Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32905260›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2020

A cost-utility analysis of atezolizumab in the second-line treatment of patients with metastatic bladder cancer.

A Parmar, M Richardson, P C Coyte, S Cheng, B Sander, K K W Chan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

A ParmarOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.
M RichardsonInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluative Sciences, University of Toronto.
P C CoyteInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluative Sciences, University of Toronto.
S ChengOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.
B SanderInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluative Sciences, University of Toronto.
K K W ChanOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.
University Health Network · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAHealth Sciences Centre · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite initial promising results, the IMvigor211 clinical trial failed to demonstrate an overall survival (os) benefit for atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy as second-line treatment for metastatic bladder cancer (mbc). However, given lessened adverse events (aes) and preserved quality of life (qol) with atezolizumab, there might still be investment value. To evaluate that potential value, we conducted a cost-utility analysis (cua) of atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy from the perspective of the Canadian health care payer. Methods: A partitioned survival model was used to evaluate atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy over a lifetime horizon (5 years). The base-case analysis was conducted for the intention-to-treat (itt) population, with additional scenario analyses for subgroups by IMvigor-defined PD-L1 status. Health outcomes were evaluated through life-year gains and quality-adjusted life-years (qalys). Cost estimates in 2018 Canadian dollars for systemic treatment, aes, and end-of-life care were incorporated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) was used to compare treatment strategies. Parameter and model uncertainty were assessed through sensitivity and scenario analyses. Per Canadian guidelines, cost and effectiveness were discounted at 1.5%. Results: For the itt population, the expected qalys for atezolizumab and chemotherapy were 0.75 and 0.56, with expected costs of $90,290 and $8,466 respectively. The resultant icer for atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy was $430,652 per qaly. Scenario analysis of patients with PD-L1 expression levels of 5% or greater led to a lower icer ($334,387 per qaly). Scenario analysis of observed compared with expected benefits demonstrated a higher icer, with a shorter time horizon ($928,950 per qaly). Conclusions: Despite lessened aes and preserved qol, atezolizumab is not considered cost-effective for the second-line treatment of mbc.

Indexed as

Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCost-Benefit AnalysisDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasm MetastasisProgression-Free SurvivalUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedatezolizumabatezolizumabCost-utility analyseshealth technology assessmentsimmunotherapymetastatic bladder cancer

Identifiers

PMID32905260
PMCPMC7467791
OpenAlexW3083259192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.