Background: The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo–bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo–bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo–bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Atezo–bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo–bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo–bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo–bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo–bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo–bev cost-effective. Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness of atezo–bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

IMPORTANCE Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for use as a second-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who previously received sorafenib. Pembrolizumab has shown substantial antitumor activity and a favorable toxicity profile as a second-line treatment of HCC. However, considering the high cost of pembrolizumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both the clinical efficacy and cost.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs placebo as second-line therapy in patients with HCC from the US payer perspective. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of pembrolizumab as a second-line treatment of HCC with those of placebo using outcome data from the KEYNOTE-240 randomized placebo-controlled trial, which included 413 patients with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib and randomized patients to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care in a 2:1 ratio. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESLife-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for the parameter of uncertainty. A cost-threshold analysis was also performed. The study was conducted from January 31 to July 29, 2020.

ObjectivesThe clinical course and prognosis of follicular lymphoma (FL) are diverse and associated with the patient’s immune response. We investigated the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as prognostic factors in patients with FL, including those receiving radiotherapy.DesignA retrospective cohort study.SettingRegional cancer centre in Hong Kong.Participants88 patients with histologically proven FL diagnosed between 2000 and 2014.Materials and methodsThe best LMR and NLR cut-off values were determined using cross-validated areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. The extent to which progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival differed by NLR and LMR cut-off values was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests. A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to adjust for confounders.ResultsThe best cut-off values for LMR and NLR were 3.20 and 2.18, respectively. The 5-year PFS was 73.6%. After multivariate adjustment, high LMR (>3.20) at diagnosis was associated with superior PFS, with a HR of 0.31 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.71), whereas high NLR at relapse was associated with poorer postprogression survival (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49).ConclusionsBaseline LMR and NLR at relapse were shown to be independent prognostic factors in FL. LMR and NLR are cheap and widely available biomarkers that could be used in combination with the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index by clinicians to better predict prognosis.

Background: Cancer treatment and outcomes can be influenced by tumor characteristics, patient overall health status, and comorbidities. While previous studies have analyzed the influence of comorbidity on cancer outcomes, limited information is available regarding factors associated with the increased prevalence of comorbidities and multimorbidity among patients with colorectal cancer in Spain. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional study obtained data from all colorectal cancer cases diagnosed in two Spanish provinces in 2011 from two population-based cancer registries and electronic health records. We calculated the prevalence of comorbidities according to patient and tumor factors, identified factors associated with an increased prevalence of comorbidity and multimorbidity, analyzed the association between comorbidities and time-to-surgery, and developed an interactive web application (https://comcor.netlify.com/). Results: The most common comorbidities were diabetes (23.6%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (17.2%), and congestive heart failure (14.5%). Among all comorbidities, 52% of patients were diagnosed at more advanced stages (stage III/IV). Patients with advanced age, restricted performance status or who were disabled, obese, and smokers had a higher prevalence of multimorbidity. Patients with multimorbidity had a longer time-tosurgery than those without comorbidity (17 days, 95% confidence interval: 3-29 days). Conclusion: We identified a consistent pattern of factors associated with a higher prevalence of comorbidities and multimorbidity at diagnosis and an increased time-to-surgery among patients with colorectal cancer with multimorbidity in Spain. This pattern may provide insights for further etiological and preventive research and help to identify patients at a higher risk for poorer cancer outcomes and suboptimal treatment.

We developed a predictive score system for 30-day mortality after palliative radiotherapy by using predictors from routine electronic medical record. Patients with metastatic cancer receiving first course palliative radiotherapy from 1 July, 2007 to 31 December, 2017 were identified. 30-day mortality odds ratios and probabilities of the death predictive score were obtained using multivariable logistic regression model. Overall, 5,795 patients participated. Median follow-up was 39.6 months (range, 24.5-69.3) for all surviving patients. 5,290 patients died over a median 110 days, of whom 995 (17.2%) died within 30 days of radiotherapy commencement. The most important mortality predictors were primary lung cancer (odds ratio: 1.73, 95% confidence interval: 1.47-2.04) and log peripheral blood neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (odds ratio: 1.71, 95% confidence interval: 1.52-1.92). The developed predictive scoring system had 10 predictor variables and 20 points. The cross-validated area under curve was 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.79-0.82). The calibration suggested a reasonably good fit for the model (likelihood-ratio statistic: 2.81, P = 0.094), providing an accurate prediction for almost all 30-day mortality probabilities. The predictive scoring system accurately predicted 30-day mortality among patients with stage iV cancer. oncologists may use this to tailor palliative therapy for patients.Many patients with metastatic cancer receive oncological treatment, and radiotherapy (RT) is an important component of palliative treatment 1 . RT can be an effective tool for palliation of symptoms arising from cancer, including pain from bone metastases or neurological compromise from brain or spinal metastases with cord or nerve root compression. The aim of palliative RT is to alleviate symptoms and improve quality of life. Evidence has shown that palliative RT was received by approximately 10% of patients who died of cancer near their end of life 2,3 . In one population-based study that included 15,287 patients who received RT in the last month of life, 17.8% received more than 10 days of treatment 4 . This finding corroborates with a German study which showed 50% of patients spent more than 60% of remaining 30 days of life receiving RT 4 .RT can be delivered via different dosing regimens (e.g., single fraction on one day versus multiple fractions for weeks) 5-9 . The use of multi-fractionation (split up the total dose into small fractions) is often perceived to be associated with less long-term complications and need for retreatment 4 . While larger fraction size by single-fractionation theoretically has an increased risk of late-onset radiation toxicity. Beside radiobiological consideration, medical training and experience, departmental policies, and insurance reimbursement all influence the decision on the dose-fractionation regimens. Use of hypofractionation or single fractionation is associated with a perceived poor prognosis by the oncologist. Protracted courses of RT can become considerable demand and burden on termina...