Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

E-Poster Display

717P - Comparison of long-term survival and cost-effectiveness (CE) of first-line (1L) treatment options in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) with intermediate or poor (I/P) prognostic risk

Date

17 Sep 2020

Session

E-Poster Display

Topics

Tumour Site

Renal Cell Cancer

Presenters

Toni Choueiri

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2020) 31 (suppl_4): S550-S550. 10.1016/annonc/annonc274

Authors

T.K. Choueiri1, B. Stwalley2, S. Huo2, J.R. May3, B. Malcolm3, K. Nickel4, N. Szabo4, S. Klijn5

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology Dept., Dana Farber Cancer Institute, 2215 - Boston/US
  • 2 Us Heor, Bristol Myers Squibb, 08648 - Princeton/US
  • 3 Ww Heor, Bristol Myers Squibb, 08648 - Princeton/US
  • 4 Real-world Evidence & Data Analytics, Pharmerit International, Berlin/DE
  • 5 Modeling & Meta-analysis, Pharmerit International, 3068AV - Rotterdam/NL

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 717P

Background

Survival benefits in 1L treatment of aRCC for patients with I/P IMDC risk groups have been demonstrated with nivolumab + ipilimumab (N+I) and pembrolizumab + axitinib (P+A) compared with sunitinib (S). CE evaluations are typically based on mean survival, requiring survival estimates beyond clinical trial data.

Methods

Observed survival from randomized controlled trials was extrapolated using standard parametric and spline distributions to estimate mean lifetime survival and landmark survival. Multiple parametric distributions were tested in scenario analyses. Survival of patients by treatment was estimated via independent models, as statistical tests showed proportional hazards could not be assumed. Alternative approaches, such as fractional polynomial network meta-analysis, were deemed less robust due to short follow-up with P+A (Jan 2019 cutoff). Survival estimates for cabozantinib (C), which is licensed for I/P risk patients, were explored but deemed clinically implausibly low relative to N+I, P+A, and S. Mean survival estimates were inputs to the CE model, which used a partitioned survival framework to estimate costs (year 2020), life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) over a horizon of 40 years. The analysis utilized a US healthcare perspective.

Results

Landmark survival estimates were higher for N+I and P+A than S at 5 and 10 years (Table). N+I was associated with the highest LYs and discounted QALYs of all treatments. Compared with S, N+I was associated with >2 times the LY gain achieved with P+A. Relative to S, total discounted incremental costs were lower for N+I than P+A, including disease management and subsequent therapy costs. Table: 717P

Treatment arm 5-year survival, % 10-year survival, % LYs Incremental LYs vs S QALYsa Total costa Incremental costa vs S
S 31 17 5.7 3.6 $394k
N+I 42 25 7.6 2.0 4.9 $485k $91k
P+A 38 19 6.5 0.8 4.1 $727k $333k

a3% annual discounting.

Conclusions

N+I offers aRCC patients with I/P risk a potential cost-effective treatment option with higher estimated mean long-term survival versus other 1L treatments in the US.

Clinical trial identification

NCT02231749.

Editorial acknowledgement

This research was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Professional medical writing from Samantha Rivera, MS, and editorial assistance were provided by Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, Parsippany, NJ, USA, and were funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

Funding

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and ONO Pharmaceutical Company Ltd.

Disclosure

T.K. Choueiri: Shareholder/Stockholder/Stock options: Pionyr; Shareholder/Stockholder/Stock options: Tempest; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: BMS; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Exelixis; Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: AstraZeneca; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, Spouse/Financial dependant: Lilly; Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, Spouse/Financial dependant: Eisai; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Novartis; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: GSK; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Pfizer; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: EMD Serono; Officer/Board of Directors, Sit on NCCN panel: NCCN. B. Stwalley: Shareholder/Stockholder/Stock options, Full/Part-time employment: BMS. S. Huo: Full/Part-time employment: BMS. J.R. May: Full/Part-time employment: BMS. B. Malcolm: Full/Part-time employment: BMS. K. Nickel: Research grant/Funding (institution): BMS. N. Szabo: Research grant/Funding (institution): BMS. S. Klijn: Research grant/Funding (institution): BMS.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.