Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer as a second line in Taiwan

John Hang Leung, Chih Wen Chang, Agnes L.F. Chan, Hui Chu Lang*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the clinical outcomes and costs of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Clinical outcomes data were derived from randomized clinical trials. Drug acquisition cost and other health resource use were obtained from the claim data of a tertiary hospital and the National Health Insurance. The outcome was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty of the model parameters. Results: In the base case, patients treated with immunotherapies in the second line were associated with higher costs and higher mean survival. The incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year gained for pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab compared to docetaxel were NT$416,102, NT$1,572,912 and NT$1,580,469, respectively. Conclusion: The results showed that pembrolizumab was more cost effective than nivolumab and atezolizumab compared with docetaxel as a second-line regimen for patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer at willingness to pay threshold in Taiwan.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)859-870
Number of pages12
JournalFuture Oncology
Issue number7
StatePublished - Mar 2022


  • advanced NSCLC
  • atezolizumab
  • cost-effectiveness
  • nivolumab and docetaxel
  • PD-L1-positive
  • pembrolizumab


Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer as a second line in Taiwan'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this