Cost-effectiveness analysis of contemporary first-line (1L) agents in locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC).

4591 Background: EV-302 and CheckMate 901 demonstrated significant survival benefit with enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab (EVPembro) and gemcitabine-cisplatin-nivolumab (GemCisNivo) as 1L therapy, respectively, in patients (pts) with la/mUC. However, whether these treatments are cost-effective or not remains unclear. Methods: A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progression and death) was developed. State utilities were derived from published literature. State transition probabilities were informed from point-probabilities and hazard ratios for OS and PFS obtained from the latest follow-up of eligible trials. Average sales price (2024 USD) for individual treatments (excluding ancillary charges) were obtained from the center of medicare and medicaid services (US payer’s perspective). Treatment strategies were modeled in accordance with the dose/schedule reported in the eligible trials. Pts who received GemCis or Gem-carboplatin (GemCarbo) and did not progress were modeled to receive Avelumab maintenance. Half-cycle corrected costs and utilities were accrued over a 10-year lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3%. Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of 100, 000 per QALY was used. Results: In cisplatin-eligible pts, GemCisNivo demonstrated a 0. 8 QALY gain over GemCis at an ICER of 21, 127 (/QALY). GemCisNivo was also associated with an incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of 63, 099 relative to GemCis. EVPembro demonstrated a 2. 4 QALY gain over GemCis at an ICER of 915, 283 and a 1. 6 QALY gain over GemCisNivo at an ICER of 1, 406, 308. In cisplatin-ineligible pts, EVPembro demonstrated a 2. 4 QALY gain over Gem-carboplatin (GemCarbo) at an ICER of 934, 761. Price threshold analyses demonstrated that EVPembro is likely to be cost-effective at a cost of 12, 344 for cisplatin-eligible and 13, 374 per cycle for cisplatin-ineligible pts (original cost: 35, 665. 60 per cycle). Sensitivity analysis using a total of 12 cycles for EVPembro showed cost-effectiveness at an ICER of 69, 594 relative to GemCisNivo in cisplatin-eligible pts, and at an ICER of 53, 099 relative to GemCarbo in cisplatin-ineligible pts. Conclusions: In terms of US payer’s perspective, GemCisNivo is most likely to be cost-effective in cisplatin-eligible pts at the WTP of 100, 000 /QALY. Limiting the number of cycles for EVPembro may render it as a cost-effective 1L treatment in la/mUC pts regardless of cisplatin-eligibility status.