Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2024 Aug;28(49):1–190. doi: 10.3310/TRRM4238

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Nigel Fleeman, Rachel Houten, Sarah Nevitt, James Mahon, Sophie Beale, Angela Boland, Janette Greenhalgh, Katherine Edwards, Michelle Maden, Devarshi Bhattacharyya, Marty Chaplin, Joanne McEntee, Shien Chow, Tom Waddell
PMCID: PMC11404358  PMID: 39252678

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient's risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

METHODS

The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme.

RESULTS

The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587.

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Plain language summary

Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer. Several drug treatment options are available for NHS patients with advanced or metastatic disease, and the choice of treatment varies depending on a patient’s risk of disease progression. A new drug combination, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, may soon become available to treat NHS patients. This review explored whether treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab offered value for money to the NHS. We reviewed the effectiveness of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus other NHS treatment options. We also estimated the costs and benefits of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus current NHS treatments for patients with higher and lower risks of disease progression. Compared with current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may increase the time that people with a higher risk of disease progression (i.e. worsening disease) were alive. However, for patients with a lower risk of disease progression, the available evidence is limited and only shows that treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may prolong the time that patients have a stable level of disease. For all patients, compared to all current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is very expensive. Compared with current NHS treatments for untreated renal cell carcinoma, using published prices (which do not include any discounts that are offered to the NHS), treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may not provide good value for money to the NHS.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Eisai. Lenvatinib with Pembrolizumab for Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma [ID3760]. Company Evidence Submission. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Multiple Technology Appraisal; 2021. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta858/evidence/appraisal-consultation-committee-papers-pdf-11317402909 (accessed 24 April 2024).
  2. MSD. Lenvatinib with Pembrolizumab for Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma [ID3760]. Document B. Company Evidence Submission. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Multiple Technology Appraisal; 2021. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta858/evidence/appraisal-consultation-committee-papers-pdf-11317402909 (accessed 24 April 2024).
  3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Lenvatinib with Pembrolizumab for Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA858]. 2023. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta858 (accessed 18 January 2023).
  4. Kabaria R, Klaassen Z, Terris MK. Renal cell carcinoma: links and risks. Int J Nephrol Renovasc Dis 2016;9:45–52. doi: 10.2147/IJNRD.S75916. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. Cancer Research UK. Types and grades. Kidney cancer. Last updated: 9 March 2020. URL: www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/kidney-cancer/stages-types-grades/types-grades (accessed 10 September 2021).
  6. BMJ Best Practice. Renal Cell Carcinoma. Last updated: 14 October 2020. URL: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-gb/261 (accessed 10 September 2021).
  7. Gray RE, Harris GT. Renal cell carcinoma: diagnosis and management. Am Fam Physician 2019;99:179–84. [PubMed]
  8. Moch H, Cubilla AL, Humphrey PA, Reuter VE, Ulbright TM. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs-part A: renal, penile, and testicular tumours. Eur Urol 2016;70:93–105. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.029. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Ahrens M, Scheich S, Hartmann A, Bergmann L; IAG-N Interdisciplinary Working Group Kidney Cancer of the German Cancer Society. Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma – pathology and treatment options. Oncol Res Treat 2019;42:128–35. doi: 10.1159/000495366. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Valenca LB, Hirsch MS, Choueiri TK, Harshman LC. Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, part 1: histology. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 2015;13:308–13. [PubMed]
  11. American Cancer Society. Kidney Cancer Stages. Renal Cell Carcinoma Staging. 2020. URL: www.cancer.org/cancer/kidney-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/staging.html (accessed 10 September 2021).
  12. Cancer Research UK. Kidney Cancer Incidence Statistics. 2020. URL: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/kidney-cancer/incidence#heading-Zero (accessed 10 September 2021).
  13. Motzer RJ, Bacik J, Murphy BA, Russo P, Mazumdar M. Interferon-alfa as a comparative treatment for clinical trials of new therapies against advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:289–96. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.1.289. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Heng DY, Xie W, Regan MM, Warren MA, Golshayan AR, Sahi C, 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;27:5794–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.4809. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Motzer RJ, Mazumdar M, Bacik J, Berg W, Amsterdam A, Ferrara J. Survival and prognostic stratification of 670 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2530–40. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.8.2530. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Heng DY, Xie W, Regan MM, Harshman LC, Bjarnason GA, Vaishampayan UN, et al. External validation and comparison with other models of the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:141–8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70559-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  17. Kubackova K, Melichar B, Bortlicek Z, Pavlik T, Poprach A, Svoboda M, et al.; Czech Renal Cancer Cooperative Group. Comparison of two prognostic models in patients with metastatic renal cancer treated with sunitinib: a retrospective, registry-based study. Target Oncol 2015;10:557–63. doi: 10.1007/s11523-015-0366-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. de Groot S, Sleijfer S, Redekop WK, Oosterwijk E, Haanen JBAG, Kiemeney LALM, Uyl-de Groot CA. Variation in use of targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a Dutch population-based registry. BMC Cancer 2016;16:364. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2395-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. Fiala O, Finek J, Poprach A, Melichar B, Kopecký J, Zemanova M, et al. Outcomes according to MSKCC risk score with focus on the intermediate-risk group in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with first-line sunitinib: a retrospective analysis of 2390 patients. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12. doi: 10.3390/cancers12040808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  20. Gore ME, Szczylik C, Porta C, Bracarda S, Bjarnason GA, Oudard S, et al. Final results from the large sunitinib global expanded-access trial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2015;113:12–9. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Savard MF, Wells JC, Graham J, Dudani S, Steinharter JA, McGregor BA, et al. Real-world assessment of clinical outcomes among first-line sunitinib patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) by the International mRCC Database Consortium Risk Group. Oncologist 2020;25:422–30. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. Schwab M, Hofmann R, Heers H, Hegele A. mRCC outcome in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma – a German single-center real-world experience. In Vivo 2018;32:1617–22. doi: 10.21873/invivo.11422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. Tamada S, Iguchi T, Yasuda S, Kato M, Yamasaki T, Nakatani T. The difference in the survival rate of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the intermediate-risk group of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center criteria. Oncotarget 2018;9:27752–9. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.25554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cabozantinib for Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA542]. 2018. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta542 (accessed 20 August 2019).
  25. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Nivolumab with Ipilimumab for Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA581]. 2019. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta581 (accessed 23 September 2021).
  26. Office for National Statistics. Cancer Survival in England: Adult, Stage at Diagnosis and Childhood – Patients Followed up to 2018. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/cancersurvivalinengland/stageatdiagnosisandchildhoodpatientsfollowedupto2018#cancer-survival-by-stage-for-less-common-cancers (accessed 10 September 2021).
  27. Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, Michaelson MD, Bukowski RM, Rixe O, et al. Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007;356:115–24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa065044. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. Mekhail TM, Abou-Jawde RM, Boumerhi G, Malhi S, Wood L, Elson P, Bukowski R. Validation and extension of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering prognostic factors model for survival in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:832–41. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.179. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Final Scope for the Appraisal of Lenvatinib with Pembrolizumab for Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. 2021. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta858/documents/final-scope (accessed 28 May 2024).
  30. Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Frank I, Kwon ED, et al. Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a stratification tool for prospective clinical trials. Cancer 2003;97:1663–71. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11234. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Ljungberg B, Alamdari FI, Rasmuson T, Roos G. Follow-up guidelines for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma based on the occurrence of metastases after radical nephrectomy. BJU Int 1999;84:405–11. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00202.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Sunitinib for the First-line Treatment of Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA169]. 2009. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta169 (accessed 20 August 2019).
  33. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pazopanib for the First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA215]. 2011. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta215 (accessed 20 August 2019).
  34. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Tivozanib for Treating Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA512]. 2018. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta512 (accessed 20 August 2019).
  35. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Avelumab with Axitinib for Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA645] 2020. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta645 (accessed 27 September 2021).
  36. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Nivolumab with Ipilimumab for Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA780]. 2022. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA780 (accessed 18 January 2023).
  37. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pembrolizumab with Axitinib for Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA650]. 2020. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta650 (accessed 24 September 2021).
  38. Bedke J, Albiges L, Capitanio U, Giles RH, Hora M, Lam TB, et al. The 2021 updated European Association of Urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: immune checkpoint inhibitor–based combination therapies for treatment-naive metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma are standard of care. Eur Urol 2021;80:393–7. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.04.042. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Powles T, Albiges L, Bex A, Grünwald V, Porta C, Procopio G, et al. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline update on the use of immunotherapy in early stage and advanced renal cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2021;32:1511–9. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Bevacizumab (First-Line), Sorafenib (First- and Second-Line), Sunitinib (Second-Line) and Temsirolimus (First-Line) for the Treatment of Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA178]. 2009. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta178 (accessed 24 September 2021).
  41. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Nivolumab with Cabozantinib for Untreated Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma [TA785]. 2022. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA785 (accessed 24 April 2024).
  42. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Axitinib for Treating Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma after Failure of Prior Systemic Treatment. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA333]. 2015. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta333 (accessed 28 January 2022).
  43. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cabozantinib for previously Treated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA463]. 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta463 (accessed 28 January 2022).
  44. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Lenvatinib with Everolimus for Previously Treated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA498]. 2018. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta498 (accessed 28 January 2022).
  45. Eisai Ltd. Summary of Product Characteristics: Kisplyx 4 mg Hard Capsules. URL: https://mhraproducts4853.blob.core.windows.net/docs/b093e43d81241ff07e64dcd06bd91b8af037cf57 (accessed 9 February 2022).
  46. Merck Sharp & Dohme (UK) Limited. Summary of Product Characteristics: KEYTRUDA® 25 mg/mL Concentrate for Solution for Infusion. URL: https://mhraproducts4853.blob.core.windows.net/docs/e3ba892a68b7cc3cb7add2c4a906a985e6134d27 (accessed 9 February 2022).
  47. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Nivolumab for Previously Treated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA417]. 2016. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta417 (accessed 28 January 2022).
  48. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma after Previous Treatment. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA432]. 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta432 (accessed 28 January 2022).
  49. Ipsen Ltd. Summary of Product Characteristics: CABOMETYX 20 mg Film-coated tablets, CABOMETYX 40 mg Film-coated tablets, CABOMETYX 60 mg Film-coated tablets. URL: www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/4331#gref (accessed 9 February 2022).
  50. Pfizer Limited. Summary of Product Characteristics: Inlyta 1 mg Film-Coated Tablets. URL: www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/4325/smpc#gref (accessed 9 February 2022).
  51. Merck Sharp & Dohme (UK) Limited. Summary of Product Characteristics: Bavencio 20 mg/mL Concentrate for Solution for Infusion. URL: www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/8453/smpc#gref (accessed 9 February 2022).
  52. Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited. Summary of Product Characteristics: OPDIVO 10 mg/mL Concentrate for Solution for Infusion. URL: www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/6888/smpc#gref (accessed 9 February 2022).
  53. Ciccarese C, Iacovelli R, Porta C, Procopio G, Bria E, Astore S, et al. Efficacy of VEGFR-TKIs plus immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients with favorable IMDC prognosis. Cancer Treat Rev 2021;100:102295. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102295. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Massari F, Rizzo A, Mollica V, Rosellini M, Marchetti A, Ardizzoni A, Santoni M. Immune-based combinations for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 2021;154:120–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.06.015. [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. Mori K, Pradere B, Quhal F, Katayama S, Mostafaei H, Laukhtina E, et al. Differences in oncological and toxicity outcomes between programmed cell death-1 and programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 2021;99:102242. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102242. [DOI] [PubMed]
  56. Nocera L, Karakiewicz PI, Wenzel M, Tian Z, Shariat SF, Saad F, et al. Clinical outcomes and adverse events after first-line treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Urology 2021;207:16–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002252 doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002252. [DOI] [PubMed]
  57. Quhal F, Mori K, Bruchbacher A, Resch I, Mostafaei H, Pradere B, et al. First-line immunotherapy-based combinations for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 2021;4:755–65. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  58. Quhal F, Mori K, Remzi M, Fajkovic H, Shariat SF, Schmidinger M. Adverse events of systemic immune-based combination therapies in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Curr Opin Urol 2021;31:332–9. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000889. [DOI] [PubMed]
  59. Shpilsky J, Catalano PJ, McDermott DF. First-line immunotherapy combinations in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a rapid review and meta-analysis. Kidney Cancer 2021;5:153–63.
  60. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. CRD, University of York. 2009. URL: www.york.ac.uk/crd/guidance/ (accessed 20 September 2021).
  61. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Med 2009;6:e1000097. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  62. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). Process of Information Retrieval for Systematic Reviews and Health Technology Assessments on Clinical Effectiveness. Version 2.0. 2019. URL: www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/EUnetHTA_Guideline_Information_Retrieval_v2-0.pdf (accessed 21 September 2021).
  63. The EndNote Team. EndNote X9. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate; 2013.
  64. Covidence Systematic Review Software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. URL: www.covidence.org (accessed 24 September 2021).
  65. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Position Statement: Consideration of Products Recommended for Use in the Cancer Drugs Fund as Comparators, or in a Treatment Sequence, in the Appraisal of a New Cancer Product. January 2019.
  66. Motzer R, Alekseev B, Rha SY, Porta C, Eto M, Powles T, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma. New Engl J Med 2021;384:1289–300. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2035716. [DOI] [PubMed]
  67. Choueiri TK, Eto M, Kopyltsov E, Rha SY, Porta CG, Motzer R, et al. Phase III CLEAR trial in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): outcomes in subgroups and toxicity update. Ann Oncol 2021;32:S683–5.
  68. Eisai Inc. Analysis of Health-related Quality of Life Outcomes for Eisai Study E7080-G000-307 (CLEAR) in Renal Cell Carcinoma. Statistical analysis plan, version 2.1. October 2020.
  69. Eisai Inc. Statistical Report: Overall Survival of Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib Adjusted for Subsequent Anticancer Medication Using 2-Stage Estimation and IPCW Approach. Study Protocol Number: e7080-g000-307/Keynote 581. Study Protocol Title: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib in Combination with Everolimus or Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib Alone in First-Line Treatment of Subjects with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (Clear). Eisai. July 2021.
  70. Eisai Inc, Eisai Ltd, Eisai Co, Ltd. Clinical Study Report. Study Protocol Number: E7080-G000-307/KEYNOTE 581. Study Protocol Title: A multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib in Combination with Everolimus or Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib Alone in First-Line Treatment of Subjects with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (CLEAR). FINAL. February 2021.
  71. Eisai Inc, Eisai Ltd, Eisai Co, Ltd. Study E7080-G000-307/KN 581. Overall survival follow-up as of 31 March 2021. Study protocol number: E7080-G000-307/ KEYNOTE 581. Study Protocol Title: A Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib in Combination with Everolimus or Pembrolizumab versus Sunitinib alone in First-line Treatment of Subjects with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (CLEAR). Report Date: 20 May 2021. 2021.
  72. Eisai Inc, Eisai Ltd, Eisai Co, Ltd. A Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib in Combination with Everolimus or Pembrolizumab versus Sunitinib alone in First-line Treatment of Subjects with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (CLEAR). Health-related quality of life outcomes study report. Version 1. February 2021.
  73. Eisai Inc, Eisai Ltd, Eisai Co, Ltd. Clinical study protocol. Study protocol number: E7080-G000-307. Study Protocol Title: A Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib in Combination with Everolimus or Pembrolizumab versus Sunitinib alone in First-line Treatment of Subjects with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Protocol amendment 07. August 2020.
  74. Eisai Inc, Eisai Ltd, Eisai Co, Ltd. Statistical analysis plan. Study protocol number: E7080-G000-307/KEYNOTE-581. Study Protocol Title: A Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib in Combination with Everolimus or Pembrolizumab versus Sunitinib alone in First-line Treatment of Subjects with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (CLEAR). Version: 3.0. August 2020.
  75. Grunwald V, Powles T, Choueiri TK, Hutson TE, Porta C, Eto M, et al. Lenvatinib plus everolimus or pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: study design and rationale. Future Oncol 2019;15:929–41. doi: 10.2217/fon-2018-0745. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Grunwald V, Powles T, Kopyltsov E, Kozlov V, Gordoa TA, Eto M, et al. Analysis of the CLEAR study in patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC): depth of response and efficacy for selected subgroups in the lenvatinib (LEN) + pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and sunitinib (SUN) treatment arms. J Clin Oncol 2021;39:4560.
  77. JapicCTI. Lenvatinib/Everolimus or Lenvatinib/Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib Alone as Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. URL: www.clinicaltrials.jp/user/showCteDetailE.jsp?japicId=JapicCTI-173807 (accessed 8 March 2022).
  78. Motzer R, Grunwald V, Hutson TE, Porta C, Powles T, Eto M, et al. A phase III trial to compare efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in combination with everolimus or pembrolizumab vs sunitinib alone in first-line treatment of patients (Pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:TPS4595.
  79. Motzer RJ, Grunwald V, Hutson TE, Porta C, Powles T, Eto M, et al. A phase III trial to compare efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in combination with everolimus or pembrolizumab vs sunitinib alone in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2017;13:169.
  80. Motzer RJ, Grunwald V, Hutson TE, Porta C, Powles T, Eto M, et al. A phase III trial to compare efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in combination with everolimus or pembrolizumab vs sunitinib alone in first-line treatment of patients (Pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). J Clin Oncol 2017;35:TPS4595.
  81. Motzer RJ, Porta C, Alekseev B, Rha SY, Choueiri TK, Mendez-Vidal MJ, et al. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) analysis from the phase 3 CLEAR trial of lenvatinib (LEN) plus pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) or everolimus (EVE) versus sunitinib (SUN) for patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). J Clin Oncol 2021;39:4502.
  82. Motzer RJ, Porta C, Eto M, Powles T, Grunwald V, Hutson TE, et al. Phase 3 trial of lenvatinib (LEN) plus pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) or everolimus (EVE) versus sunitinib (SUN) monotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (CLEAR study). J Clin Oncol 2021;39:269.
  83. Nct. Lenvatinib/Everolimus or Lenvatinib/Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib Alone as Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. 2016. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/ NCT02811861 (accessed 8 March 2022).
  84. Motzer RJ, Porta C, Eto M, Powles T, Grünwald V, Hutson TE, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: final prespecified overall survival analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study. J Clin Oncol 2024;42:1222–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.01569 doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  85. Latimer NR, Abrams KR. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 16. Adjusting Survival Time Estimates in the Presence of Treatment Switching. [Commissioned report]. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2014. URL: http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TSD16_Treatment_Switching.pdf (accessed July 2021). [PubMed]
  86. Grambsch PM, Therneau TM. Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika 1994;81:515–26.
  87. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. 2009 (v4.03: 14 June 2010). URL: www.eortc.be/services/doc/ctc/ctcae_4.03_2010-06-14_quickreference_5x7.pdf (accessed 8 March 2022).
  88. Heo JH, Park C, Ghosh S, Park SK, Zivkovic M, Rascati KL. A network meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of first-line and second-line therapies for the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Pharm Ther 2021;46:35–49. doi: 10.1111/jcpt.13282. [DOI] [PubMed]
  89. Motzer R, Grunwald V, Hutson TE, Porta C, Powles T, Eto M, Dutcus CE, Baig MA, Dutta L, Li D, Choueiri TK. A phase 3 trial to compare efficacy and safety of Lenvatinib in combination with Everolimus or Pembrolizumab vs Sunitinib alone in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Kidney Cancer 2018;2:S2–3.
  90. Manz KM, Fenchel K, Eilers A, Morgan J, Wittling K, Dempke WCM. Efficacy and safety of approved first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a network meta-analysis. Adv Ther 2020;37:730–44. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-01167-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  91. Liu Z, Chen Y, Wei Z, He Y, Wang J, Mu X, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Palliat Med 2021;10:2805–14. doi: 10.21037/apm-20-1884. [DOI] [PubMed]
  92. Elaidi R, Phan L, Borchiellini D, Barthelemy P, Ravaud A, Oudard S, Vano Y. Comparative efficacy of first-line immune-based combination therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Cancers 2020;12:1673. doi: 10.3390/cancers12061673. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  93. Alam MU, Jazayeri SB, Gautam S, Norez D, Kumar J, Tanneru K, et al. Combination therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Am J Clin Oncol 2020;43:477–83. doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000695. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. Cao G, Wu X, Wang Z, Tian X, Zhang C, Wu X, et al. What is the optimum systemic treatment for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma of favourable, intermediate and poor risk, respectively? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2020;10:e034626. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  95. Su Y, Fu J, Du J, Wu B. First-line treatments for advanced renal-cell carcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2020;12:1758835920950199. doi: 10.1177/1758835920950199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  96. Riaz IB, He H, Ryu AJ, Siddiqi R, Naqvi SAA, Yao Y, et al. A living, interactive systematic review and network meta-analysis of first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2021;80:712–23. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.03.016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Choueiri TK, Hessel C, Halabi S, Sanford B, Michaelson MD, Hahn O, et al. Cabozantinib versus sunitinib as initial therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma of intermediate or poor risk (Alliance A031203 CABOSUN randomised trial): progression-free survival by independent review and overall survival update. Eur J Cancer 2018;94:115–25. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.02.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  98. Eichelberg C, Vervenne WL, De Santis M, von Weikersthal LF, Goebell PJ, Lerchenmuller C, et al. SWITCH: a randomised, sequential, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib-sunitinib versus sunitinib-sorafenib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer. Eur Urol 2015;68:837–47. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.017. [DOI] [PubMed]
  99. Escudier B, Szczylik C, Hutson TE, Demkow T, Staehler M, Rolland F, et al. Randomized phase II trial of first-line treatment with sorafenib versus interferon Alfa-2a in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1280–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.3342. [DOI] [PubMed]
  100. Motzer RJ, Escudier B, McDermott DF, Aren Frontera O, Melichar B, Powles T, et al. Survival outcomes and independent response assessment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: 42-month follow-up of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial. J Immunother Cancer 2020;8:e000891. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2020-000891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  101. Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Cella D, Reeves J, Hawkins R, Guo J, et al. Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2013;369:722–31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1303989. [DOI] [PubMed]
  102. Motzer RJ, Nosov D, Eisen T, Bondarenko I, Lesovoy V, Lipatov O, et al. Tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:3791–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.47.4940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  103. Retz M, Bedke J, Bogemann M, Grimm M-O, Zimmermann U, Muller L, et al. SWITCH II: phase III randomized, sequential, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib-pazopanib versus pazopanib-sorafenib in the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (AUO AN 33/11). Eur J Cancer 2019;107:37–45. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  104. Tomita Y, Naito S, Sassa N, Takahashi A, Kondo T, Koie T, et al. Sunitinib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for mCC-RCC with favorable/intermediate risk: multicenter randomized trial CROSS-J-RCC. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020;18:e374–85. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2020.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  105. Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, McCann L, Deen K, Choueiri TK. Overall survival in renal-cell carcinoma with pazopanib versus sunitinib. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1769–70. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1400731. [DOI] [PubMed]
  106. Royston P, Parmar MK. The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt. Stat Med 2011;30:2409–21. doi: 10.1002/sim.4274. [DOI] [PubMed]
  107. Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc B Stat Methodol 1972;34:187–220.
  108. Freeman SC, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Crowther MJ, Carpenter JR, Hawkins N. Challenges of modelling approaches for network meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes in the presence of non-proportional hazards to aid decision making: application to a melanoma network. Stat Methods Med Res 2022;31:839–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802211070253 doi: 10.1177/09622802211070253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  109. Le Moine J, Hawe E, Abeysinghe S. PRM221 – network meta-analysis in the presence of non-proportionality: a review of NICE submissions. Value Health 2018;21:S394.
  110. Medical Research Council (MRC) Biostatistics Unit (BSU). DIC: Deviance Information Criteria. URL: www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/software/bugs/the-bugs-project-dic/ (accessed 23 March 2022).
  111. Phillippo DM. Multinma: Network Meta-Analysis of Individual and Aggregate Data in Stan. R package version 0.3.0. 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3904454, https://dmphillippo.github.io/multinma/ (accessed 23 September 2021).
  112. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades A. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2. A Generalised Linear Modelling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. 2011. URL: http://nicedsu.org.uk/technical-support-documents/evidence-synthesis-tsd-series/ (accessed 23 September 2021). [PubMed]
  113. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ, Ades A. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 3. Heterogeneity: Subgroups, Meta-Regression, Bias and Bias-Adjustment. Last updated: 1 April 2012. URL: http://nicedsu.org.uk/technical-support-documents/evidence-synthesis-tsd-series/ (accessed 23 September 2021).
  114. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Caldwell D, Lu G, Ades AE. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 4. Inconsistency in Networks of Evidence Based on Randomised Controlled Trials. 2011. Last updated: 1 April 2014. URL: http://nicedsu.org.uk/technical-support-documents/evidence-synthesis-tsd-series/ (accessed 23 September 2021). [PubMed]
  115. Albiges L, Tannir NM, Burotto M, McDermott D, Plimack ER, Barthelemy P, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial. ESMO Open 2020;5:e001079. doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2020-001079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  116. Hammers HJ, Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, Burotto M, Choueiri TK, et al. Conditional survival and 5-year follow-up in CheckMate 214: first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Poster presented at the International Kidney Cancer Symposium 2021. URL: www.kidneycancer.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/IKCSNA21_E39_Hammers.pdf (accessed 24 April 2024).
  117. Li S, Li J, Peng L, Li Y, Wan X. Cost-effectiveness of frontline treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma in the era of immunotherapies. Front Pharmacol 2021;12:718014. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.718014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  118. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ 2013;346:f1049. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1049. [DOI] [PubMed]
  119. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. Process and methods [PMG9]. 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword (accessed 22 March 2022). [PubMed]
  120. Woods BS, Sideris E, Palmer SJ, Latimer N, Soares MFO. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 19: Partitioned Survival Analysis for Decision Modelling in Health Care: A Critical Review. NICE Decision Support Unit, 2017. URL: www.sheffield.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-02/TSD19-Partitioned-Survival-Analysis-final-report.pdf (accessed 24 April 2024).
  121. NHS. National Schedule of Reference Costs 2019/20. 2018. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/publication/2019-20-national-cost-collection-data-publication/ (accessed 22 August 2021).
  122. Georghiou T, Bardsley M. Exploring the Cost of Care at the End of Life. Nuffield Trust. 2014. URL: www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/exploring-the-cost-of-care-at-the-end-of-life (accessed 22 March 2022).
  123. Pitkala KH, Strandberg TE. Clinical trials in older people. Age Ageing 2022;51. URL: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/exploring-the-cost-of-care-at-the-end-of-life doi: 10.1093/ageing/afab282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  124. Sedrak MS, Freedman RA, Cohen HJ, Muss HB, Jatoi A, Klepin HD, et al.; Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG). Older adult participation in cancer clinical trials: A systematic review of barriers and interventions. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:78–92. doi: 10.3322/caac.21638. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  125. van Marum RJ. Underrepresentation of the elderly in clinical trials, time for action. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2020;86:2014–6. doi: 10.1111/bcp.14539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  126. GOV.UK. Population of England and Wales: GOV.UK Ethnicity Facts and Figures. 2022. URL: www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/population-of-england-and-wales/latest#by-ethnicity (accessed 18 January 2023).
  127. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Lenvatinib with Everolimus or Pembrolizumab for Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma [ID3760]. In development [GID-TA10629]. 2023. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-ta10629 (accessed 24 September 2021).
  128. Miettinen O, Nurminen M. Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat Med 1985;4:213–26. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780040211. [DOI] [PubMed]
  129. Jansen JP. Network meta-analysis of survival data with fractional polynomials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011;11:1–14. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  130. 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;50:683–91. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00049-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  131. Choueiri TK, Powles T, Burotto M, Escudier B, Bourlon MT, Zurawski B, et al. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2021;384:829–41. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2026982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  132. Rini BI, Plimack ER, Stus V, Gafanov R, Hawkins R, Nosov D, et al. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2019;380:1116–27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816714. [DOI] [PubMed]
  133. Motzer RJ, Penkov K, Haanen J, Rini B, Albiges L, Campbell MT, et al. Avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2019;380:1103–15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  134. Cella D, Escudier B, Tannir NM, Powles T, Donskov F, Peltola K, et al. Quality of life outcomes for cabozantinib versus everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: METEOR phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:757–64. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.2170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  135. de Groot S, Redekop WK, Versteegh MM, Sleijfer S, Oosterwijk E, Kiemeney LALM, Uyl-de Groot CA. Health-related quality of life and its determinants in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Qual Life Res 2018;27:115–24. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1704-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  136. Wan X, Zhang Y, Tan C, Zeng X, Peng L. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA Oncol 2019;5:491–6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.7086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  137. Patel KK, Giri S, Parker TL, Bar N, Neparidze N, Huntington SF. Cost-effectiveness of first-line versus second-line use of daratumumab in older, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2021;39:1119–28. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01849. [DOI] [PubMed]
  138. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Physician Fee Schedule. 2021. URL: www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched (accessed 4 March 2021).
  139. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Health & Human Services. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. 2021. URL: https://hcupnet.ahrq.gov (accessed 26 February 2021).
  140. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, Aren Frontera O, Melichar B, Choueiri TK, et al. Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma N Engl J Med 2018;378:1277–90. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1712126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  141. Perrin A, Sherman S, Pal S, Chua A, Gorritz M, Liu Z, et al. Lifetime cost of everolimus vs axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who failed prior sunitinib therapy in the US. J Med Econ 2015;18:200–9. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2014.985789. [DOI] [PubMed]
  142. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996;313:275–83. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

RESOURCES