Cost-effectiveness Analysis in the New Era of Treatment Strategies in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Based on Checkmate-901 and EV302/Keynote-A39.

Abstract

Background and objective: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUCa) ranks as the costliest cancer to treat per patient due to frequent interventions and expensive follow-ups. Investigating first-line therapies, combinations such as enfortumab vedotin + pembrolizumab (EV + P) and gemcitabine/cisplatin + nivolumab exhibit significant overall survival benefits compared with the standard treatment (SoC; gemcitabine/cisplatin). Here, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis for mUCa.

Methods: We developed a Markov model from a payer perspective, filtering clinical data from the phase 3 Checkmate-901 and EV302/Keynote-A39 trials. Monte Carlo simulation was used to identify the optimal treatment from a socioeconomic perspective in Germany and the USA. Finally, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each modality at different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.

Key findings and limitations: At a lifetime horizon, SoC, gemcitabine/cisplatin + nivolumab, and EV + P were associated with average costs of €163 424 (USA: $458 006), €206 853 (USA: $597 802), and €401 170 (USA: $1 228 455), and gained quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 1.21, 1.71, and 2.31, respectively. The ICERs of the newer strategies were €87 340 (USA: $281 142; gemcitabine/cisplatin + nivolumab) and €216 140 (USA: $700 448; EV + P). At a commonly used WTP threshold of €/$100 000, gemcitabine/cisplatin + nivolumab would be the optimal strategy in Germany, while EV + P would require a price reduction of 46% (USA: 82%) to be cost effective.

Conclusions and clinical implications: QALYs nearly double with EV + P compared with the current SoC; yet, current costs may not be justified from a strict socioeconomic perspective. Despite its lower oncological benefit, gemcitabine/cisplatin + nivolumab should be considered for first-line therapy due to favorable cost effectiveness, especially in Europe. Establishing individual risk factors is essential for optimizing therapeutic response and treatment costs in the future.

Patient summary: This report presents a cost-effectiveness analysis of emerging treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The combination of enfortumab vedotin + pembrolizumab emerged as the most effective treatment; however, it also proved to be the costliest. From a purely socioeconomic standpoint, the combination of gemcitabine/cisplatin and nivolumab represents a cost-effective alternative at least in Germany.