Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Current recommendations for the 1L treatment of la/mUC.

1L, first-line; AFU, French Urological Association; CR, complete response; DDMVAC: dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin; EAU, European Association of Urology; EMA, European Medicines Agency; ESMO, European Society for Medical Oncology; FDA, US Food and Drug Administration; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; la/mUC, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma; MCBS, Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; NCCN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PS, performance status; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease. a Maintenance therapy with avelumab only if there is no progression with 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy. bCreatinine clearance grade 2 and New York Heart Association class III heart failure. c Rechallenge with platinum-based chemotherapy may be considered if progression occurred 12 months after the end of previous platinum-based chemotherapy or 12 months after the end of previous platinum-based chemotherapy and avelumab maintenance therapy. d This should be assessed within 10 weeks of completion of chemotherapy. e ESMO-MCBS v1.1120 was used to calculate scores for new therapies and indications approved by the EMA or the FDA. The scores have been calculated by the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and validated by the ESMO Guidelines Committee (https://www.esmo.org/guidelines/esmo-mcbs/scale-evaluation-forms-v1.0-v1.1/scale-evaluationforms-v1.1). f Fit patient: creatinine clearance ≥60 mL/min and PS <2. g Unfit patient: creatinine clearance <60 mL/min and PS≥2. h Patients experience no progression after 1L chemotherapy (stable or responsive disease). Maintenance avelumab has shown a benefit in overall survival (pending availability of the molecule).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Patient characteristics from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study and the retrospective chart review study.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Schematic diagram of model utilized in the cost-effectiveness analysis.

BSC, best supportive care; IO, immuno-oncotherapy; Tx, treatment.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Area under the curve model developed for the cost-effectiveness analysis.

OS, overall survival; PPS, post-progression survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

OS KM curves followed by log-normal extrapolation beyond KM curves for both arms (reference analysis).

1LM, first-line maintenance; BSC, best supportive care; KM, Kaplan-Meier; OS, overall survival.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

PFS KM curves followed by Weibull and log-normal extrapolations for avelumab plus BSC and BSC alone, respectively (reference analysis).

1LM, first-line maintenance; BSC, best supportive care; KM, Kaplan-Meier; PFS, progression-free survival.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

TTD KM curves followed by generalized gamma and log-logistic extrapolations for avelumab plus BSC and BSC alone, respectively (reference analysis).

1LM, first-line maintenance; BSC, best supportive care; KM, Kaplan-Meier; TTD, time to treatment discontinuation.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 2.

Summary of costs included in the model for each cost category and by treatment arm.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Distribution of post-progression treatments in JAVELIN Bladder 100 compared with the cost-effectiveness model.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Summary of utility data for avelumab plus BSC and BSC alone considered for the reference analysis.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Disutilities associated with adverse events of treatments studied for efficiency analysis in the reference analysis.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Discounted results of the reference analysis (ICER).

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Tornado diagram for the one-way sensitivity analysis.

1LM, first-line maintenance, AE, adverse event; BSC, best supportive care; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; IO, immuno-oncotherapy; KM, Kaplan-Meier; OS, overall survival; pop2, population 2; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; sub, subsequent; TTD, time to treatment discontinuation; Tx, treatment.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Scatterplot of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis comparing avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone.

BSC, best supportive care.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Acceptability curve of cost-effectiveness for the reference analysis.

1LM, first-line maintenance; BSC, best supportive care.

More »

Fig 9 Expand