A cost-utility analysis of atezolizumab in the second-line treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6639 Background: Despite early promising results, IMvigor211 failed to demonstrate an overall survival benefit for atezolizumab, compared to chemotherapy, in the second-line treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma. However, given improvements in adverse events (AE) and quality of life with atezolizumab, there may still be investment value. We conducted a cost-utility analysis (CUA) of atezolizumab compared to chemotherapy from a public-payer healthcare perspective. Methods: We developed a partitioned survival model to evaluate atezolizumab versus chemotherapy (i.e. docetaxel, paclitaxel or vinflunine). IMvigor211 informed rates of treatment receipt (initial and subsequent), AE, effectiveness and utility estimates. Cost for treatment, AE and death were based on published literature (adjusted to 2018 Canadian dollars). Per health state, cost of treatment (initial and subsequent) and AE were incorporated. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), cost per treatment, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). QALY and cost were discounted at 1.5% (Canadian guidelines). Parameter uncertainty was assessed through one-way and scenario analyses. Time horizons of 2 (within trial) and 5 years (extrapolated lifetime) were evaluated. Results: QALY of atezolizumab and chemotherapy over 2 years (lifetime) were 0.65 (0.93) and 0.58 (0.64), respectively. Cost of atezolizumab and chemotherapy over 2 years (lifetime) was $77,614.64, ($92,484.34), and $62,212.35 ($67,606.65), respectively. ICER over 2 years and lifetime was $220,032.71/QALY and $85,785.14/QALY. Scenario analysis from a North American perspective with only taxane chemotherapy with and without third line immunotherapy (IO) revealed an ICER of $80,144.90/QALY, $125,332.76/QALY over a lifetime horizon, respectively. Conclusions: The difference in ICER dependent on time horizon, driven by extrapolated survival benefits, highlights the importance of long-term follow-up to examine whether early evidence for durable response translates into long-term survival and improvements in cost-effectiveness. Thus, CUA of IO require careful interpretation and warrant dynamic assessment as new data becomes available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".