(11) Cost-effectiveness analysis of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes biomarkers guiding chemotherapy de-escalation in early triple-negative breast cancer

Home

Questions

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Papers

PMCID: 10709734 (link)

Year: 2023

Reviewer Paper ID: 11

Project Paper ID: 50

Q1 - Title

Question description: Does the title clearly identify the study as an economic evaluation and specify the interventions being compared?

Explanation: The title of the manuscript does not clearly identify the study as an economic evaluation, nor does it specify the interventions being compared. While the study indeed conducts a cost-effectiveness analysis, the title only mentions 'Cost-effectiveness analysis of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes biomarkers guiding chemotherapy de-escalation in early triple-negative breast cancer,' without explicitly labeling it as an economic evaluation or listing the specific interventions being compared.

Quotes:

  • TITLE: Cost-effectiveness analysis of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes biomarkers guiding chemotherapy de-escalation in early triple-negative breast cancer

Q2 - Abstract

Question description: Does the abstract provide a structured summary that includes the context, key methods, results, and alternative analyses?

Explanation: The abstract provides a background and discussion of methods and results, but it does not include alternative analyses or explicitly structured sections labeled context or key methods. Alternative analyses are addressed in the sensitivity analysis section of the results, not in the abstract.

Quotes:

  • 'Background: To accelerate the clinical translation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) biomarkers for guiding chemotherapy de-escalation in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), cost-effectiveness evidence is essential but has not been investigated.'
  • 'Methods: The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness...based on the algorithm built by Guyot, the individual patient data were reconstructed...Cost estimates were valued in Chinese yuan (as per rates in 2022).'
  • 'Results: In 50-year-old female patients...Strategy (1), which employs TILs testing to guide cytotoxic chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.47 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and saved 40,976 yuan...'
  • The application of biomarkers (TILs) to guide decisions for chemotherapy de-escalation is a cost-effective strategy...
  • Using TILs testing can spare patients unnecessary chemotherapy while adding an additional 0.47 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and saving costs.
  • The study found that using TILs testing to guide chemotherapy in early-stage TNBC patients was almost 100% cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 85,700 yuan per QALY.

Q3 - Background and objectives

Question description: Does the introduction provide the context for the study, the study question, and its practical relevance for decision-making in policy or practice?

Explanation: The introduction provides a clear context for the study by describing the characteristics and challenges of treating triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and the potential benefits of using TILs biomarkers for chemotherapy de-escalation. It also highlights the significance of the research question for decision-making in clinical practice and health policy, particularly in the context of cost burden and treatment guidelines.

Quotes:

  • Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), defined by a lack of HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2), progesterone, and estrogen expression, accounts for 19% of breast cancer cases. TNBC has always been a challenging breast cancer subtype to treat.
  • Several clinical and biological factors indicate that not all early-stage TNBC patients gain the same degree of benefit from cytotoxic chemotherapy. A subset of patients with early TNBC have a good prognosis with a less than 10% risk of 5-year distant recurrence of their cancer.
  • Although the clinical utility and assay validity of TILs to guide chemotherapy in patients with early-stage TNBC have been demonstrated, the cost-effectiveness is still unknown. However, it is significant and requisite for policymakers and clinical decision-makers to establish this cost-effectiveness, particularly for developing countries like China.

Q4 - Health economic analysis plan

Question description: Was a health economic analysis plan developed, and if so, where is it available?

Explanation: The article does not specifically mention a health economic analysis plan independent of the study methodology itself. While the study followed the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), the manuscript does not state that a separate health economic analysis plan was developed or where such a plan might be available.

Quotes:

  • This study considered the Chinese context for its cost-effectiveness analysis of TILs. The study followed the recommendations of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).
  • The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Q5 - Study population

Question description: Are the characteristics of the study population (e.g., age range, demographics, socioeconomic, or clinical characteristics) described?

Explanation: The manuscript describes the study population as being 50-year-old female patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). It mentions the average age of diagnosis and provides details about the population's average body surface area and demographic context relevant to the Chinese healthcare system.

Quotes:

  • The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to project the expected clinical outcomes and treatment costs over the lifetimes of 50-year-old female patients with early-stage TNBC.
  • Given that the average age of TNBC diagnosis in China is approximately 45-55 years, patient simulations were carried out from the starting age of 50 years in a yearly cycle. The average patient weight and height were 59 kg and 158 cm, respectively.

Q6 - Setting and location

Question description: Is relevant contextual information (such as setting and location) provided that may influence the findings of the study?

Explanation: The manuscript provides detailed contextual information regarding the setting and location, which can influence the study's findings. The study is conducted from the perspective of the Chinese health service system, and the analysis is rooted in the context of China's clinical practices and economic conditions, which are well-documented throughout the manuscript.

Quotes:

  • We intend to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using TILs to guiding chemotherapy de-escalation in patients with early-stage TNBC from the perspective of the Chinese health service system.
  • The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of cytotoxic chemotherapy guided by whether TILs assay was performed in 50-year-old female patients with early-stage TNBC over a lifetime horizon.
  • The cost was calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health service system and based on the clinical practices of China.

Q7 - Comparators

Question description: Are the interventions or strategies being compared described, along with the rationale for their selection?

Explanation: The manuscript describes the interventions being compared, which are two strategies for chemotherapy administration in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients, including those with or without tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) testing. It provides a rationale for these strategies based on clinical needs and outcomes, such as sparing unnecessary chemotherapy from patients with TILs values exceeding 30%, emphasizing cost-effectiveness and patient quality of life improvements.

Quotes:

  • In Strategy (1), if TILs testing was performed, patients with TILs values exceeding 30% could be spared from chemotherapy.
  • In Strategy (2), where no TILs testing was performed, all patients were administered chemotherapy following China's clinical practices.
  • Several clinical and biological factors indicate that not all early-stage TNBC patients gain the same degree of benefit from cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Q8 - Perspective

Question description: What perspective(s) were adopted by the study, and why were they chosen?

Explanation: The study adopts the perspective of the Chinese health service system for its cost-effectiveness analysis. This perspective was chosen to evaluate the financial impact and benefits of using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) testing to guide chemotherapy decisions specifically within China's healthcare context.

Quotes:

  • We intend to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using TILs to guiding chemotherapy de-escalation in patients with early-stage TNBC from the perspective of the Chinese health service system.
  • The cost was calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health service system and based on the clinical practices of China.

Q9 - Time horizon

Question description: What is the time horizon for the study, and why is it appropriate?

Explanation: The study uses a lifetime horizon as described in the methods section, which is appropriate for evaluating long-term costs and benefits of treatment strategies in chronic conditions like cancer, ensuring comprehensive coverage of clinical outcomes and economic implications.

Quotes:

  • "The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of cytotoxic chemotherapy guided by whether TILs assay was performed in 50-year-old female patients with early-stage TNBC over a lifetime horizon."
  • "The lifetime horizon was defined as the remaining lifetime of patients using the average maximum life expectancy in China of 77 years."]} ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​

Q10 - Discount rate

Question description: What discount rate(s) were used, and what was the rationale for choosing them?

Explanation: In the manuscript, a discount rate of 5% per annum was applied to costs and QALYs, following the China Pharmaceutical Economics Guide. This rate is consistent with standard practice in health economic evaluations, as it helps account for the time preference of costs and benefits occurring in the future.

Quotes:

  • 'Costs and QALYs were discounted at the rate of 5% per annum according to the China Pharmaceutical Economics Guide.'

Q11 - Selection of outcomes

Question description: What outcomes were used as measures of benefit and harm?

Explanation: The outcomes used to measure the benefit were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) which capture the survival and quality of life, while the harms were evaluated in terms of cost and adverse events associated with chemotherapy.

Quotes:

  • Strategy (1), which employs TILs testing to guide cytotoxic chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.47 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and saved 40,976 yuan, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -87,182.98 yuan per QALY gained compared with Strategy (2).
  • The effectiveness of treatment was assessed regarding quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which were calculated by multiplying the length of survival in a given state by the utility of that state.
  • Cytotoxic chemotherapy may lead to cardiac and myelosuppressive risks, life-threatening infectious complications, and long-term peripheral neuropathy, affecting patient function and quality of life.

Q12 - Measurement of outcomes

Question description: How were the outcomes used to capture benefits and harms measured?

Explanation: Table 4 of the manuscript outlines the calculation details for QALY and ICER outcomes, illustrating how quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used to measure the benefits and costs were used to assess the harms.

Quotes:

  • In summary, the TILs testing group received an additional 0.47 QALY and saved 40,976 yuan.
  • The ICER for the TILs testing group was -87182.98 yuan per QALY gained, suggesting that Strategy (1) (the TILs-testing group) is the dominant scheme when compared with Strategy (2) (the no-TILs-testing group).

Q13 - Valuation of outcomes

Question description: What population and methods were used to measure and value the outcomes?

Explanation: The article utilizes a specific population and research method to measure and value the outcomes. It focuses on 50-year-old female patients with early-stage TNBC within the Chinese health system, using a hybrid decision-tree-Markov model to project quality-adjusted life years and costs, reflecting a comprehensive framework to evaluate cost-effectiveness of TILs testing in chemotherapy strategies.

Quotes:

  • "The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of cytotoxic chemotherapy guided by whether TILs assay was performed in 50-year-old female patients with early-stage TNBC over a lifetime horizon."
  • "The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to project the expected clinical outcomes and treatment costs over the lifetimes of 50-year-old female patients with early-stage TNBC."

Q14 - Measurement and valuation of resources and costs

Question description: How were the costs valued in the study?

Explanation: The manuscript provides a clear explanation on how costs were valued in the study, specifically stating that costs were calculated in Chinese yuan as per the rates in 2022 and detailing the specific inputs considered, such as chemotherapy drugs, prophylaxis drugs, management of severe adverse events, and other related costs, excluding non-medical costs.

Quotes:

  • Cost estimates were valued in Chinese yuan (as per rates in 2022).
  • The cost was calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health service system and based on the clinical practices of China. Therefore, only direct medical costs were considered, and direct non-medical costs (e.g., transportation costs) and indirect costs (e.g., loss of productivity) were excluded.

Q15 - Currency, price, date, and conversion

Question description: What are the dates of the estimated resource quantities and unit costs, and what currency and year were used for conversion?

Explanation: The manuscript indicates that resource quantities and unit costs are estimated and converted using Chinese yuan for the year 2022. All cost estimates were based on 2022 prices, which is explicitly mentioned multiple times in the manuscript, ensuring consistency across the cost-effectiveness analysis.

Quotes:

  • "Cost estimates were valued in Chinese yuan (as per rates in 2022)."
  • "The costs (in Chinese yuan) of chemotherapy drugs and prophylaxis drugs were obtained from the 2022 winning bid prices in Chinese provinces."
  • "All cost data are adjusted for 2022 Price levels using China's Consumer Price Index (CPI)."

Q16 - Rationale and description of model

Question description: If a model was used, was it described in detail, including the rationale for its use? Is the model publicly available, and where can it be accessed?

Explanation: The manuscript describes the model used for cost-effectiveness analysis in detail, including the rationale for its use, particularly focusing on the hybrid decision-tree-Markov model. However, there is no mention of the model being publicly available or instructions for accessing it.

Quotes:

  • The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to project the expected clinical outcomes and treatment costs...
  • A decision tree allocated a patient cohort to one of the two strategies...
  • In this research model, the selection of treatment regimen was based on the 'Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology...
  • The model was programmed and analyzed in Microsoft Excel 2019.

Q17 - Analytics and assumptions

Question description: What methods were used for analyzing or statistically transforming data, extrapolation, and validating any models used?

Explanation: The article discusses multiple statistical and model validation methods used for analyzing, extrapolating, and validating the data within the context of a decision-tree-Markov model. These include the use of parametric survival analysis, Monte Carlo simulations, and the Assessment of the Validation Status of Health Economic decision models tool for model validation.

Quotes:

  • 'Based on the algorithm built by Guyot, the individual patient data were reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves, and the survival functions were calculated by parametric methods.'
  • 'Parametric log-logistic, exponential, Weibull, Gompertz, log-normal, and generalized Gamma models were fitted to patient-level survival time data to estimate the rates of the observed 5-year follow-up period, which were then extrapolated to the lifetime years.'
  • 'The model was programmed and analyzed in Microsoft Excel 2019 and [...] a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations was performed for PSA.'
  • 'The cost-effectiveness model was validated using the Assessment of the Validation Status of Health Economic decision models tool and evaluated by two external experts.'

Q18 - Characterizing heterogeneity

Question description: What methods were used to estimate how the results vary for different sub-groups?

Explanation: The manuscript does not describe specific methods used to estimate how the results vary for different sub-groups. While it outlines the overall method for cost-effectiveness analysis and sensitivity analysis, it does not specifically address sub-group analyses or methodologies for sub-group variation.

Quotes:

  • The manuscript describes a 'hybrid decision-tree-Markov model' and sensitivity analyses like 'one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses,' but it does not mention any specific sub-group analysis methods.
  • 'The results of the one-way sensitivity analysis are presented in a tornado diagram.' This indicates sensitivity analysis but not specific sub-group analysis.
  • 'We applied one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA)...a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.' These are general sensitivity methods, not specific to sub-group variation analyses.

Q19 - Characterizing distributional effects

Question description: How were the impacts distributed across different individuals, and were adjustments made to reflect priority populations?

Explanation: The article does not discuss the distribution of impacts across different individuals or any adjustments made for priority populations. The focus is on assessing cost-effectiveness using a generalized model for all 50-year-old female patients with early-stage TNBC, rather than exploring differential impacts or adjustments for specific sub-populations.

Quotes:

  • The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to project the expected clinical outcomes and treatment costs over the lifetimes of 50-year-old female patients with early-stage TNBC.
  • All the simulated patients were female. Given that the average age of TNBC diagnosis in China is approximately 45-55 years, patient simulations were carried out from the starting age of 50 years in a yearly cycle.
  • Therefore, only direct medical costs were considered, and direct non-medical costs (e.g., transportation costs) and indirect costs (e.g., loss of productivity) were excluded.

Q20 - Characterizing uncertainty

Question description: What methods were used to characterize sources of uncertainty in the analysis?

Explanation: The manuscript describes the use of sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, to identify parameters that significantly affect the model's results and to test the robustness of the model under uncertainty.

Quotes:

  • We applied one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to test the robustness of the model.
  • One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted according to reasonable range adjustments of cost, utility, discount, and other parameters to identify the variables that have a significant impact on the simulation results.
  • A Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations was performed for PSA. A Monte Carlo simulation scatterplot and acceptability curves were then presented to illustrate PSA results.

Q21 - Approach to engagement with patients and others affected by the study

Question description: Were patients, service recipients, the general public, communities, or stakeholders engaged in the design of the study? If so, how?

Explanation: The manuscript does not provide any evidence that patients, service recipients, the general public, communities, or other stakeholders were engaged in the design of the study. It primarily focuses on the technical and methodological aspects of the cost-effectiveness analysis of TILs testing.

Quotes:

  • The study followed the recommendations of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).
  • In cost-effectiveness studies, when the Markov simulation time ranges are much longer than that of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there is a general preference to use the fitted parameter distribution rather than applying the original data from RCTs.
  • Our analysis had several limitations. First, our results were based on data from published papers and not from prospective studies.

Q22 - Study parameters

Question description: Were all analytic inputs or study parameters (e.g., values, ranges, references) reported, including uncertainty or distributional assumptions?

Explanation: The manuscript thoroughly reports analytic inputs, study parameters, and addresses uncertainty or distributional assumptions. Parameters used in the model, their ranges, and distributional assumptions for inputs such as costs and utility values are detailed. The use of probabilistic sensitivity analysis, adopting various distributions for different parameters, further showcases an extensive consideration of uncertainty.

Quotes:

  • The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to project the expected clinical outcomes and treatment costs over the lifetimes...
  • Analyses were conducted using Stata version 15.1. and the GetData Graph Digitizer 2.26. The optimal parameters for each model are presented in Table 1.
  • Table: Parameters input in the model and their ranges used in the sensitivity analyses.
  • We applied one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to test the robustness of the model. [Distribution types are listed such as Gamma and Beta for different parameters].

Q23 - Summary of main results

Question description: Were the mean values for the main categories of costs and outcomes reported, and were they summarized in the most appropriate overall measure?

Explanation: The manuscript provides detailed mean values for both costs and outcomes, specifically highlighting cost savings and additional QALYs in the TILs testing group compared to the no-TILs testing group. The study utilizes measures like ICER, which is a standard and appropriate way to summarize cost-effectiveness, ensuring that outcomes are expressed in a comprehensive and relevant manner.

Quotes:

  • Strategy (1), which employs TILs testing to guide cytotoxic chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.47 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and saved 40,976 yuan, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -87,182.98 yuan per QALY gained compared with Strategy (2).
  • The CER for patients in the TILs testing group was 15,445.14; the CER for patients in the no-TILs testing group was 20675.91. Compared with the additional 9.24 QALYs for no-TILs testing group, the TILs testing group yielded an additional 9.71 QALYs. The total cost was 150,040 yuan in the TILs testing group and 191,016 yuan in no-TILs testing group.

Q24 - Effect of uncertainty

Question description: How did uncertainty about analytic judgments, inputs, or projections affect the findings? Was the effect of the choice of discount rate and time horizon reported, if applicable?

Explanation: The study explicitly reports the effect of the choice of discount rates and time horizons on the findings in the discussion and results sections. The sensitivity analysis section identifies the discount rate as a significant parameter influencing the cost-effectiveness results, indicating that these factors affected the findings.

Quotes:

  • The results were sensitive to utility parameters, discount rates, and treatment costs after relapse.
  • Costs and QALYs were discounted at the rate of 5% per annum according to the China Pharmaceutical Economics Guide.
  • The results of the one-way sensitivity analysis... The parameters that significantly affected ICER estimates included utility parameters in the PFS for patients spared chemotherapy and for patients who received chemotherapy, the annual discount rate, and treatment cost after relapse.

Q25 - Effect of engagement with patients and others affected by the study

Question description: Did patient, service recipient, general public, community, or stakeholder involvement make a difference to the approach or findings of the study?

Explanation: There is no evidence in the manuscript that patient, service recipient, or stakeholder involvement influenced the research approach or findings. The manuscript focuses on a cost-effectiveness analysis using existing data and does not mention any direct involvement of external stakeholders in shaping the study's design or outcomes.

Quotes:

  • To prevent complex confounding factors from complicating the research question, we may need to make appropriate assumptions in the model.
  • Our analysis had several limitations. First, our results were based on data from published papers and not from prospective studies.
  • This study considered the Chinese context for its cost-effectiveness analysis of TILs. The study followed the recommendations of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).

Q26 - Study findings, limitations, generalizability, and current knowledge

Question description: Were the key findings, limitations, ethical or equity considerations, and their potential impact on patients, policy, or practice reported?

Explanation: While the manuscript provides detailed findings and discusses cost-effectiveness, it does not specifically address ethical or equity considerations or discuss potential impacts on patients, policy, or practice. The focus is on the economic evaluation and clinical implications rather than broader ethical or societal issues.

Quotes:

  • Our analysis had several limitations. First, our results were based on data from published papers and not from prospective studies. Specifically, we used the GetData Graph Digitizer software to read the coordinate points of PFS and OS curves in relevant published literature for subsequent reconstruction of individual data and estimation of transition probabilities.
  • Hence, we performed a sensitivity analysis of the 20% threshold and the associated proportion of patients, and we found that the results (ICER = -68426.59) were similar to the results for the 30% threshold (ICER = -86122.87).
  • Sixth, it is assumed that all patients with TILs values greater than 30% are spared from chemotherapy, which is an idealized situation. Practically, the clinical decision to administer chemotherapy is complex and requires consideration of patient preferences and other clinical features.

SECTION: TITLE
Cost-effectiveness analysis of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes biomarkers guiding chemotherapy de-escalation in early triple-negative breast cancer


SECTION: ABSTRACT
Abstract

Background

To accelerate the clinical translation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) biomarkers for guiding chemotherapy de-escalation in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), cost-effectiveness evidence is essential but has not been investigated.
We intend to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using TILs to guiding chemotherapy de-escalation in patients with early-stage TNBC from the perspective of the Chinese health service system.

Methods

The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of cytotoxic chemotherapy guided by whether TILs assay was performed in 50-year-old female patients with early-stage TNBC over a lifetime horizon.


The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of cytotoxic chemotherapy guided by whether TILs assay was performed in 50-year-old female patients with early-stage TNBC over a lifetime horizon.
In Strategy (1), if TILs testing was performed, patients with TILs values exceeding 30% could be spared from chemotherapy. In Strategy (2), where no TILs testing was performed, all patients were administered chemotherapy following China's clinical practices. Based on the algorithm built by Guyot, the individual patient data were reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves, and the survival functions were calculated by parametric methods.. Cost estimates were valued in Chinese yuan (as per rates in 2022).

Results

In 50-year-old female patients with early-stage TNBC, Strategy (1), which employs TILs testing to guide cytotoxic chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.47 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and saved 40,976 yuan, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -87,182.98 yuan per QALY gained compared with Strategy (2).Strategy (1), which employs TILs testing to guide cytotoxic chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.47 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and saved 40,976 yuan, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -87,182.98 yuan per QALY gained compared with Strategy (2). This indicates that compared with Strategy (2), Strategy (1) is the dominant scheme. The results were sensitive to utility parameters, discount rates, and treatment costs after relapse. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 85,700 yuan (based on GDP per capita) per QALY, the probability of TILs being cost-effective was almost 100%.

Conclusions

The application of biomarkers (TILs) to guide decisions for chemotherapy de-escalation is a cost-effective strategy
for early-stage TNBC patients and deserves to be widely promoted in clinical practice.

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) testing is a cost-effective strategy for guiding chemotherapy de-escalation in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients, according to a study from Chinese health care providers. Using TILs testing can spare patients unnecessary chemotherapy while adding an additional 0.47 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and saving costs. The study found that using TILs testing to guide chemotherapy in early-stage TNBC patients was almost 100% cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 85,700 yuan per QALY. This highlights the importance of incorporating cost-effectiveness evidence into clinical decisions for biomarker-guided chemotherapy de-escalation.

SECTION: INTRO
BACKGROUND

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), defined by a lack of HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2), progesterone, and estrogen expression, accounts for 19% of breast cancer cases. TNBC has always been a challenging breast cancer subtype to treat. It offers patients the worst prognosis of all breast cancers. Its highly proliferative tumors show an aggressive phenotype and result in high local and distant recurrence. With limited treatment options for early-stage TNBC, cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the treatment mainstay. While cytotoxic chemotherapy can increase the chances of survival in patients with early-stage TNBC, it also has a substantial cost burden and associated toxicities. Cytotoxic chemotherapy may lead to cardiac and myelosuppressive risks, life-threatening infectious complications, and long-term peripheral neuropathy, affecting patient function and quality of life. Thus, judicious decisions regarding risks and benefits should be made before administering cytotoxic chemotherapy. Several clinical and biological factors indicate that not all early-stage TNBC patients gain the same degree of benefit from cytotoxic chemotherapy. A subset of patients with early TNBC have a good prognosis with a less than 10% risk of 5-year distant recurrence of their cancer. In these patients, cytotoxic chemotherapy does not offer significant benefits and may lead to additional adverse effects and costs. Thus, omission or de-escalation of chemotherapy may be considered if patients at low risk of recurrence can be correctly identified.

Treatment de-escalation in patients with TNBC has been challenging because of limited treatment options other than cytotoxic chemotherapy and the limited use of prognostic biomarkers outside the pathology context. In recent years, research has shown that tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are a robust and independent prognostic factor for early-stage TNBC, providing important prognostic information for estimating survival. Studies have shown that Stage-1 TNBC patients with TIL assay values exceeding 30% have excellent survival outcomes without adjuvant chemotherapy. This suggests that a subset of patients could be spared adjuvant chemotherapy, as the expected survival benefit on the absolute risk scale may not outweigh the associated morbidity. Most researchers agree that TILs are the first prognostic biomarkers of early-stage TNBC, identifying a cutoff value of 30% as appropriate for potential chemotherapy de-escalation. That is, TILs can help doctors identify early-stage TNBC patients who can safely spare chemotherapy. This will reduce the toxicity and cost of chemotherapy without sacrificing the survival outcomes. The TIL Working Group has developed a method to quantify TILs, which has improved their reproducibility and assay validity. At present, the TILs biomarker has been incorporated into many international guidelines for early-stage breast cancer, including the 2019 St Gallen consensus conference, the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Guidelines, and the World Health Organization (WHO) Blue Book on breast tumor classification. This biomarker has reached level-IB-evidence.

Although the clinical utility and assay validity of TILs to guide chemotherapy in patients with early-stage TNBC have been demonstrated, the cost-effectiveness is still unknown. However, it is significant and requisite for policymakers and clinical decision-makers to establish this cost-effectiveness, particularly for developing countries like China. At this point, there is no evidence of TILs' cost-effectiveness in China or worldwide. Thus, we intended to assess the cost-effectiveness of TILs assays used for chemotherapy de-escalation in patients diagnosed with early-stage TNBC to contribute to the current recommendations regarding its use.

SECTION: METHODS
METHODS

This study considered the Chinese context for its cost-effectiveness analysis of TILs. The study followed the recommendations of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).The study followed the recommendations of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).

Model description and assumptions

The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to project the expected clinical outcomes and treatment costs over the lifetimes


The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to project the expected clinical outcomes and treatment costs over the lifetimes of 50-year-old female patients with early-stage TNBC.
The hybrid decision-tree-Markov model was designed to project the expected clinical outcomes and treatment costs over the lifetimes of 50-year-old female patients with early-stage TNBC. These projections consider two different strategies from the perspective of the Chinese health service system. A decision tree allocated a patient cohort to one of the two strategies, in which patients either received or did not receive TILs testing. In Strategy (1), the patient's TILs value was used to guide the de-escalation of treatment in female patients with early-stage TNBC. Patients with TILs values greater than 30% could be spared chemotherapy and entered Markov Model 1 (M1). Patients with TILs less than 30% were administered adjuvant chemotherapy according to the AC-T regimen of anthracyclines (A), including epirubicin, pirarubicin, and doxorubicin; Taxus (T), including taxel and docetaxel; and Cyclophosphamide (C). After this chemotherapy regimen was administered, patients were entered into Markov Model 2 (M2). In Strategy (2), patients with early-stage TNBC were not tested for TILs. All patients in Strategy (2) received chemotherapy according to the current treatment standard, which was the TC regimen of Taxus (T), including taxel and docetaxel; and Cyclophosphamide (C). After chemotherapy was administered, patients were entered into Markov Model 3 (M3).

Three mutually exclusive Markov states were defined as follows: progression-free survival (PFS) (often referred to as disease-free survival [DFS]), progressive disease (PD), and death. All patients entering the Markov model were simulated from the PFS state, and depending on the corresponding transition probabilities, the patients would either remain in the PFS state for the next cycle or move to the relapse or death states. Patients who progressed to the relapse state could not return to the PFS state. It was only possible for these patients to remain in the PFS state or enter the death state. The death state was the state of absorption, and entering this state ended the simulation. This study is not an economic evaluation of breast cancer treatment options, but rather focuses on long-term survival of breast cancer. Therefore, we did not choose the traditional cycle length of chemotherapy such as 21 or 28 days. A cycle length of 1 year was chosen because most published transition probabilities post-recurrence was presented as annual rates and a year represents the appropriate time-frame for follow-up of women who remain disease free. Therefore, the model was constructed using a 1-year cycle length and a lifetime horizon. The lifetime horizon was defined as the remaining lifetime of patients using the average maximum life expectancy in China of 77 years. Figure 1 shows the hybrid decision-tree-Markov model.

SECTION: FIG
The hybrid decision tree-Markov model. A Schematic of decision tree. B Markov states and transitions.

SECTION: METHODS
In this research model, the selection of treatment regimen was based on the "Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology
(CSCO) Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Guidelines 2022 edition". In the TILs-testing group, TILs values below 30% indicate a relatively higher risk of recurrence. As per the CSCO guideline, I-level recommends AC-T chemotherapy regimens in such cases. Conversely, in the no-TILs-testing group, for newly diagnosed early-stage TNBC patients, AC or TC regimens are commonly employed. However, the cost of the TC regimen is higher than that of the AC regimen. In developing countries with unbalanced health care systems, such as China, hospitals generally lean toward the more cost-effective AC regimen. If no progression is observed after chemotherapy, further medication will not be administered until progression occurs. After progression (recurrence), second-line treatment will be initiated. The proportion of patients entering the progression status is calculated based on the survival curve and metastasis probability. Second-line treatment options include radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or surgery, which will be determined by the doctor.

To prevent complex confounding factors from complicating the research question, we may need to make appropriate assumptions in the model. In this study, the following assumptions were made: we did not consider recommendations of II-level or III-level in the CSCO guideline for TAC or FEC-T regimens for patients with BRCA mutations, nor did we consider treatment scenarios involving the administration of capecitabine rescue therapy after failure of TAC chemotherapy.

Population

All the simulated patients were female. Given that the average age of TNBC diagnosis in China is approximately 45-55 years, patient simulations were carried out from the starting age of 50 years in a yearly cycle. The average patient weight and height were 59 kg and 158 cm, respectively. These values were reported by the Nutrition and Chronic Diseases of Chinese Residents in 2020. The average body surface area was calculated as follows: average body surface area (m2) = 0.0061 x height (cm) + 0.0128 x weight (kg) - 0.1529. The model starting cohort was assumed to be 10,000 people.

Clinical data and probabilistic parameters

Survival probabilities and extrapolations

In cost-effectiveness studies, when the Markov simulation time ranges are much longer than that of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there is a general preference to use the fitted parameter distribution rather than applying the original data from RCTs. Loi et al. reported the respective Kaplan-Meier survival curves of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in early-stage TNBC patients with TILs greater than 30% who were spared adjuvant chemotherapy and in patients with TILs less than 30% who underwent chemotherapy. Corresponding to the Markov model, we refer to these as M1-DFS, M1-OS, M2-DFS, and M2-OS, respectively. Jones et al. reported OS and DFS curves in patients undergoing chemotherapy with TC regimens. Similarly, these models are referred to as M3-DFS and M3-OS. Based on these curves, individual patient data (IPD) were reconstructed using the algorithm built by Guyot et al. Then, the parametric method was used to calculate survival functions. Parametric log-logistic, exponential, Weibull, Gompertz, log-normal, and generalized Gamma models were fitted to patient-level survival time data to estimate the rates of the observed 5-year follow-up period, which were then extrapolated to the lifetime years. Corresponding with guidelines for parametric survival analysis for health-economic applications, the best parameter distributions were selected by the Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), visual comparison of the model with Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and the best fit from simulation results. Analyses were conducted using Stata version 15.1. and the GetData Graph Digitizer 2.26. The optimal parameters for each model are presented in Table 1. Taking the parametric Weibull model as an example, the time-dependent transition probability is denoted by:where the lambda parameter defines the scale of the distribution, and the (ancillary) gamma parameter defines the shape. The length of the Markov cycle is defined as , and represents time.

SECTION: TABLE
Parameters of the survival curves.

Curves type Optimal fitting model lambda gamma M1-DFS Log-normal 2.880 0.061 M1-OS Log-normal 3.240 -0.120 M2-DFS Weibull 0.002 1.040 M2-OS Log-normal 5.920 0.360 M3-DFS Exponential 0.034 - M3-OS Weibull 0.015 1.160

Note: M1-DFS is the DFS curve for Markov Model 1; M1-OS is the OS curve for Markov Model 1, and so on.

SECTION: METHODS
Other probabilities

This model assumed that transition probabilities from the PFS state to the death state were the average age-specific death rate for women in 2022 in China. This assumption was applied to both strategies. In addition, approximately one-third of the patients had at least 30% TILs in Strategy (1).

Cost estimates

1. Chemotherapy drugs: First, we considered the AC-T regimen for four cycles for patients with TILs less than 30%: Epirubicin (10 mg vial), 100 mg/m2 for 16 vials per cycle; cyclophosphamide (200 mg vial), 600 mg/m2 for 5 vials per cycle; docetaxel (20 mg vial), 80 mg/m2 for 7 vials per cycle). Second, we considered the TC regimen for four cycles for patients with early-stage TNBC who were not tested for TILs: Docetaxel (20 mg vial), 75 mg/m2 for 6 vials per cycle, epirubicin (10 mg vial), 100 mg/m2 for 5 vials per cycle).

Prophylaxis drugs (Concomitant medication): The AC-T regimen had a high risk of emesis and a moderate risk of myelosuppression. To prevent vomiting, patients received Palonosetron (1 vial per cycle), aprepitant (1 vial per cycle); and dexamethasone (2 vials per cycle). To counter the risk of myelosuppression, patients received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). The TC regimen prevented vomiting with Palonosetron (1 vial per cycle) and dexamethasone (2 vials per cycle). The moderate risk of myelosuppression was also addressed with G-CSF. The costs (in Chinese yuan) of chemotherapy drugs and prophylaxis drugs were obtained from the 2022 winning bid prices in Chinese provinces.

Managing severe adverse events: Our study only considered Grade 3 and 4 adverse events, and treatment costs and probability of occurrence for these adverse events were derived from a previous report from China.

Chemotherapy administration (including nursing, injection, injection materials, and others) was derived from a pharmacoeconomic evaluation conducted in China.

Testing costs: Testing costs refers to the cost of all relevant examinations and laboratory tests (including routine blood, liver and kidney function, electrocardiogram, etc.) for patients before and after medication, which was derived from a drug economics analysis in China.

The cost was calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health service system and based on the clinical practices of China.The cost was calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health service system and based on the clinical practices of China. Therefore, only direct medical costs were considered, and direct non-medical costs (e.g., transportation costs) and indirect costs (e.g., loss of productivity) were excluded. The cost of the TILs testing was provided by Wisee Biotechnology Inc., which quoted a price of 3000 yuan per person tested. Direct costs included those costs associated with chemotherapy treatments, recurrence treatments, and patient follow-up. The average costs of recurrent treatment and follow-up were based on a cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer from a Chinese perspective. All cost data are adjusted for 2022 Price levels using China's Consumer Price Index (CPI). Detailed cost data are shown in Table 2. The chemotherapy treatments included the following:

SECTION: TABLE
Parameters input in the model and their ranges used in the sensitivity analyses
.

Type Base-case values Range Distribution2 Source Lower Upper Rule Cost of chemotherapy drugs Docetaxel 20 mg vial 139.28 22.6 980 Range1 Gamma Drug centralized procurement Epirubicin 10 mg vial 79.15 70.1 170 Range1 Gamma Drug centralized procurement Cyclophosphamide 200 mg vial 23.98 23.95 24.51 Range1 Gamma Drug centralized procurement Cost of prophylaxis drugs Palonosetron 0.25 mg vial 53.8 4.86 220 Range1 Gamma Drug centralized procurement Oral aprepitan 450 150 574.33 Range1 Gamma Drug centralized procurement Dexamethasone 5 mg vial 0.58 0.03 39 Range1 Gamma Drug centralized procurement G-CSF 100 mug vial 58.98 15.29 73.93 Range1 Gamma Drug centralized procurement Cost of Managing severe adverse events AC-T regimen 21,175 16,940 25,410 +-20% Gamma Xu Qiaoping et al. TC regimen 9201 7360.8 11041.2 +-20% Gamma Xu Qiaoping et al. Cost of chemotherapy administration AC-T regimen 3200 2560 3840 +-20% Gamma Xu Qiaoping et al. TC regimen 2400 1920 2880 +-20% Gamma Xu Qiaoping et al. Testing costs AC-T regimen 1002 801.6 1202.4 +-20% Gamma Xu Sumei et al. TC regimen 1005.04 804.03 1206.05 +-20% Gamma Xu Sumei et al. Cost of TILs testing 3000 2400 3600 +-20% Gamma Wisee biotechnology Inc Cost of recurrence treatments 70319.9 20595.7 120044.2 Literature Normal Liubao et al., medical institutions database Cost of follow-up Year 1 1846 - - - - Liubao et al., medical institutions database Year 2 2128 - - - - Liubao et al., medical institutions database Year 2+ 1564 - - - - Liubao et al., medical institutions database Utility parameter PFS in patients with chemotherapy 0.8 0.73 0.87 Literature Beta Li JB et al. 2022, Earle et al. PD in patients with chemotherapy 0.5 0.4 0.6 +-20% Beta Li JB et al. 2022, Earle et al. PFS in patients spared chemotherapy 0.94 0.75 1 +-20% Beta Li JB et al. 2022, Earle et al. PD in patients spared chemotherapy 0.73 0.66 0.8 Literature Beta Li JB et al. 2022, Earle et al. Discount rate % 5 0 10 - - -

Note: 1 The range of cost was set as the lowest and highest unit price from the Chinese Drug Bidding Database in 2020; 2 The distributions were applied in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Abbreviations: G-CSF, prevent granulocyte colony stimulating factor; PD, progressive disease; PFS, progression-free survival.

SECTION: METHODS
The Details for all cost calculations of the chemotherapy treatments mentioned above can be found in Table 3.

SECTION: TABLE
Details for all cost calculations.

Type Specification Dose per unit area Average body surface area Required dose (mg) Time and period Quantity of drug required per cycle (n) Price per cycle (Yuan) Single cycle price (Yuan) Total price of four cycles TC regimen Docetaxel inj 1 mL:20 mg 75 mg/m2 1.5661 117.4575 1/21d*4 6 139.28 835.68 3342.72 Cyclophosphamide inj 200 mg 600 mg/m2 1.5661 939.66 1/21d*4 5 23.98 119.9 479.6 Palonosetron hydrochloride inj 5 mL:0.25 mg - - 0.25 1/21d*4 1 53.8 53.8 215.2 Dexamethasone sodium phosphate inj 1 mL:5 mg - - 10 1/21d*4 2 0.58 1.16 4.64 G-CSF inj 100 mug - - 0.1 1/21d*4 1 58.98 58.98 235.92 Managing severe adverse events - - - - - - 9201 9201 36,804 Chemotherapy administration - - - - - - 2400 2400 9600 Testing costs - - - - - - 1005.04 1005.04 4020.16 Total cots - - - - - - - - 54702.24 AC-T regimen Epirubicin hydrochloride inj 10 mg 100 mg/m2 1.5661 156.61 1/21d*4 16 79.15 1266.4 5065.6 Docetaxel inj 1 mL:20 mg 80 mg/m2 1.5661 125.288 1/21d*4 7 139.28 974.96 3899.84 Cyclophosphamide inj 200 mg 600 mg/m2 1.5661 939.66 1/21d*4 5 23.98 119.9 479.6 Palonosetron hydrochloride inj 5 mL:0.25 mg - - 0.25 1/21d*4 1 53.8 53.8 215.2 Aprepitan capsules 1*125 mg + 2*80 mg - - - 1/21d*4 1 450 450 1800 Dexamethasone sodium phosphate inj 1 mL:5 mg - - 10 1/21d*4 2 0.58 1.16 4.64 G-CSF inj 100 mug - - 0.1 1/21d*4 1 58.98 58.98 235.92 Managing severe adverse events - - - - - - 21,175 21,175 84,700 Chemotherapy administration - - - - - - 3200 3200 12,800 Testing costs - - - - - - 1002 1002 4008 Total cots - - - - - - - - 113208.8

Note: G-CSF, granulocyte colony stimulating factor; inj, injection; The costs (in Chinese yuan) of chemotherapy drugs and prophylaxis drugs were obtained from the 2022 winning bid prices in Chinese provinces. Cost estimates were valued in Chinese yuan (as per rates in 2022).

SECTION: METHODS
Utility parameter

The effectiveness of treatment was assessed regarding quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which were calculated by multiplying the length of survival in a given state by the utility of that state. Based on relevant research, utility values in PFS, PD, and death states in the Markov model were assumed to be 0.8, 0.5, and 0, respectively, for patients undergoing chemotherapy. For patients who were spared chemotherapy, these values were assumed to be 0.94, 0.73, and 0, respectively. This is because patients spared from chemotherapy in Strategy (1) do not experience the painful adverse effects and overwhelming financial burden associated with it. Therefore, in theory, their utility values are higher than patients who undergo chemotherapy.

Data analysis

The primary outcome of the study was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The formula for this outcome was as follows:where the represents the incremental costs, and the represents the incremental QALYs. and represent the respective costs of the two strategies, and and represent the respective health outputs (QALYs) of the two strategies.

The second outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), calculated by dividing treatment costs by QALYs. Cost estimates were valued in Chinese yuan (as per rates in 2022). Costs and QALYs were discounted at the rate of 5% per annum according to the China Pharmaceutical Economics Guide. In this study, we followed international good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modeling. The model was programmed and analyzed in Microsoft Excel 2019.ft Excel 2019.

We applied one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to test the robustness of the model. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted according to reasonable range adjus
We applied one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to test the robustness of the model. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted according to reasonable range adjustments of cost, utility, discount, and other parameters to identify the variables that have a significant impact on the simulation results. A tornado diagram was constructed based on the degree of impact. The price ranges of chemotherapy and prophylaxis drugs were set as the lowest and highest unit prices from the Chinese Drug Bidding Database in 2022. Other parameters were varied by +-20%. A Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations was performed for PSA. A Monte Carlo simulation scatterplot and acceptability curves were then presented to illustrate PSA results.

Model validation

The cost-effectiveness model was validated using the Assessment of the Validation Status of Health Economic decision models tool and evaluated by two external experts
(Yuhan Liu and Mengmeng Wang).

SECTION: RESULTS
RESULTS

Base-case analysis

In Strategy (1) (the TILs-testing group), approximately one-third of patients were spared chemotherapy and entered the M1 pathway, and approximately two-thirds of patients entered the M2 pathway after chemotherapy. In Strategy (2) (the no-TILs-testing group), all patients received chemotherapy and entered the M3 pathway. The CER for patients in the TILs testing group was 15,445.14; the CER for patients in the no-TILs testing group was 20675.91. Compared with the additional 9.24 QALYs for no-TILs testing group, the TILs testing group yielded an additional 9.71 QALYs. The total cost was 150,040 yuan in the TILs testing group and 191,016 yuan in no-TILs testing group. In summary, the TILs testing group received an additional 0.47 QALY and saved 40,976 yuan. The ICER for the TILs testing group was -87182.98 yuan per QALY gained, suggesting that Strategy (1) (the TILs-testing group) is the dominant scheme when compared with Strategy (2) (the no-TILs-testing group). The calculation details of QALY and ICER are shown in Table 4.

SECTION: TABLE
Results of base-case analysis.

Strategy Content Cost (Yuan) QALYs Total cost/10000 (Yuan) Total QALYs/10000 ICER TILs-testing group M1 pathway 441,758 673.80 36237.89 150040 9.71 -40,976 0.47 -87182.98 M2 pathway 663,939,329 60905.77 Chemotherapy 364,699,834 - TILs 30,000,000 - No-TILs-testing group M3 pathway 778072525.40 92385.78 191016 9.24 Chemotherapy 1,132,088,000 -

Note: M1 pathway is Markov Model 1 pathway, and so on. ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. DeltaC represents the incremental costs, and the DeltaE represents the incremental QALYs.

SECTION: RESULTS
Sensitivity analyses

The results of the one-way sensitivity analysis are presented in a tornado diagram (Figure 2). The parameters that significantly affected ICER estimates included utility parameters in the PFS for patients spared chemotherapy and for patients who received chemotherapy, the annual discount rate, and treatment cost after relapse.
The cost-effectiveness plane and cost-efficiency acceptability curves are presented in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 85,700 yuan (per-capita GDP) per QALY, the probability of the cost-effectiveness of TILs testing for early-stage TNBC patients was almost 100%.

SECTION: FIG
The results of one-way sensitivity analysis. ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; PD, progressive disease; PFS, progression free survival; QALY, quality-adjusted life year.

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis: Monte Carlo simulation scatterplot with a threshold of one time the national GDP per capita for TILs testing group versus no TILs testing group. Costs are expressed in Chinese yuan, year 2022values.

Acceptability curve. The curve demonstrates the probability of the TILs testing group being cost effective compared with the no TILs testing group at a given willingness to pay. $: yuan, QALY, quality-adjusted life year.

SECTION: DISCUSS
DISCUSSION

In this study, we provide economic evidence for the use of TILs testing in early-stage TNBC patients to determine eligibility for chemotherapy. This has not been reported in other countries to date.

The current standard of treatment for almost all patients with early-stage TNBC in China and worldwide is cytotoxic chemotherapy. This can lead to overtreatment, which causes patients considerable adverse exposure risks and costs. According to reports from China, the mean out-of-pocket costs per breast cancer patient accounts for 55.2% of the average household's non-food expenditures in China. Notably, health insurance reimbursement rates were relatively low for breast cancer. Conversely, chemotherapy de-escalation simultaneously prioritizes patients' quality of life and reduces the pressure on health care systems by avoiding high-cost treatments that offer no additional or very limited benefit to patients' survival. Our results showed across a range of plausible parameter estimates that the use of TILs testing to identify early TNBC patients with good prognosis is highly cost-effective compared with the conventional treatment. Considering the ICER value of our results is relatively low (ICERs are less than the per-capita GDP), there may be implications for decision-making regarding the use of TILs for de-escalation of chemotherapy, both in developed countries, and in other developing countries. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness results were robust under the uncertainty of the model.

Our analysis had several limitations. First, our results were based on data from published papers and not from prospective studies.Our analysis had several limitations. First, our results were based on data from published papers and not from prospective studies. Specifically, we used the GetData Graph Digitizer software to read the coordinate points of PFS and OS curves in relevant published literature for subsequent reconstruction of individual data and estimation of transition probabilities. These reconstructions need to be formally validated within the rigorous framework of prospective studies. The estimates of the utility parameters were derived from literature published in other countries. In general, utility reflects the social and cultural context of a country and may differ across countries. However, there are no available utility parameters generated in China, and calculating these parameters was outside the scope of this study. Second, we relied on the test results of Loi et al. and their definition of clinical outcomes for patients with TNBC. They defined a 30% TILs cutoff based on the top quartile of a large dataset of 2148 patients with TNBC. The TILs Working Group reported that a re-analysis of three-ring studies of TILs showed good agreement among pathologists when this cutoff was used. Loi et al. also reported that approximately one-third of patients had at least a 30% TILs value. Our published review suggests approximately 42% of patients had a TIL level of exceeding 20%. The sensitivity and specificity were higher for the 20% threshold than for other thresholds. A 20% threshold of TILs may therefore also have better predictive and prognostic effects than a 30% threshold. This is similar to the results of another Chinese study. Hence, we performed a sensitivity analysis of the 20% threshold and the associated proportion of patients, and we found that the results (ICER = -68426.59) were similar to the results for the 30% threshold (ICER = -86122.87). We therefore conclude that implementing TILs testing to guide de-escalation of chemotherapy in early TNBC is highly cost-efficient. Moreover, estimating ICER at different TILs thresholds and identifying the clinical outcomes and economic evidence associated with these cutoffs, remains an important area for future research. Third, our model did not take into account the possibility of local recurrence or minor or long-term adverse events resulting from chemotherapy. However, this area of research has been explored by most cost-effectiveness studies of breast cancer. Fourth, although we built a relatively comprehensive model, our simulation is still a simplification of reality. Fifth, substantial uncertainty surrounds the cost-effectiveness of TILs and additional research to clarify critical assumptions would be prudent. Sixth, it is assumed that all patients with TILs values greater than 30% are spared from chemotherapy, which is an idealized situation. Practically, the clinical decision to administer chemotherapy is complex and requires consideration of patient preferences and other clinical features. However, we cannot identify and simulate all the uncertain factors. This is also a challenge and limitation of economic evaluation in general.

SECTION: CONCL
CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that, compared with administering chemotherapy to all patients, using TILs as a biomarker to guide chemotherapy de-escalation in patients with early TNBC was highly cost-effective from a Chinese health care system perspective. These results might help clinicians in making better decisions about patient risks and benefits before administering cytotoxic chemotherapy to treat patients with early-stage TNBC. Furthermore, our findings provide a basis for decision-makers to consider the inclusion of the TILs assay in China's social health insurance benefit package.

SECTION: SUPPL
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.