
==== Front
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer
1471-2407
BioMed Central London

37189081
10938
10.1186/s12885-023-10938-8
Research
Cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy combinations with or without chemotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer: a modelling approach
Hui Wen huiwen@wchscu.cn

1
Song Ruomeng 1044223732@qq.com

2
Tao Hongyu 13552325981@163.com

3
Gao Zhixiang gao985623@126.com

4
Zhu Min zmmin2002@126.com

5
Zhang Mingyue zmy1206@126.com

6
Wu Huazhang wuhuazhang1962@126.com

5
Gong Daichen gongdch@haxm.com

7
Zhang Xiyan 707138095@qq.com

5
Cai Yuanyi yycai@cmu.edu.cn

5
1 grid.412901.f 0000 0004 1770 1022 West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
2 grid.412449.e 0000 0000 9678 1884 School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, China
3 grid.506261.6 0000 0001 0706 7839 Laboratory of Oncology, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
4 grid.415680.e 0000 0000 9549 5392 Department of Pharmacy, Affiliated Central Hospital of Shenyang Medical College, Shenyang, China
5 grid.412449.e 0000 0000 9678 1884 Department of Health Service Management, School of Health Management, China Medical University, Shenyang, China
6 grid.412449.e 0000 0000 9678 1884 Department of Health Economics, School of Health Management, China Medical University, Shenyang, China
7 Medical Record Department, Xiamen Humanity Hospital, Xiamen, China
15 5 2023
15 5 2023
2023
23 4426 11 2022
9 5 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Background

Many studies have explored the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. However, there is paucity of evidence on direct pharmacoeconomic studies related to immunotherapy combinations. Thus, we aimed at assessing the economic outcomes of first-line immunotherapy combinations in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the Chinese health care perspective.

Methods

The mutual hazard ratios (HRs) of ten immunotherapy combinations and one chemotherapy regimen for the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Based on proportional hazard (PH) assumption, adjusted OS and PFS curves were established to make the effects comparable. With the parameters of cost and utility, and of scale and shape from the fit of adjusted OS and PFS curves obtained from previous studies, a partitioned survival model was designed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy combinations versus chemotherapy alone. Parameter uncertainty in model inputs was assessed using one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

The incremental cost of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone was $13,180.65, the lowest among all the other immunotherapy combinations. Furthermore, sintilimab plus chemotherapy (sint-chemo) provided the highest quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit versus chemotherapy alone (incremental QALYs = 0.45). Sint-chemo yielded the best incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) versus chemotherapy alone (ICER = $34,912.09/QALY), at the current price. The cost-effectiveness probabilities were 32.01% and 93.91% for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy, respectively (if the original price of the pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and bevacizumab were decreased by 90%).

Conclusions

Based on the fact that there is fierce competition in the PD-1/PD-L1 market, pharmaceutical enterprises should strive for greater efficacy, and optimal pricing strategy for therapies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-023-10938-8.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness
Non-small cell lung cancer
Immunotherapy combination
Hazard ratio
Partitioned survival model
Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaNo.22YJCZH065 Educational Department of Liaoning Province Funding ProjectNo. QNRW2020007 issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023
==== Body
pmcBackground

Lung cancer is a major global health issue [1]. According to the GLOBOCAN 2020 database, the incidence of lung cancer was 2.207 million, accounting for 11.4% of all cancer cases. The number of deaths owing to lung cancer was 1.796 million, taking up 18.0% of all deaths. Compared with female breast cancer, lung cancer is the most widespread and is the leading cause of death due to cancer in males, with an estimated 1.436 million new cases and 1.189 million deaths in 2020 [2]. In the two broad histologic subtypes of lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) constitutes approximately 85–90% [3]. Furthermore, 60–70% of patients with lung cancer are often diagnosed at stages III and IV where an overall 5-year survival rate is dismal [4–6]. Therefore, improving survival and quality of life for patients with advanced NSCLC is of utmost relevance.

In the past decades, immunotherapies have led to prolong overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Recent studies showed that first-line immunotherapy combinations regimen, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) plus chemotherapy, ICI with anti-angiogenesis drugs, and ICI combinations achieve better clinical efficacy compared with that obtained with chemotherapy in KEYNOTE-189 trial, IMpower150 trial, and CheckMate 9LA trial [7–9]. However, in the phase 3 MYSTIC trial, immunotherapy combinations did not improve OS compared with that of chemotherapy alone [10]. Because of the uncertainty of results, a series of meta-analyses were conducted in recent years [11–15]. Among them, several studies were also performed to further demonstrate the clinical benefit of currently available first-line immunotherapy combination in the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC [16–18]. They demonstrated that immunotherapy combinations lead to higher efficacy, and improve clinical practice to some extent.

However, only considering clinical efficacy and safety could not meet the demand of real decision-making practice. Economic burden are also the important factors for decision makers. Compared with chemotherapy, the economic burden of immunotherapy combination is dramatically increasing from the perspective of payers including national health care insurance payers, commercial payers, and patients. Although previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of several immunotherapy regimens [19, 20], an optimal cost-effective immune agent has not yet been elucidated owing to the limited number of immune drugs involved in each study. To facilitate health care decision, a comprehensive comparison of the cost-effectiveness of all immunotherapy combinations is necessary.

Thus, through this study, we aimed at exploring the cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy combinations in the treatment of advanced NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health care system, in order to facilitate clinical practice and policy making, thereby creating a reference for developing countries.

Methods

This cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement, which was the guidance for health economic evaluation [21].

Target population and clinical treatments

The target population was patients with advanced squamous or non-squamous NSCLC confirmed either histologically or cytologically, which was based on a published network meta-analysis involving 16 studies, 8278 patients, 10 immunotherapy combinations, and 1 chemotherapy alone. The immunotherapy regimens included sintilimab plus chemotherapy (sint-chemo), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (pem-chemo), nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus chemotherapy (nivo-ipi-chemo), tislelizumab plus chemotherapy (tisle-chemo), camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (camre-chemo), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivo-ipi), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (atezo-beva-chemo), durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy (durva-treme-chemo), atezolizumab plus chemotherapy (atezo-chemo), and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (durva-treme) [22].

Survival analysis

Through the network meta-analysis, we obtained the hazard ratios (HRs) of PFS and OS among the 11 treatment regimens (10 immunotherapy combinations and 1 chemotherapy alone). We selected atezo-chemo from the IMpower130 trial as the baseline treatment due to its large sample, long follow-up time, and stable result [23]. The survival function relating atezo-chemo and 10 other treatment regimens was based on the following derivation (A or B represented for any 1 of the 11 treatment regimens.):1 htA=HR∗htB

2 ∫0thuAdu=∫0tHR∗huBdu=HR∫0thuBdu

3 HtA=HR∗HtB

4 e-HtA=e-HR∗HtB=e-HtBHR

5 stA=stBHR

We used WebPlotDigitizer to obtain the data of PFS and OS curves in the intervention arm of atezo-chemo in the IMpower130 trial. The individual patient data (IPD) of PFS and OS for the other nine immunotherapy combinations and one chemotherapy regimen was determined, based on Eq. (5), with the assumption of the same initially enrolled patients, and number lost to follow-up, thereby controlling the baseline characteristics, and making the treatment regimen become the only difference among the 11 treatment regimens.

Then the IPD of atezo-chemo arm were input into R (V4.0.3), and matched with the best distribution through survHE package. According to the Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and visual inspection, log-logistic distribution which was an accelerated failure time (AFT) model was selected for both OS and PFS curve fit in the atezo-chemo arm (Table S1 and Figure S1-S4) [24]. Based on the proportional hazard (PH) assumption, the log-logistic distribution was also used to fit and extrapolate the PFS and OS curves for the other ten treatment regimens. The scale and shape parameters of all the eleven log-logistic distributions for PFS or OS curve were set as follows (x = 0 represented for the control arm, x = 1 represented for the intervention arm.):6 st|x=s0t∗e-βx

In the package of “flexsurv” in R language7 st=11+tscaleshape

8 st|x=0=s0t=11+tscaleshape

9 st|x=1=s0t∗e-β=11+teβ∗scaleshape

10 scalearm=1=scalearm=0∗eβ

On the basis of the derivation above, the common shape of the OS curve and the common shape of the PFS curve for the 11 treatment regimens were 1.3 and 1.7 respectively. The scales of OS and PFS curves for the 11 treatment regimens were presented in Table 1.Table 1 Scale of OS and PFS curves in the immunotherapy combination group and chemotherapy group

Intervention	OS curve	PFS curve	
Chemo	14.6	5.1	
Sint-chemo	24.2	8.9	
Pem-chemo	23.5	8.5	
Nivo-ipi-chemo	21.8	7.0	
Tisle-chemo	20.8	8.5	
Camre-chemo	19.9	7.8	
Nivo-ipi	19.7	6.1	
Atezo-beva-chemo	20.0	10.3	
Durva-treme-chemo	17.6	5.8	
Atezo-chemo	17.4	7.2	
Durva-treme	15.4	4.3	

Model overview

We constructed a partitioned survival model, which included three states (progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death) to portray disease progression (Fig. 1). Each cycle length was set at 3 weeks, and the time horizon was 10 years, considering the poor prognosis for advanced NSCLC. The main outcomes were cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which were both discounted at a rate of 5% [25]. Since China does not officially recommend willingness to pay (WTP), we used the WTP threshold from World Health Organization recommendation: We selected three times per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China in 2021 ($35,424.12/QALY) for evaluating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) [26]. Moreover, half-cycle correction was performed for each cycle in the model.Fig. 1 Three main health states assumption of patients with NSCLC in the model

Treatment cost and utility

The health care perspective was selected and only direct treatment costs were considered in this study, involving immunotherapy and chemotherapy cost, adverse event cost, medical service cost, and follow up cost [27]. All costs were derived from the literature, and shown in 2022 US dollars (US $1 = CNY ¥6.8577) (Table 2).Table 2 Input parameters in the partitioned survival model

	Baseline value ($)	Range ($)	Distribution	Reference	
Durvalumab	7,866.6/ 1,500 mg	5,899.95–9,833.25	lognormal	[20]	
Atezolizumab	4,755/1,200 mg	3,566.25–5,943.75	lognormal	[20]	
Pembrolizumab	2,612.83/100 mg	1,959.69–3,266.11	lognormal	[27]	
Nivolumab	665/40 mg	498.75–831.25	lognormal	[20]	
Ipilimumab	81.2/mg	60.9–101.5	lognormal	[20]	
Sintilimab	157.5/100 mg	118.13–196.88	lognormal	[28]	
Camrelizumab	426.9/200 mg	320.2–533.7	lognormal	[29, 30]	
Tislelizumab	317.89/100 mg	238.42–397.36	lognormal	[31]	
Bevacizumab	262.5/100 mg	196.88–328.13	lognormal	[32]	
Tremelimumaba	81.2/mg	60.9–101.5	lognormal	-	
Carboplatin	0.16/mg	0.12–0.21	lognormal	[27]	
Pemetrexed	131.24/100 mg	98.43–164.05	lognormal	[32]	
Docetaxel	189.57/200 mg	142.18–236.96	lognormal	[33]	
Cost of medical service of immunotherapy per cycle	8.20	6.15–10.25	lognormal	[27]	
Cost of medical service of chemotherapy per cycle	45.97	34.48–57.47	lognormal	[27]	
Follow-up cost per cycle	58.53	43.90–73.17	lognormal	[27, 34]	
Utility for PFS	0.804	0.683–0.925	beta	[35]	
Utility for PD	0.321	0.273–0.369	beta	[35]	
Utility for death	0	0	-	-	
Discount rate	5%	0–8%	-	[25]	
aThe price of tremelimumab was assumed to be identical to that of ipilimumab, because tremelimumab was not approved to enter into the market

(i) Drug cost: There was a similarity in the first-line drug regimens among 16 clinical trials (Table S2) [7–10, 23, 29, 36–45]. Thus, we set a unified but slightly different drug regimen (Table S3). At the time of disease progression, docetaxel was used in both the immunotherapy combination and chemotherapy group, according to subsequent treatment regimens shown in clinical trials [46].

(ii) Adverse event cost: Adverse events of grade ≥ 3 and occurred in ≥ 3% of cases were considered [7–10, 23, 29, 36–45]. We assumed that these adverse events occurred in the first cycle, because physicians might change treatment regimens if severe adverse events frequently occurred [27]. Owing to part of immunotherapy combinations (sint-chemo, pem-chemo, tisle-chemo, atezo-chemo) taken as intervention in more than one clinical trial, weighted adverse event incidence was used in our model (Table S4-S14).

(iii) Medical service cost: Fees of consultation, intravenous injection, nursing, and hospitalization were analysed in this study.

(iv) Follow up cost: Laboratory test and imaging examination involving urine tests, blood tests, blood biochemistry, and computed tomography were considered [27].

The utility of PFS, PD, and the main disutilities of adverse events for Chinese patients with NSCLC were derived from a utility research by Nafees [35].

Sensitivity analyses

Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to assess parameter uncertainty in model inputs. In DSA, 15% and 25% changes were assumed for utility and treatment cost [27, 47], respectively, while the discount rate was varied between 0 to 8% [25]. In PSA, lognormal distribution for cost, and beta distribution for utility were set for performing 1000 Monte Carlo simulation [48].

Results

Base-case results

Regarding the economic burden for patients, the incremental cost of camre-chemo versus chemo alone was $13,180.65, which was lowest among all other immunotherapy combinations. Sint-chemo was also found to be comparable to camre- chemo in treatment cost. Compared with single PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy, dual drug combination led to a higher cost for patients. The incremental cost of atezo-beva-chemo, and nivo-ipi-chemo were $121,317.62, and $105,337.18, respectively (Table 3).Table 3 Economic evaluation on immunotherapy combination versus chemotherapy

	Cost ($)	Incremental Cost ($)	QALYs	Incremental QALYs	ICER ($/QALY)	
Chemo	19,505.60	-	0.93	-	-	
Sint-chemo	35,216.04	15,710.44	1.38	0.45	34,912.09	
Pem-chemo	102,747.84	83,242.24	1.35	0.42	198,195.81	
Nivo-ipi-chemo	124,842.78	105,337.18	1.24	0.31	339,797.35	
Tisle-chemo	37,738.81	18,233.21	1.28	0.35	52,094.89	
Camre-chemo	32,686.25	13,180.65	1.22	0.29	45,450.52	
Nivo-ipi	110,894.43	91,388.83	1.14	0.21	435,184.90	
Atezo-beva-chemo	140,823.22	121,317.62	1.36	0.43	282,134.00	
Durva-treme-chemo	112,804.77	93,299.17	1.05	0.12	777,493.08	
Atezo-chemo	74,841.35	55,335.75	1.13	0.2	276,678.75	
Durva-treme	73,073.61	53,568.01	0.91	-0.02	-	

Regarding the health outcome, patients who experienced lower progression and death risk from immunotherapy combinations obtained greater QALY benefit. Among the immunotherapy combinations, sint-chemo provided the best QALY benefit versus chemo (incremental QALYs = 0.45), followed by atezo-beva-chemo (incremental QALYs = 0.43), and pem-chemo (incremental QALYs = 0.42).

In terms of the ICER, sint-chemo yielded the best ICER versus chemo (ICER = $34,912.09/QALY, under the WTP threshold), followed by camre-chemo (ICER = $45,450.52/QALY), and tisle-chemo (ICER = $52,094.89/QALY).

Sensitivity analyses

Tornado diagrams were presented to indicate that the drug price, PFS, and PD utilities, and discount rate were the primary factors influencing ICER (Figure S5-S14). The probabilistic sensitivity analyses were presented as scatter diagram (Figure S15-S24), which showed that the cost-effectiveness probability for sint-chemo was 56.88% (Figure S15). When the original price decreased by 90% for single PD-1 inhibitor-pembrolizumab, and dual drug combination-atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the cost-effectiveness probabilities of these two immunotherapies were 32.01% and 93.91%, respectively (Fig. 2).Fig. 2 a Scatter diagram of pem-chemo versus chemo alone. I, pembrolizumab ($1,306.42/100 mg) plus chemotherapy; II, pembrolizumab ($261.28/100 mg) plus chemotherapy; III, chemotherapy alone. b Scatter diagram of atezo-beva-chemo versus chemo alone. I, atezolizumab ($2,377.5/1,200 mg) plus bevacizumab ($131.3/100 mg) plus chemotherapy; II, atezolizumab ($475.5/1200 mg) plus bevacizumab ($26.3/100 mg) plus chemotherapy; III, chemotherapy alone. WTP=$35,424.12

Discussion

To our knowledge, our study is the first comprehensive economic evaluation for the main immunotherapy combinations. In the methodology, common patients from one trial (IMpower130) were explored to infer to other immunotherapy trials in order to adjust for the confounding factors. The ICERs of ten immunotherapy combinations compared with chemotherapy alone were from $34,912.09/QALY to $777,493.08/QALY. This finding serves as a basis for other developing countries (with per capital GDP and per capital health expenditure similar to that of China) to choose a reasonable and affordable price for health care system or payers.

Previous economic evaluation for head-to-head comparison of immunotherapy combination have shown that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was a cost-effective option in the United States, but not the preferred option in China [49, 50]. Moreover, pembrolizumab plus platinum and pemetrexed as the first-line treatment was not cost-effective in China [51]. Atezolizumab combination therapy was not cost-effective in the United States and China [52–54]. Our study revealed similar findings, and assessed more immune combination regimens.

The differences of ICER stemmed from the following reasons. First, transition probabilities in PFS, PD, and death were one of the main impact factors of ICER. HR was used to construct the PFS and OS curves of immunotherapy combinations and chemotherapy in this study. Thus, different HRs led a significant difference in the transition probability. For example, regarding OS, the HR of immunotherapy combination versus chemotherapy was from 0.59 to 0.94. Regarding PFS, this value was from 0.45 to 1.25 [22]. Second, the result of DSA showed that the utility of health state and the price of immunotherapy also contributed to these differences. The PFS and PD utility values were both obtained from a study conducted by Nafees. More comparisons and choices were limited due to the lack of evidence on the utility in the Chinese population. For the immunotherapy price, camrelizumab, toripalimab, and tislelizumab entered the national basic medical care insurance catalogue in China through price cut [31]. Although the price kept original such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, new market strategies were conducted to be faced with the challenge from other PD-1 inhibitors. For example, the patient assistance program (PAP) of pembrolizumab was implemented: Patients who bought the first two cycles got the next two cycles for free, and then purchased the fifth and sixth cycles, the other cycles for two years were also free. The results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis also indicated that the cost-effectiveness probability for pem-chemo was 32.01% after the price of pembrolizumab dropped by 90%. Third, when PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with ipilimumab or bevacizumab, it increased the economic burden of patients.

The first PD-1 inhibitor-pembrolizumab was approved by US FDA in the year 2014. Accumulating evidence on immunotherapy from long-term follow-up studies and real-world data will render the HR more stable, thereby yielding more valid and reliable evidence on economic evaluation in the future. Meanwhile, there are controversies and various suggestions for the treatment of patients with NSCLC such as subsequent therapy for first-line receiving immunotherapy [34, 55]. The progress in these clinical areas will support specific and optimal choice for drug regimen set in the model. More importantly, the price strategy for acceptable ICER need both multinational pharmaceutical enterprises and Chinese local enterprises to maintain the balance between global pricing strategies and gaining more market share, single pricing strategy and various pricing strategies, the reimbursement of R&D cost and the affordability of patients, especially in the context of the global downward pressure on the economy.

This study has a few limitations. First, the treatment effect of durva-treme-chemo and atezo-beva-chemo respectively compared with chemotherapy alone only have indirect comparison in the network meta-analysis [22]. Although indirect comparison provide useful statistical technique to estimate treatment effect when direct comparisons are absent, they are low in power, with indeterminate results, and significant uncertainty [56–59]. The uncertainty of survival analysis might bring the uncertainty of economic evaluation in our study; therefore, head-to-head trial for durva-treme-chemo and atezo-beva-chemo respectively compared with chemotherapy alone would be warranted. Second, owing to lack of the network meta-analysis of each adverse event incidence [22], the weighted method was used in this study, thereby possibly increasing deviations compared with the synthetic evidence. Third, in the real-world, clinical treatments are complex and diverse. However, a unified drug regimen was set in order to highlight the differences among the immunotherapies. Fourth, the model in this study was based on a series of assumptions such as proportional hazard, which limited the extrapolation of the result.

Conclusions

In the present study, we assessed the cost effectiveness of immunotherapy combinations versus chemotherapy alone in China. Among the immunotherapy combinations, sintilimab plus chemotherapy provided the best QALY benefit versus chemotherapy, and also appeared a better economic outcome. Although atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy also provided favorable QALY, the economic outcome was unlikely to be ideal. Our findings revealed that much lower progression and death risk, and a competitive price for immunotherapy combination led to an acceptable ICER for Chinese patients with NSCLC. This serves as an evidence for pharmaceutical enterprises to properly and deeply consider the pricing strategy based on effectiveness and safety in the real-world condition.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1. AIC and BIC of OS curve and PFS curve in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy arm in the IMpower 130 trial. Table S2. Treatment regimens in 16 clinical trials. Table S3. Treatment regimens used in the partitioned survival model. Table S4. Serious adverse event cost and disutility for patients in China. Table S5. Serious adverse event incidence, cost and disutility of sint-chemo. Table S6. Serious adverse event incidence, cost and disutility of pem-chemo. Table S7. Serious adverse event incidence, cost and disutility of nivo-ipi-chemo. Table S8. Serious adverse event incidence, cost and disutility of tisle-chemo. Table S9. Serious adverse event incidence, cost and disutility of camre-chemo. Table S10. Serious adverse event incidence, cost and disutility of atezo-beva-chemo. Table S11. Serious adverse event incidence, cost and disutility of durva-treme-chemo. Table S12. Serious adverse event incidence, cost and disutility of atezo-chemo. Table S13. Serious adverse event incidence, cost and disutility of durva-treme. Table S14. Serious adverse event incidence, cost and disutility of chemo. Figure S1. Visual inspection of nine distributions for OS curve in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy arm. Figure S2. Visual inspection of exponential, and loglogistic distributions for OS curve in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy arm. Figure S3. Visual inspection of nine distributions for PFS curve in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy arm. Figure S4. Visual inspection of genf, and loglogistic distributions for PFS curve in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy arm. Figure S5. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of sint-chemo versus chemo. FigureS6. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of pem-chemo versus chemo. Figure S7. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of nivo-ipi-chemo versus chemo. Figure S8. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of tisle -chemo versus chemo. Figure S9. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of camre-chemo versus chemo. Figure S10. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of nivo-ipi versus chemo. Figure S11. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of atezo-beva-chemo versus chemo. Figure S12. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of durva-treme-chemo versus chemo. Figure S13. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of atezo-chemo versus chemo. Figure S14. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of durva-treme versus chemo. Figure S15. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of sint-chemo versus chemo. Figure S16. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of pem-chemo versus chemo. Figure S17. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of nivo-ipi-chemo versus chemo. Figure S18. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of tisle-chemo versus chemo. Figure S19. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of camre-chemo versus chemo. Figure S20. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of nivo-ipi versus chemo. Figure S21. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of atezo-beva-chemo versus chemo. Figure S22. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of durva-treme-chemo versus chemo. Figure S23. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of atezo-chemo versus chemo. Figure S24. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of durva-treme versus chemo.

Abbreviations

NSCLC Non-small cell lung cancer

HR Hazard ratio

OS Overall survival

PFS Progression-free survival

PH Proportional hazard

QALY Quality-adjusted life-year

ICER Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

ICI Immune checkpoint inhibitor

IPD Individual patient data

AIC Akaike information criterion

BIC Bayesian information criterion

AFT Accelerated failure time

WTP Willingness to pay

GDP Gross domestic product

DSA Deterministic sensitivity analyse

PSA Probabilistic sensitivity analyse

PAP Patient assistance program

sint-chemo Sintilimab plus chemotherapy

pem-chemo Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy

nivo-ipi-chemo Nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus chemotherapy

tisle-chemo Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy

camre-chemo Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy

nivo-ipi Nivolumab plus ipilimumab

atezo-beva-chemo Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy

durva-treme-chemo Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy

atezo-chemo Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy

durva-treme Durvalumab plus tremelimumab

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the oncologists participating in this study for providing important suggestions, and pharmacoeconomic experts for their technical help.

Authors’ contributions

Wen Hui and Yuanyi Cai studied the concept and made the whole design. Min Zhu, Mingyue Zhang and Daichen Gong collected the data during the study. Wen Hui, Yuanyi Cai, Ruomeng Song, and Xiyan Zhang conducted the analysis and interpretation of data. Hongyu Tao, Huazhang Wu, and Zhixiang Gao revised the article. Wen Hui and Yuanyi Cai were the main drafters of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (No.22YJCZH065), Educational Department of Liaoning Province Funding Project (No. QNRW2020007).

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the study are available from the main text and supplementary material of this article.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Mao YS Yang D He J Krasna MJ Epidemiology of Lung Cancer Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2016 25 3 439 445 10.1016/j.soc.2016.02.001 27261907
2. Sung H Ferlay J Siegel RL Laversanne M Soerjomataram I Jemal A Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries CA Cancer J Clin 2021 71 3 209 249 10.3322/caac.21660 33538338
3. Wu B Gu XH Zhang Q Cost-Effectiveness of Osimertinib for EGFR Mutation- Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer after Progression Following First-Line EGFR TKI Therapy J Thorac Oncol 2018 13 2 184 193 10.1016/j.jtho.2017.10.012 29101057
4. Royal College of Physicians National Lung Cancer Audit annual report 2016 (for the audit period 2015) 2017 London Royal College of Physicians
5. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: Lung and Bronchus Cancer. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html. Accessed 12 July 2022.
6. Fan H Shao ZY Xiao YY Xie ZH Chen W Xie H Incidence and Survival of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Shanghai: A Population-Based Cohort Study BMJ Open 2015 5 12 e009419 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009419 26700282
7. Gadgeel S Rodríguez-Abreu D Speranza G Esteban E Felip E Dómine M Updated Analysis From KEYNOTE-189: Pembrolizumab or Placebo Plus Pemetrexed and Platinum for Previously Untreated Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer J Clin Oncol 2020 38 14 1505 17 10.1200/JCO.19.03136 32150489
8. Socinski MA Jotte RM Cappuzzo F Orlandi F Stroyakovskiy D Nogami N Atezolizumab for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC N Engl J Med 2018 378 24 2288 2301 10.1056/NEJMoa1716948 29863955
9. Reck M Ciuleanu TE Cobo M Schenker M Zurawski B Menezes J First-Line Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab with Two Cycles of Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone (four cycles) in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: CheckMate 9LA 2-year update ESMO Open 2021 6 5 1 13 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100273
10. Rizvi NA Cho BC Reinmuth N Lee KH Luft A Ahn MJ Durvalumab with or without Tremelimumab vs Standard Chemotherapy in First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: the MYSTIC Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA Oncol 2020 6 5 661 674 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0237 32271377
11. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative group (EBCTCG) Trastuzumab for early-stage, HER2-positive breast cancer: a meta-analysis of 13 864 women in seven randomised trials Lancet Oncol 2021 22 8 1139 1150 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00288-6 34339645
12. Conforti F Pala L Sala I Oriecuia C De Pas T Specchia C Evaluation of pathological complete response as surrogate endpoint in neoadjuvant randomised clinical trials of early stage breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ 2021 375 e066381 10.1136/bmj-2021-066381 34933868
13. Zhang W Huang ZK Zhang JW Che X Long-term and short-term outcomes after laparoscopic versus open surgery for advanced gastric cancer: An updated meta-analysis J Minim Access Surg 2021 17 4 423 434 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_219_20 34558423
14. Wang HY Liu YH Shen KJ Dong YX Sun JY Shu YM A comparison between radiofrequency ablation combined with transarterial chemoembolization and surgical resection in hepatic carcinoma: A meta-analysis J Cancer Res Ther 2019 15 7 1617 1623 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_503_19 31939446
15. Wang HY Cao C Wei XY Shen KJ Shu YM Wan XJ A comparison between drug-eluting bead-transarterial chemoembolization and conventional transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials J Cancer Res Ther 2020 16 2 243 249 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_504_19 32474508
16. Ferrara R Imbimbo M Malouf R Paget-Bailly S Calais F Marchal C Single or combined immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021 4 4 CD013257 33930176
17. He MF Zheng TH Zhang XY Peng Y Jiang X Huang YS First-line treatment options for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Cancer Immunol Immunother 2022 71 6 1345 1355 10.1007/s00262-021-03089-x 34657171
18. Dafni U Tsourti Z Vervita K Peters S Immune checkpoint inhibitors, alone or in combination with chemotherapy, as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer A systematic review and network meta-analysis Lung Cancer 2019 134 127 140 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.05.029 31319971
19. Liu Q Zhou Z Luo X Yi LD Peng LB Wan XM First-Line ICI Monotherapies for Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Patients With PD-L1 of at Least 50%: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Front Pharmacol 2021 12 788569 10.3389/fphar.2021.788569 34992538
20. Kang S Wang XC Zhang Y Zhang BY Shang FJ Guo W First-Line Treatments for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Plus Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Front Oncol 2022 11 1 11 10.3389/fonc.2021.740091
21. Husereau D Drummond M Augustovski F de Bekker-Grob E Briggs AH Carswell C Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force Value Health 2022 25 1 10 31 10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008 35031088
22. Liu LH Bai H Wang C Seery S Wang ZJ Duan JC Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Immunotherapy Combinations for Advanced NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis J Thorac Oncol 2021 16 7 1099 1117 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.03.016 33839365
23. West H McCleod M Hussein M Morabito A Rittmeyer A Conter HJ Atezolizumab in Combination with Carboplatin plus Nab-Paclitaxel Chemotherapy Compared with Chemotherapy Alone as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (IMpower130): A Multicentre, Randomised, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial Lancet Oncol 2019 20 7 924 937 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30167-6 31122901
24. Guyot P Ades AE Ouwens MJ Welton NJ Enhanced Secondary Analysis of Survival Data: Reconstructing the Data from Published Kaplan-Meier Survival Curves BMC Med Res Methodol 2012 12 9 10.1186/1471-2288-12-9 22297116
25. Liu GE Hu SL Wu JH Wu J Dong ZH Li HC China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations (2020 Version) 2020 Beijing China Market Press 27
26. National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China. Statistical Bulletin of the National Economy and Social Development in 2021. Available at: http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/202202/t20220227_1827960.html. Accessed 2 Aug 2022.
27. Xu H Ma AX Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Different PD-L1 Expression Levels Based on Partitioned Survival Model Chin J Hosp Pharm 2020 40 1 8
28. Gao HT Hu MX Jia LL Wu F Hou YH Cost- Utility Analysis of Sintilimab Combined with Chemotherapy in First- Line Treatment of Advanced or Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer China Pharmacy 2022 33 15 1854 1859
29. Zhou CC Chen GY Huang YC Zhou JY Lin LZ Feng JF Camrelizumab plus Carboplatin and Pemetrexed versus Chemotherapy Alone in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients with Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (CameL): A Randomised, Open Label, Multicentre, Phase 3 Trial Lancet Respir Med 2021 9 3 305 314 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30365-9 33347829
30. Global oncologist network. Prices of Four Types of Domestic PD-1 Inhibitors Decreased after Entering the Medical Care Insurance Medicine Catalogue in China. Available at: http://www.globecancer.com/azzx/show.php?itemid=13430. Accessed 8 Aug 2022.
31. Li XX. The Prices of Three Anticancer Drugs Decreased in the New National Basic Medical Care Insurance Medicine Catalogue, and the Largest Drop was Up to 85%. Available at: https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_11505337. Accessed 8 Sept 2022.
32. Tuling drug price network. The Price of Bevacizumab and Pemetrexed. Available at: https://www.315jiage.cn. Accessed 10 Sept 2022.
33. Xu H Ma AX Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China Based on Markov Model Chin J Mod Appl Pharm 2021 38 4 473 479
34. Chinese Association for Clinical Oncologists and Medical Oncology Branch of Chinese International Exchange and Promotion Association for Medical and Healthcare Clinical Practice Guideline for Stage IV Primary Lung Cancer in China (2021 Version) Chin J Oncol 2021 43 1 39 59
35. Nafees B Lloyd AJ Dewilde S Rajan N Lorenzo M Health State Utilities in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An International Study Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2017 13 e195 e203 10.1111/ajco.12477 26990789
36. Borghaei H Langer CJ Gadgeel S Papadimitrakopoulou VA Patnaik A Powell SF 24-Month Overall Survival from KEYNOTE-021 Cohort G: Pemetrexed and Carboplatin with or without Pembrolizumab as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer J Thorac Oncol 2019 14 1 124 129 10.1016/j.jtho.2018.08.004 30138764
37. Paz-Ares L Vicente D Tafreshi A Robinson A Parra HS Mazières J A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Squamous NSCLC: Protocol-Specified Final Analysis of KEYNOTE-407 J Thorac Oncol 2020 15 10 1657 1669 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.06.015 32599071
38. Jotte R Cappuzzo F Vynnychenko I Stroyakovskiy D Rodríguez-Abreu D Hussein M Atezolizumab in Combination with Carboplatin and Nab-Paclitaxel in Advanced Squamous NSCLC (IMpower131): Results from A Randomized Phase III Trial J Thorac Oncol 2020 15 8 1351 1360 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.03.028 32302702
39. Nishio M Barlesi F West H Ball S Bordoni R Cobo M Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Nonsquamous NSCLC: Results From the Randomized Phase 3 IMpower132 Trial J Thorac Oncol 2021 16 4 653 664 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.11.025 33333328
40. Paz-Ares LG Ramalingam SS Ciuleanu TE Lee JS Urban L Caro RB First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced NSCLC: 4-Year Outcomes From the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 CheckMate 227 Part 1 Trial J Thorac Oncol 2022 17 2 289 308 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.09.010 34648948
41. Leighl NB Laurie SA Goss GD Hughes BGM Stockler M Tsao MS CCTG BR34: A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Durvalumab and Tremelimumab With or Without Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic NSCLC J Thorac Oncol 2022 17 3 434 445 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.10.023 34800700
42. Lu S Wang J Yu Y Yu XM Hu YP Ai XH Tislelizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC (RATIONALE 304): A Randomized Phase 3 Trial J Thorac Oncol 2021 16 9 1512 1522 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.05.005 34033975
43. Wang J Lu S Yu XM Hu YP Sun YP Wang ZJ Tislelizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy Alone as First-line Treatment for Advanced Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA Oncol 2021 7 5 709 717 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.0366 33792623
44. Yang YP Wang ZH Fang J Yu QT Han BH Cang SD Efficacy and Safety of Sintilimab Plus Pemetrexed and Platinum as First-Line Treatment for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC: a Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Study (Oncology pRogram by InnovENT anti-PD-1-11) J Thorac Oncol 2020 15 10 1636 1646 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.07.014 32781263
45. Zhou CC Wu L Fan Y Wang ZH Liu LK Chen GY Sintilimab Plus Platinum and Gemcitabine as First-Line Treatment for Advanced or Metastatic Squamous NSCLC: Results From a Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial (ORIENT-12) J Thorac Oncol 2021 16 9 1501 1511 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.04.011 34048947
46. Reck M Remon J Hellmann MD First-Line Immunotherapy for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer J Clin Oncol 2022 40 6 586 597 10.1200/JCO.21.01497 34985920
47. Wu B Zhang Q Sun J Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma J Immunother Cancer 2018 6 1 124 10.1186/s40425-018-0440-9 30458884
48. Briggs AH Weinstein MC Fenwick EAL Karnon J Sculpher MJ Paltiel AD Model Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty Analysis: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6 Med Decis Making 2012 32 5 722 732 10.1177/0272989X12458348 22990087
49. Hao XZ Shen AZ Wu B Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Front Pharmacol 2021 12 573852 10.3389/fphar.2021.573852 34290602
50. Hu HB She LJ Liao MT Shi Y Yao LL Ding D Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Front Oncol 2020 10 1649 10.3389/fonc.2020.01649 33014826
51. Jiang Y Wang XW Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in China Eur J Hosp Pharm 2022 29 3 139 144 10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-002208 32737070
52. Criss SD Mooradian MJ Watson TR Gainor JF Reynolds KL Kong CY Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Combination Therapy for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States JAMA Netw Open 2019 2 9 e1911952 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11952 31553470
53. Ding D Hu HB Liao MT Shi Y She LJ Yao LL Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Adv Ther 2020 37 5 2116 2126 10.1007/s12325-020-01292-3 32193809
54. Yang ZG Zhu YM Xiang GY Hua TT Ni J Zhao J First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from China Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2021 21 5 1061 1067 10.1080/14737167.2021.1899813 33682554
55. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (Version3.2021). Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx. Accessed 22 Sept 2022.
56. Jansen JP Fleurence R Devine B Itzler R Barrett A Hawkins N Interpreting Indirect Treatment Comparisons and Network Meta-Analysis for Health-Care Decision Making: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 1 Value Health 2011 14 4 417 428 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002 21669366
57. Bucher HC Guyatt GH Griffith LE Walter SD The Results of Direct and Indirect Treatment Comparisons in Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials J Clin Epidemiol 1997 50 6 683 691 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00049-8 9250266
58. Gartlehner G Moore CG Direct Versus Indirect Comparisons: A Summary of the Evidence Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008 24 2 170 177 10.1017/S0266462308080240 18400120
59. Lim E Ali Z Ali A Routledge T Edmonds L Altman DG Indirect Comparison Meta-Analysis of Aspirin Therapy after Coronary Surgery BMJ 2003 327 7427 1309 10.1136/bmj.327.7427.1309 14656836
