MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy in the first-line setting of PD-L1≥50% metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis.

2023· article· en· W4388205851 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brandon Lu, Ambika Parmar, Jin Luo, Kelvin Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Oncology Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPembrolizumabMedicineOncologyInternal medicineLung cancerCohortCost-effectiveness analysisPopulationCost effectivenessCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

21 Background: Despite the voiced concerns around the initial economic decision models for first-line pembrolizumab in PD-L1≥50% metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), there has been a paucity of evidence on the anticipated cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in the real world. To resolve the uncertainties associated with the initial assessment, we evaluated the real-world cost-effectiveness of first line pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy for mNSCLC patients with PD-L1≥50%. Methods: We retrospectively identified a population-based cohort of mNSCLC patients who received first-line pembrolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2021, in Ontario, Canada. Employing a public payer’s perspective, all costs (in Canadian dollars) and effects were estimated over a 4-year horizon, adjusted for censoring and discounted at 1.5% yearly. The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). To examine the sensitivity of the ICER to drug acquisition costs and discounting, we conducted a price reduction analysis and a scenario analysis of different discount rates. Results: Propensity-score matching resulted in a total of 1,142 pairs of matched mNSCLC patients. Pembrolizumab extended survival with an incremental effect of 0.37 LYG and 0.35 QALY, but at an incremental cost of $56,681; the resulting ICERs were $154,941/LYG and $163,039/QALY. Though the ICERs were not sensitive to discounting rate, 31% and 55% reductions to the price of pembrolizumab brought the ICER below $100,000/QALY and $50,000/QALY, respectively. Conclusions: In the real world, first-line pembrolizumab is not considered to be cost-effective for mNSCLC patients with PD-L1≥50%. Improvements in cost-effectiveness, however, may be achievable through price renegotiations for pembrolizumab.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.007
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.236
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Oncology PracticeSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207