Background Metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) is a rare and aggressive skin cancer. Until recently, there were no licensed treatment options for patients with mMCC, and prognosis was poor. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted for avelumab, a newly available treatment option for mMCC, versus standard care (SC), from a UK National Health Service perspective. Methods A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab versus SC. Data from the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (NCT02155647) were used to inform estimates of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Unit costs and associated frequencies of use were informed by published literature and clinical expert opinion. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, i.e. the cost per QALY gained) for treatment-experienced (TE) and treatment-naïve (TN) patients. Uncertainty was explored through a range of sensitivity analyses. Results Discounting costs and QALYs at 3.5% per annum, avelumab was associated with ICERs of £35,274 (TE)/£39,178 (TN) per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results demonstrated that avelumab was associated with an 88.3% (TE)/69.3% (TN) probability of being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold for end-of-life treatments of £50,000 per QALY gained. Results were most sensitive to alternative survival extrapolations and dosing assumptions. Conclusions The analysis results suggest that avelumab is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option for UK mMCC patients. The results for TN patients are subject to some uncertainty, and a confirmatory analysis will be conducted with more mature data.

Background The treatment landscape for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) has evolved rapidly since immuno-oncology (IO) therapies were introduced. This study used recent data to assess real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in aNSCLC in the United Kingdom. Methods Electronic prescribing records of treatment-naive patients starting first-line (1 L) treatment for aNSCLC between June 2016 and March 2018 (follow-up until December 2018) in the United Kingdom were assessed retrospectively. Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were analyzed descriptively. Outcomes assessed included overall survival (OS), time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, and real-world tumor response. Results In all, 1003 patients were evaluated (median age, 68 years [range, 28–93 years]; 53.9% male). Use of 1 L IO monotherapy (0–25.9%) and targeted therapy (11.8–15.9%) increased during the study period, but chemotherapy remained the most common 1 L treatment at all time points (88.2–58.2%). Median OS was 9.5 months (95% CI, 8.8–10.7 months) for all patients, 8.1 months (95% CI, 7.4–8.9 months) with chemotherapy, 14.0 months (95% CI, 10.7–20.6 months) with IO monotherapy, and 20.2 months (95% CI, 16.0–30.5 months) with targeted therapy. In the 28.6% of patients who received second-line treatment, IO monotherapy was the most common drug class (used in 51.6%). Conclusions Although use of 1 L IO monotherapy for aNSCLC increased in the United Kingdom during the study period, most patients received 1 L chemotherapy. An OS benefit for first-line IO monotherapy vs chemotherapy was observed but was numerically smaller than that reported in clinical trials. Targeted therapy was associated with the longest OS, highlighting the need for improved treatment options for tumors lacking targetable mutations.

Background: Due to limited duration of follow up in clinical trials of cancer treatments, estimates of lifetime survival benefits are typically derived using statistical extrapolation methods. To justify the method used, a range of approaches have been proposed including statistical goodness-of-fit tests and comparing estimates against a previous data cut (i.e. interim data collected). In this study, we extend these approaches by presenting a range of extrapolations fitted to four pre-planned data cuts from the JAVELIN Merkel 200 (JM200) trial. By comparing different estimates of survival and goodness-of-fit as JM200 data mature, we undertook an iterative process of fitting and re-fitting survival models to retrospectively identify early indications of likely long-term survival. Methods: Standard and spline-based parametric models were fitted to overall survival data from each JM200 data cut. Goodness-of-fit was determined using an assessment of the estimated hazard function, information theorybased methods and objective comparisons of estimation accuracy. Best-fitting extrapolations were compared to establish which one provided the most accurate estimation, and how statistical goodness-of-fit differed. Results: Spline-based models provided the closest fit to the final JM200 data cut, though all extrapolation methods based on the earliest data cut underestimated the 'true' long-term survival (difference in restricted mean survival time [RMST] at 36 months: − 1.1 to − 0.5 months). Goodness-of-fit scores illustrated that an increasingly flexible model was favored as data matured. Given an early data cut, a more flexible model better aligned with clinical expectations could be reasonably justified using a range of metrics, including RMST and goodness-of-fit scores (which were typically within a 2-point range of the statistically 'best-fitting' model). Conclusions: Survival estimates from the spline-based models are more aligned with clinical expectation and provided a better fit to the JM200 data, despite not exhibiting the definitively 'best' statistical goodness-of-fit. Longer-term data are required to further validate extrapolations, though this study illustrates the importance of clinical plausibility when selecting the most appropriate model. In addition, hazard-based plots and goodness-of-fit tests from multiple data cuts present useful approaches to identify when a more flexible model may be advantageous.

No abstract

Background: The treatment landscape for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) has evolved rapidly since immuno-oncology (IO) therapies were introduced. This study used recent data to assess real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in aNSCLC in the United Kingdom. Methods: Electronic prescribing records of treatment-naive patients starting first-line (1L) treatment for aNSCLC between June 2016 and March 2018 (follow-up until December 2018) in the United Kingdom were assessed retrospectively. Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were analyzed descriptively. Outcomes assessed included overall survival (OS), time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, and real-world tumor response.Results: In all, 1003 patients were evaluated (median age, 68 years [range, 28-93 years]; 53.9% male). Use of 1L IO monotherapy (0%-25.9%) and targeted therapy (11.8%-15.9%) increased during the study period, but chemotherapy remained the most common 1L treatment at all time points (88.2%-58.2%). Median OS was 9.5 months (95% CI, 8.8-10.7 months) for all patients, 8.1 months (95% CI, 7.4-8.9 months) with chemotherapy, 14.0 months (95% CI, 10.7-20.6 months) with IO monotherapy, and 20.2 months (95% CI, 16.0-30.5 months) with targeted therapy. In the 28.6% of patients who received second-line treatment, IO monotherapy was the most common drug class (used in 51.6%).Conclusions: Although use of 1L IO monotherapy for aNSCLC increased in the United Kingdom during the study period, most patients received 1L chemotherapy. An OS benefit for first-line IO monotherapy vs chemotherapy was observed but was numerically smaller than that reported in clinical trials. Targeted therapy was associated with the longest OS, highlighting the need for improved treatment options for tumors lacking targetable mutations.