Background Escalating healthcare costs are necessitating the practice of value-based oncology. It is crucial to critically evaluate the economic impact of influential but expensive therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). To date, no systematic assessment of the cost-effectiveness (CE) of ICIs has been performed. Methods PRISMA-guided systematic searches of the PubMed database were conducted. Studies of head/neck (n = 3), lung (n = 5), genitourinary (n = 4), and melanoma (n = 8) malignancies treated with ICIs were evaluated. The reference willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $100,000/QALY. Results Nivolumab was not cost-effective over chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic head/neck cancers (HNCs). For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), nivolumab was not cost-effective for a general cohort, but increased PD-L1 cutoffs resulted in CE. Pembrolizumab was cost-effective for both previously treated and newly-diagnosed metastatic NSCLC. For genitourinary cancers (GUCs, renal cell and bladder cancers), nivolumab and pembrolizumab were not cost-effective options. Regarding metastatic/unresected melanoma, ipilimumab monotherapy is less cost-effective than nivolumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab. The addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab monotherapy was not adequately cost-effective. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab monotherapy offered comparable CE profiles. Conclusions With limited data and from the reference WTP, nivolumab was not cost-effective for HNCs. Pembrolizumab was cost-effective for NSCLC; although not the case for nivolumab, applying PD-L1 cutoffs resulted in adequate CE. Most data for nivolumab and pembrolizumab in GUCs did not point towards adequate CE. Contrary to ipilimumab, either nivolumab or pembrolizumab is cost-effective for melanoma. Despite these conclusions, it cannot be overstated that careful patient selection is critical for CE. Future publication of CE investigations and clinical trials (along with longer follow-up of existing data) could substantially alter conclusions from this analysis.

Background: Cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported to have double the case fatality rate of the general population.Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central was done for studies on cancer patients with COVID-19. Pooled proportions were calculated for categorical variables. Odds ratio (OR) and forest plots (random-effects model) were constructed for both primary and secondary outcomes.Results: This systematic review of 38 studies and meta-analysis of 181 323 patients from 26 studies included 23 736 cancer patients. Our meta-analysis shows that cancer patients with COVID-19 have a higher likelihood of death (n = 165 980, OR = 2.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.47 to 4.42), which was largely driven by mortality among patients in China. Cancer patients were more likely to be intubated. Among cancer subtypes, the mortality was highest in hematological malignancies (n = 878, OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.17 to 4.87) followed by lung cancer (n = 646, OR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.00 to 3.37). There was no association between receipt of a particular type of oncologic therapy and mortality. Our study showed that cancer patients affected by COVID-19 are a decade older than the normal population and have a higher proportion of comorbidities. There was insufficient data to assess the association of COVID-19–directed therapy and survival outcomes in cancer patients.Conclusion: Cancer patients with COVID-19 disease are at increased risk of mortality and morbidity. A more nuanced understanding of the interaction between cancer-directed therapies and COVID-19–directed therapies is needed. This will require uniform prospective recording of data, possibly in multi-institutional registry databases.

For patients with unresectable locally-advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), concurrent chemoradiotherapy improves overall survival as compared to sequential chemotherapy and radiation therapy, but is associated with higher rates of toxicities. Acute, clinically significant esophagitis or pneumonitis can occur in one in five patients. The risks of esophagitis and pneumonitis can impact the decision to deliver concurrent therapy and limit the total dose of radiation therapy that is delivered. Hematologic toxicities and emesis are common toxicities from systemic therapies for LA-NSCLC and can result in delaying chemotherapy dosing or chemotherapy dose reductions. Late treatment morbidities, including pulmonary fibrosis and cardiac toxicities, can also significantly impact quality of life and potentially even survival. Recent advances in radiation therapy treatment delivery, better knowledge of normal tissue radiotherapy tolerances and more widespread and improved uses of supportive care and medical management of systemic therapy toxicities have improved the therapeutic ratio and reduced the rates of chemoradiotherapy-induced toxicities. This review details the acute and late toxicities associated with definitive chemoradiotherapy for LA-NSCLC and discusses toxicity management and strategies to mitigate the risks of treatment-related toxicities.