding the Chinese-developed anti-PD-1 antibody tislelizumab to the first-line pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy was cost-effective regardless of their baseline characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tislelizumab, a new high-affinity programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, significantly prolonged the overall survival in pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus docetaxel for this population in China. Methods: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate advanced NSCLC. Efficacy and safety data were based on a global phase 3 clinical trial (RATIONALE 303). Utilities were mainly extracted from previously published resources. Costs were calculated from the Chinese healthcare system's perspective, and only direct medical costs were covered. The main outcomes included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried to test the uncertainty of the modeling results. In addition, several scenarios including tislelizumab price before negotiation, different docetaxel price calculation, 50-year time horizon, and alternative utility values were assessed. Results: The model predicted an average gain of 0.62 LYs and 0.51 QALY for tislelizumab vs. docetaxel, at the additional cost of $9,219. The resulting ICER was $15,033.92/LY and $18,122.04/QALY, both below the cost-effective threshold (CET) of three times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results are robust over a plausible range for majority of inputs. Utility of progression-free survival (PFS), followed by the price of tislelizumab, had the greatest impact on the ICER. The probability of being cost-effective for tislelizumab was 96.79% at the CET we set. Conclusion: Tislelizumab improves survival, increases QALYs, and can be considered a cost-effective option at current price compared with docetaxel for pretreated advanced NSCLC in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tislelizumab, a new high-affinity programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, significantly prolonged the overall survival in pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus docetaxel for this population in China.Methods: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate advanced NSCLC. Efficacy and safety data were based on a global phase 3 clinical trial (RATIONALE 303). Utilities were mainly extracted from previously published resources. Costs were calculated from the Chinese healthcare system’s perspective, and only direct medical costs were covered. The main outcomes included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried to test the uncertainty of the modeling results. In addition, several scenarios including tislelizumab price before negotiation, different docetaxel price calculation, 50-year time horizon, and alternative utility values were assessed.Results: The model predicted an average gain of 0.62 LYs and 0.51 QALY for tislelizumab vs. docetaxel, at the additional cost of $9,219. The resulting ICER was $15,033.92/LY and $18,122.04/QALY, both below the cost-effective threshold (CET) of three times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results are robust over a plausible range for majority of inputs. Utility of progression-free survival (PFS), followed by the price of tislelizumab, had the greatest impact on the ICER. The probability of being cost-effective for tislelizumab was 96.79% at the CET we set.Conclusion: Tislelizumab improves survival, increases QALYs, and can be considered a cost-effective option at current price compared with docetaxel for pretreated advanced NSCLC in China.

Over the past decade, diverse PD-1/PD-L1 blockades have demonstrated significant clinical benefit in across a wide range of tumor and cancer types. With the increasing number of PD-1/PD-L1 blockades available in the market, differences between the clinical performance of each of them started to be reported. Here, we provide a comprehensive historical and biological perspective regarding the underlying mechanism and clinical performance of PD-1/PD-L1 blockades, with an emphasis on the comparisons of their clinical efficacy and safety. The real-world evidence indicated that PD-1 blockade may be more effective than the PD-L1, though no significant differences were found as regards to their safety profiles. Future head-to-head studies are warranted for direct comparison between them. Finally, we summarize the yet to be elucidated questions and future promise of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy, including a need to explore novel biomarkers, novel combinatorial strategies, and their clinical use on chronic infection.

Over the past decade, diverse PD-1/PD-L1 blockades have demonstrated significant clinical benefit in across a wide range of tumor and cancer types. With the increasing number of PD-1/PD-L1 blockades available in the market, differences between the clinical performance of each of them started to be reported. Here, we provide a comprehensive historical and biological perspective regarding the underlying mechanism and clinical performance of PD-1/PD-L1 blockades, with an emphasis on the comparisons of their clinical efficacy and safety. The real-world evidence indicated that PD-1 blockade may be more effective than the PD-L1, though no significant differences were found as regards to their safety profiles. Future head-to-head studies are warranted for direct comparison between them. Finally, we summarize the yet to be elucidated questions and future promise of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy, including a need to explore novel biomarkers, novel combinatorial strategies, and their clinical use on chronic infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: First-line treatment with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy has shown clinical benefits for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) in China, while its economic burden is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system., Methods: We constructed a partitioned survival model to compare the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy in patients with advanced OSCC. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted from RATIONALE-306. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were selected as the study outcomes. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted to test the stability of the results., Results: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy provided additional 0.48 QALYs with the incremental cost of $16,587.2 than chemotherapy, of which ICER was $34,699.72 per QALY. When the willingness-to-pay threshold was set as $37,260, the novel therapy had a probability of 77% to be cost-effective. Our base-case analysis results were sensitive to utilities of progression-free survival and progression of disease. Our subgroup analysis showed that the novel therapy was associated with cost-effectiveness in patients with a high expression of PD-L1., Conclusion: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was likely to be more cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first-line therapy of advanced OSCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Our findings can provide clinicians and decision-makers with evidence of the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Liu and Shao.)

Introduction: The RATIONALE-309 trial confirmed the significant efficacy and safety of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (R/M NPC). However, the economic benefits of this regimen are unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding tislelizumab to chemotherapy for R/M NPC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A Markov model was established to simulate the costs and outcomes of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. The survival data came from the RATIONALE-309 trial. Only direct medical costs were considered, and utility values were referred to the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the main outcome measure. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of parameter uncertainty on the model. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed. Results: The basic analysis showed that the cost of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy ($33,693) was $17,711 higher than that of chemotherapy ($15,982), but it also gained 1.05 QALYs more (2.72 QALYs vs. 1.67 QALYs), with an ICER of $16,859/QALY, which was lower than the willing-to-pay (WTP) of $36,289/QALY. The factors that most influenced the model were the utility of PD, the cost of tislelizumab, and the risk of platelet count decreased in tislelizumab plus chemotherapy group. The subgroup analysis also demonstrated that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective in the whole population regardless of EBV DNA level and PD-L1 expression level. Conclusion: Compared with chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective for the treatment of R/M NPC in China., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Pei, Xiao and Yang.)

Background and purpose: The latest RATIONALE-302 trial (NCT03430843) showed that tislelizumab therapy significantly improved overall survival benefits for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) compared with traditional chemotherapy. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic ESCC in China. Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to predict patients' lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the Chinese healthcare payers' perspective. We extracted efficacy and safety data from the RATIONALE-302 trial and the local cost and resource use data from online databases and published studies. One-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to explore model uncertainty. Results: Compared with chemotherapy, tislelizumab generated a higher cost (US$ 10211.78 vs. US$ 7294.72) but yielded more QALY (0.78 vs. 0.51 QALYs). The ICER for tislelizumab was US$11073.85 per QALY gained. The PSA results indicated that the probability of tislelizumab being economical was 76% under a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 1.5 times per capita GDP ($17915) in China. Conclusion: Tislelizumab could be a promising cost-effective strategy as the second-line treatment for patients with ESCC compared with chemotherapy in the Chinese setting., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Shi, He, Su, Wang and Han.)

Objective: Domestic PD-1inhibitor tislelizumab has emerged as a promising treatment for Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of our study to evaluate whether tislelizumab is cost-effective as a second- or third-line treatment for this population compared with docetaxel (conventional chemotherapy) and nivolumab (imported PD-1inhibitor), from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Material and Methods: A Markov model with a 3-week Markov cycle and a 30-year time horizon was built to compare the cost-effectiveness of second- or third-line tislelizumab versus docetaxel and nivolumab. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and adverse events (AEs)-related treatment discontinuation event, were estimated from the clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were collected from local hospitals, public database and published literature. Results: Compared with docetaxel, tislelizumab provided an additional 0.33 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.37 vs. 1.04 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $9,286 ($23,646 vs. $14,360) for Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic NSCLC, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,959/QALY under the WTP threshold of $35,663/QALY used in the model. Compared with nivolumab, tislelizumab was associated with a lower cost ($23,646 vs. $59,447) and higher QALYs (1.37 vs. 1.20 QALYs), resulting in its dominance of nivolumab. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, domestic PD-1inhibitor tislelizumab immunotherapy represents a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with conventional docetaxel chemotherapy and imported PD-1inhibitor nivolumab immunotherapy in the treatment of driver-negative advanced or metastatic NSCLC beyond the first-line setting. In the era of "Universal Medical Insurance System", the rational use of domestic anticancer drugs guided by cost-benefit evidence would be an effective means to balance the limited expenditure of medical insurance fund and the growing demand for cancer treatments., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Zhou, Luo, Zhou, Zeng, Wan, Tan and Liu.)

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of adding Chinese-developed anti-PD-1 antibody tislelizumab to first-line pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy in (1) a study population of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsqNSCLC) and without known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements and (2) its subgroups from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. Material and Methods: Separate Markov models were constructed for the entire study population and its subgroups; 10,000 patients with locally advanced or metastatic nsqNSCLC and without driver gene mutations were simulated in the first-line tislelizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum (TPP) arm and first-line pemetrexed-platinum (PP) arm, respectively. Transition probabilities were extracted from the RATIONALE 304 trial. Public health state utilities and costs were obtained from published literature, public national databases, and local general hospitals. The main outputs were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The ICERs were compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of $35,663 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to determine the cost-effective treatment. Sensitivity analyses were employed to assess the uncertainty in the model. Results: For the entire patient population, first-line TPP versus PP use increased the effectiveness by 0.99 QALYs and healthcare costs by $28,749, resulting in an ICER of $28,749/QALY that was lower than the prespecified WTP threshold. For patient subgroups, first-line TPP conferred the greatest survival benefit in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%, followed by patients with liver metastasis and those who are current or former smokers. Overall, the ICERs for the first-line TPP versus PP ranged from $27,018/QALYs to $33,074/QALYs, which were consistently below the WTP threshold. Conclusion: For Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic nsqNSCLC who had no known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements, adding the Chinese-developed anti-PD-1 antibody tislelizumab to the first-line pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy was cost-effective regardless of their baseline characteristics., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Luo, Zhou, Zeng and Liu.)