Comparative clinical and economic analysis of using cabozantinib as second-line therapy for adult patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma

Background. Currently there exists a wide range of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatment schemes, among them cabozantinib, registered in Russia in 2019, was approved as a second-line therapy in both foreign and domestic guidelines.

Objective: to conduct a comparative clinical and economic analysis of cabozantinib and alternative drugs in adult patients with advanced RCC after previous systemic therapy.

Materials and methods. A literature review was conducted on clinical efficacy and safety of various second-line therapy drugs for advanced RCC in the available databases. The foreign partitioned survival model, reflecting the development of widespread RCC when using 4 different second-line therapy drugs (cabosantinib, nivolumab, axitinib and everolimus), was adapted considering 3 consecutive mutually exclusive conditions (before progression, after progression, death). Pharmacoeconomic analysis included “cost-effectiveness” and “cost-utility” analysis. We estimated direct medical costs for second- and third-line therapy and maintenance therapy (outpatient monitoring and palliative care). To estimate drug costs we used prices from the State Register of maximum selling prices, for cabozanthinib — price presented by the manufacturer. Costs of maintenance therapy were estimated based on the normal standardfor financial costs in accordance with the Program of state guarantees for 2020.

Results. Efficacy analysis based on the partitioned survival model showed the highest rates of life-years gained (3.18 life-years-gained (LYG)) and quality adjusted life-years (1.87quality adjusted life-years (QALY)) for cabozanthinib compared with nivolumab (2.53 LYG and 1.6 QALY), axitinib and everolimus (2.21 LYG and 1.31 QALY). Total costs for advanced RCC patients when treated with cabozanthinib were 4.3 million rubles, which is 5 % less than when using nivolumab (4.5 million rubles). Total costs for axitinib were 2.1 million rubles, while its effectiveness was lower compared with the cabozanthinib one. Costs of 1 life-year saved for cabozantinib were 1.4 million rubles, which is 25 % less compared to those for nivolumab. Costs of 1 quality-life year saved when using cabozantinib amounted 2.3 million rubles, which is 19 % less than those for nivolumab.

Conclusion. The study results showed that using cabozantinib to treat advanced RCC after previous systemic treatment is both clinically and cost-effective for adult patients with advanced RCC in the Russian Federation.

1. Minimum clinical guidelines of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). ESMO clinical guidelines for renal cell carcinoma diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Moscow, 2010. (In Russ.).

2. Ljungberg B., Bensalah K., Bex A. et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma. Translated by Yu. Siromo-lot. Scientific ed.: V.B. Matveev. 2014 [Online version]. Available at: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-RCC-2014-Russian-%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%83-%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83.pdf (last access on 01.18.2020). (In Russ.).

3. Kovacs G., Akhtar M., Beckwith B.J. et al. The Heidelberg classification of renal cell tumours. J Pathol 1997;183(2):131—3. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199710)183:2<131::AID-PATH931>3.0.CO;2-G.

4. Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA A Cancer J Clin 2019;69:7-34. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21551.

5. Escudier B., Porta C., Schmidinger M. et al. Renal cell carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2019;30(5):706—20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz056.

6. Malignant tumors in Russia in 2018 (morbidity and mortality). Eds.: A.D. Kaprin, VV Starinskiy, G.V. Petrova. Moscow: MNIOI im. P.A. Gertsena — filial FGBU “NMITS radiologii” Minzdrava Rossii, 2019. 250 p. (In Russ.).

7. State of oncological care in Russia in 2018. Eds.: А.D. Kaprin, V.V Starinskiy, G.V. Petrova. Moscow: MNIOI im. P.A. Gertsena — filial FGBU “NMITS radiologii” Minzdrava Rossii, 2019. 236 p. (In Russ.).

8. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: kidney cancer. Fort Washington, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Version 2.2020. 2019.

9. Albiges L., Powles T., Staehler M. et al. Updated European Association of Urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: immune checkpoint inhibition is the new backbone in first-line treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2019;76(2):151—6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.05.022.

10. Alekseev B.Ya., Volkova M.I., Kalpinsky A.S. et al. Association of Oncologists of Russia. Clinical guidelines on kidney cancer diagnosis and treatment. Approved at the board meeting of Association of Oncologists of Russia, Moscow, 2014 [Online version]. Available at: http://oncology-association.ru/docs/recomend/jun2015/38vz-rek.pdf (last access on 01.18.2020). (In Russ.).

11. Носов Д.А., Алексеев Б.Я., Волкова М.И. и др. Практические рекомендации по лекарственному лечению почечно-клеточного рака. Злокачественные опухоли: практические рекомендации RUSSCO 2019;3s2(9):498—506. DOI: 10.18027/2224-5057-2019-9-3s2-498-506 [Nosov D.A., Alekseev B.Ya., Volkova M.I. et al. Practical guidelines on renal cell carcinoma treatment. Malignant tumors: RUSSCO practical guidelines 2019;3s2(9):498—506. (In Russ.)].

12. Clinical recommendations. Carcinoma of renal parenchyma. Russian Society of Urologists, Russian Society of Oncourologists, Association of Oncologists of Russia, Russian Society of Clinical Oncology. 2018 [Online source]. Available at: http://www.oncology.ru/association/clinical-guide-lines/2018/rak_pochki_pr2018.pdf (last access 01.18.2020). (In Russ.).

13. State Register of Pharmaceutical Products for Medical Purposes. Available at: https://grls.rosminzdrav.ru/grls.aspx (last access on 05.02.2020). (In Russ.).

14. Choueiri T.K., Escudier B., Powles T. et al. Cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1814-23. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1510016.

15. Kurzrock R., Sherman S.I., Ball D.W. et al. Activity of XL184 (cabozantinib), an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with medullary thyroid cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(19):2660—6. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.4145.

16. Choueiri T.K., Pal S.K., Mcdermott D.F. et al. A phase I study of cabozantinib (XL184) in patients with renal cell cancer. Ann Oncol 2014;25(8):1603—8. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu184.

17. Heng D.Y., Xie W., Regan M.M. et al. Prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agents: results from a large, multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(34):5794—9. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.4809.

18. Matveev V.B., Olshanskaya A.S., Volkova M.I. Cabozantinib: from studies to clinical practice. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2019;15(3):28—41. (In Russ.).

19. Methley A.M., Campbell S., Chew-Graham C. et al. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14(1):579. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0.

20. Edwards S.J., Wakefield V., Cain P. et al. Axitinib, cabozantinib, everolimus, nivolumab, sunitinib and best supportive care in previously treated renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2018;22(6):1—278. DOI: 10.3310/hta22060.

21. Amzal B., Fu S., Meng J. et al. Cabozan-tinib versus everolimus, nivolumab, axi-tinib, sorafenib and best supportive care: a network meta-analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival in second line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. PLoS One 2017;12(9):e0184423. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184423.

22. El Rassy E., Aoun F., Sleilaty G. et al. Network meta-analysis of second-line treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: efficacy and safety. Future Oncol 2017;13(29):2709—17. DOI: 10.2217/fon-2017-0268.

23. Tremblay G., McElroy H.J., Westley T. et al. Indirect treatment comparisons including network meta-analysis: lenvatinib plus everolimus for the second-line treatment of advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma. PLoS One 2019;14(3):e0212899. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212899.

24. Rini B.I., Escudier B., Tomczak P. et al. Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet 2011;378(9807):1931—9. DOI: 10.1016/S0140—6736(11)61613-9.

25. Motzer R.J., Escudier B., Tomczak P. et al. Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial [published correction appears in Lancet Oncol 2013;14(7):e254]. Lancet Oncol 2013;14(6):552—62. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70093-7.

26. Motzer R.J., Escudier B., McDermott D.F. et al. Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1803—13. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1510665.

27. Maximum wholesale and retail markups to the prices of vital and essential medicines established in the federal subjects of the Russian Federation. Website of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation. Available at: https://fas.gov.ru/documents/684978 (last access on 05.02.2020). (In Russ.).

28. Data of the Federal State Statistics Service. Estimated resident population as of January 1, 2018. Available at: https://www.gks.ru/folder/12781 (last access on 05.02.2020). (In Russ.).

29. The Tax Code of the Russian Federation (part 2) of 05.08.2000 No. 117 — FZ (as amended on 09.29.2019) (as amended and supplemented, entered into force on 01.01.2019). Article 164. Tax rates. P. 2. Available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_28165/35cc6698564adc4507baa31c9cfd-bb4f2516d068/ (last access on 05.02.2020). (In Russ.).

30. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Single Technology Appraisal: Cabozantinib for Previously Treated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma [ID931]. Committee Papers. London: NICE, 2017. Available at: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/GID-TA10075/documents/committee-papers (last contact date 05.02.2020)

31. Order of the Government of the Russian Federation “About the Program of the state guarantees of free rendering medical care to citizens for 2020 and for planning period of 2021 and 2022” of December 7, 2019 No. 1610. (In Russ.).

32. Swallow E., Messali A., Ghate S. et al. The additional costs per month of progression-free survival and overall survival: an economic model comparing everolimus with cabozantinib, nivolumab, and axitinib for second-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Manag Care Special Pharm 2018;24(4):335—43. DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.4.335.

33. Deniz B., Ambavane A., Yang S. et al. Treatment sequences for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a health economic assessment. PLoS One 2019;14(8):e0215761. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215761.

34. Giuliani J., Bonetti A. Cost-effectiveness of second-line treatments for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2019;17(2):e258—62. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2018.11.010.

35. Meng J., Lister J., Vataire A.L. et al. Costeffectiveness comparison of cabozantinib with everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma following the failure of prior therapy in England. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2018;10:243-50. DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S159833.