Economic impact of preventing brain metastases with alectinib in ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer

Lorlatinib as a first-line treatment of adult patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Α cost-effectiveness analysis in Greece

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lorlatinib compared to 1st generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) TKI crizotinib, and 2nd generation TKIs alectinib and brigatinib, for previously untreated patients with ALK+ advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (aNSCLC).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was locally adapted from a Greek payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. Clinical, safety and utility data were extracted from literature. Direct medical costs reflecting the year 2023 were included in the analysis (€). Model outcomes were patients' life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

Total cost per patient with lorlatinib, alectinib, crizotinib, and brigatinib was estimated to be €188,205, €183,343, €75,028, and €145,454 respectively. Lorlatinib appeared to yield more LYs and QALYs gained versus alectinib, crizotinib, and brigatinib. Hence, lorlatinib resulted in ICERs of €4,315 per LY gained and €4,422 per QALY gained compared to alectinib, €34,032 per LY gained and €48,256 per QALY gained versus crizotinib and €16,587 per LY gained and €26,271 per QALY gained compared to brigatinib.

CONCLUSION

Lorlatinib provides substantial clinical benefit and appears to be a cost - effective treatment option compared to 1st and 2nd generation TKIs for previously untreated patients with ALK+ aNCSLC in Greece.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line versus second-line use of brigatinib followed by lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer

Background

The ALTA-1 L trial and EXP-3B arm of NCT01970865 trial found that both brigatinib and lorlatinib showed durable and robust responses in treating ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, brigatinib and lorlatinib treatments are costly and need indefinite administration until the disease progression. Thus, it remains uncertain whether using brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy is cost-effective compared to reserving these two drugs until progression after chemotherapy.

Methods

We used a Markov model to assess clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of treating ALK-positive NSCLC individuals with brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy versus a strategy of reserving these drugs until progression after chemotherapy. Transition probabilities were estimated using parametric survival modeling based on multiple clinical trials. The drug acquisition costs, adverse events costs, administration costs were extracted from published studies before and publicly available data. We calculated lifetime direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from the perspective of a United States payer.

Results

Our base-case analysis indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of using first-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib compared with second-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib is $-400,722.09/QALY which meant that second-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib had less costs and better outcomes. Univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the results were most sensitive to the cost of brigatinib. Probability sensitivity analysis revealed that using brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy had a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness versus delaying these two drugs until progression after chemotherapy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses conducted revealed the robustness of this result, as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios never exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold.

Conclusion

Using brigatinib as first-line treatment followed by lorlatinib for ALK-positive NSCLC may not be cost-effective given current pricing from the perspective of a United States payer. Delaying brigatinib followed by lorlatinib until subsequent lines of treatment may be a reasonable strategy that could limit healthcare costs without affecting clinical outcomes. More mature data are needed to better estimate cost-effectiveness in this setting.

Genomic Alterations and the Incidence of Brain Metastases in Advanced and Metastatic NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Brain metastases (BMs) in patients with advanced and metastatic NSCLC are linked to poor prognosis. Identifying genomic alterations associated with BM development could influence screening and determine targeted treatment. We aimed to establish prevalence and incidence in these groups, stratified by genomic alterations.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were conducted (PROSPERO identification CRD42022315915). Articles published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library between January 2000 and May 2022 were included. Prevalence at diagnosis and incidence of new BM per year were obtained, including patients with EGFR, ALK, KRAS, and other alterations. Pooled incidence rates were calculated using random effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 64 unique articles were included (24,784 patients with NSCLC with prevalence data from 45 studies and 9058 patients with NSCLC having incidence data from 40 studies). Pooled BM prevalence at diagnosis was 28.6% (45 studies, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.1-31.0), and highest in patients that are ALK-positive (34.9%) or with RET-translocations (32.2%). With a median follow-up of 24 months, the per-year incidence of new BM was 0.13 in the wild-type group (14 studies, 95% CI: 0.11-0.16). Incidence was 0.16 in the EGFR group (16 studies, 95% CI: 0.11-0.21), 0.17 in the ALK group (five studies, 95% CI: 0.10-0.27), 0.10 in the KRAS group (four studies, 95% CI: 0.06-0.17), 0.13 in the ROS1 group (three studies, 95% CI: 0.06-0.28), and 0.12 in the RET group (two studies, 95% CI: 0.08-0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive meta-analysis indicates a higher prevalence and incidence of BM in patients with certain targetable genomic alterations. This supports brain imaging at staging and follow-up, and the need for targeted therapies with brain penetrance.

Perilesional edema diameter associated with brain metastases as a predictive factor of response to radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

Background

Different prognostic scales exist in patients with brain metastasis, particularly in lung cancer. The Graded Prognostic Assessment for lung cancer using molecular markers (Lung-molGPA index) for brain metastases is a powerful prognostic tool that effectively identifies patients at different risks. However, these scales do not include perilesional edema diameter (PED) associated with brain metastasis. Current evidence suggests that PED might compromise the delivery and efficacy of radiotherapy to treat BM. This study explored the association between radiotherapy efficacy, PED extent, and gross tumor diameter (GTD).

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the intracranial response (iORR), intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS), and overall survival (OS) according to the extent of PED and GT.

Methods

Out of 114 patients with BM at baseline or throughout the disease, 65 were eligible for the response assessment. The GTD and PED sum were measured at BM diagnosis and after radiotherapy treatment. According to a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, cutoff values were set at 27 mm and 17 mm for PED and GT, respectively.

Results

Minor PED was independently associated with a better iORR [78.8% vs. 50%, OR 3.71 (95% CI 1.26-10.99); p = 0.018] to brain radiotherapy. Median iPFS was significantly shorter in patients with major PED [6.9 vs. 11.8 months, HR 2.9 (95% CI 1.7-4.4); p < 0.001] independently of other prognostic variables like the Lung-molGPA and GTD. A major PED also negatively impacted the median OS [18.4 vs. 7.9 months, HR 2.1 (95% CI 1.4-3.3); p = 0.001].

Conclusion

Higher PED was associated with an increased risk of intracranial progression and a lesser probability of responding to brain radiotherapy in patients with metastatic lung cancer. We encourage prospective studies to confirm our findings.

Economic burden in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with or without brain metastases, receiving first-line ALK inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

This observational study describes the real-world economic burden in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving a first-line ALK inhibitor, and the economic impact of brain metastases (BM).

METHODS

Administrative claims data (Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters database and Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits database; January 1, 2015-March 31, 2020) for adult patients with ALK+ NSCLC who received a first-line ALK inhibitor were retrospectively reviewed. Healthcare costs and resource utilization were calculated on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis and stratified by the presence or absence of BM prior to first-line ALK inhibitor. Factors associated with costs were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 496 patients were eligible for analysis. Mean PPPM total healthcare costs were $21,961 for all patients receiving up to 1 year of a first-line ALK inhibitor. Patients were significantly more likely to have higher mean PPPM total costs if they had BM prior to first-line ALK inhibitor (vs. no BM; odds ratio: 1.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.02, 1.21; p = 0.013). Mean PPPM days of hospital stay (p = 0.0056), and inpatient hospital visits (p = 0.0030) were significantly higher for patients with BM compared to no BM. The main cost drivers for non-inpatient procedures for all patients were medications, radiation therapy, and other diagnostic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The economic burden in patients with ALK+ NSCLC receiving a first-line ALK inhibitor was high. Patients with ALK+ NSCLC and BM had higher healthcare costs and resource utilization than patients without BM.

Post Hoc Analysis of Lorlatinib Intracranial Efficacy and Safety in Patients With ALK-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer From the Phase III CROWN Study

PURPOSE

Lorlatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib and showed robust intracranial activity in patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III CROWN trial. Here, we report post hoc efficacy outcomes in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline, and present data on the incidence and management of CNS adverse events (AEs) in CROWN.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to first-line lorlatinib (100 mg once daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice a day); no crossover between treatment arms was permitted. Tumor assessments, including CNS magnetic resonance imaging, were performed at screening and then at 8-week intervals. Regular assessments of patient-reported outcomes were conducted.

RESULTS

PFS by blinded independent central review was improved with lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline (12-month PFS rates: 78% v 22% and 78% v 45%, respectively). Lorlatinib was associated with lower 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with (7% v 72%) and without (1% v 18%) brain metastases at baseline. In total, 35% of patients had CNS AEs with lorlatinib, most of grade 1 severity. Occurrence of CNS AEs did not result in a clinically meaningful difference in patient-reported quality of life. At analysis, 56% of CNS AEs had resolved (33% without intervention; 17% with lorlatinib dose modification), and 38% were unresolved; most required no intervention. Lorlatinib dose modification did not notably influence PFS.

CONCLUSION

First-line lorlatinib improved PFS outcomes and reduced CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer with or without brain metastases at baseline. Half of all CNS AEs resolved without intervention or with lorlatinib dose modification.

Economic burden of brain metastases in non-small cell lung cancer patients in South Korea: A retrospective cohort study using nationwide claims data

Brain metastases (BM) are common in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the pure economic burden of BM is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of BM on healthcare costs and resource utilization in patients with NSCLC by comparing patients with and without BM. This was a retrospective cohort analysis of South Korean health insurance review and assessment claims data. Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were identified (March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2018). We compared their two-year and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) healthcare costs and resource utilization with 1:3 propensity score-matched patients without the condition. A generalized linear model was used to estimate the impact of BM and other covariates on healthcare costs. After propensity score matching with the 33 402 newly diagnosed cases of stage IIIB or IV NSCLC, 3435 and 10 305 patients were classified as having or not having BM, respectively. Mean healthcare costs were significantly greater in patients with BM for both the two years (US$ 44 692 vs. US$ 32 230, p < .0001) and PPPM (US$ 3510 vs. US$ 2573, p < .0001). The length of hospital stay was longer in patients with BM (79.15 vs. 69.41 days for two years, p < .0001; 7.69 vs. 6.86 days PPPM, p < .0001), and patients with BM had more outpatient visits (50.61 vs. 46.43 times for two years, p < .0001; 3.64 vs. 3.40 times PPPM costs, p < .0001). The costs of drugs, radiology/radiotherapy, and admission comprised the majority of PPPM costs and were higher in patients with BM. The generalized linear model analysis suggested that patients with BM had significantly increased healthcare costs (by 1.29-fold, 95% confidence interval 1.26–1.32). BM is a significant economic burden for patients with NSCLC. Therefore, it is important to prevent BM in patients with NSCLC to reduce their economic burden.

The cost-effectiveness of brigatinib in adult patients with ALK inhibitor–naive ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer from a US perspective

BACKGROUND: The discovery of specific oncogenic drivers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has led to the development of highly targeted anaplastic lymphoma kinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALKis). Brigatinib is a next-generation ALKi associated with prolonged progression-free survival in patients with ALKi-naive ALK+ NSCLC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of brigatinib compared with crizotinib and alectinib in patients with ALKi-naive ALK+ NSCLC, from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A lifetime area under the curve-partitioned survival model with 4 health states was used to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of brigatinib in the ALKi-naive ALK+ NSCLC setting. Brigatinib was compared with crizotinib within a cost-effectiveness framework and compared with alectinib in a cost-comparison framework, where all efficacy outcomes were assumed equal. The efficacy of brigatinib and crizotinib was informed by the ALTA-1L trial, and an indirect treatment comparison was performed to inform the efficacy of brigatinib vs alectinib owing to a lack of head-to-head data. Costs were derived from public sources. The main outcomes of the model were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, in addition to multiple scenario analyses, were conducted to assess the robustness of the model outcomes. RESULTS: The improved outcomes observed in ALTA-1L translated into QALY gains (+0.97) in the comparison of brigatinib vs crizotinib. The superior efficacy profile was associated with increased time on treatment with brigatinib, which drove the increase in costs vs crizotinib (+$210,519). The resulting base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $217,607/QALY gained. Compared with alectinib, brigatinib was associated with a cost difference of -$8,546. Sensitivity analysis suggested that extrapolation of overall survival, the assumptions relating to time on treatment, and subsequent therapy costs were the most influential determinants of results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested brigatinib had the highest probability of being cost-effective beyond willingness-to-pay thresholds of $236,000 per QALY vs crizotinib and alectinib. CONCLUSIONS: At list prices and under base-case assumptions in the current analysis, brigatinib was associated with cost-savings vs alectinib, and QALY gains but at higher costs vs crizotinib. Additional research into the real-world efficacy of ALKis is warranted to further understand the comparative cost-effectiveness of these therapies. DISCLOSURES: Ms Cranmer and Ms Kearns are employees of Takeda UK Ltd. Dr Young is a former employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. Dr Humphries is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Mr Trueman is an employee of Source Health Economics, the consultancy company that provided health economic and writing services. This work was funded by ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Work by Source Health Economics was funded by ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Professional medical writing assistance was provided by Phillipa White, of Source Health Economics, and funded by ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Prophylactic cranial irradiation in non-small cell lung cancer: evidence and future development

In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) brain metastases (BM) will affect up to 50% of patients during whole disease period. BM themselves impact heavily not only on patient’s prognosis but also are a source of symptoms aggravating quality of life. Standard (pemetrexed), and non-standard chemotherapy (temozolomide) in patients with NSCLC failed to prevent them from BM. In terms of systemic treatment there are promising results showed when durvalumab (PACIFIC study), osimertinib (FLAURA trial) or alectinib (JALEX study) was used. However, those substances are effective only in small cohort with ALK or EGFR alterations. Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) as a non-specific treatment has proven to be a powerful tool in preventing BM without affecting overall survival in neither way. That has been proved in nearly all earlier and all recent studies—NVALT11/DLCRG-02, RTOG 0214 update, Li et al. The positive effect of BM incidence reduction may draw fear form PCI usage due to potential cognitive toxicity the PCI may cause. Results of recent trials show that after PCI only mild cognitive disorders (MCD) may arise. Promising results in terms of reducing MCD are shown when memantine is used or/and hippocampal avoidance techniques are implemented. HA in PCI seem to be cost effective but calculations were made on small-cell lung cancer cohorts. Still even recent studies did not clarify finally which patients could benefit from PCI or other forms of preventing BM. It seems that new trials should focus on younger, fit and non-squamous histology patients and use the tests for mild cognitive disorders (MoCA, BHA) rather than screening tests for dementia (MMSE, HVLT, ADL). The main obstacle in performing new trials on PCI in NSCLC cohorts may be, however, patients’ accrual, as a difficulty which occurred during latest trials.

How to select the best upfront therapy for metastatic disease? Focus on ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors have demonstrated robust clinical activity in patients with ALK-rearranged lung cancers. The echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like (EML)-ALK translocation was first discovered in 2007 and 4 years later, crizotinib, a first-generation ALK inhibitor was approved. Since then, subsequent generations of ALK inhibitors have demonstrated superior efficacy and better CNS activity compared to crizotinib. Alectinib and brigatinib, both second-generation ALK inhibitors have been compared directly to crizotinib in the first-line setting and has demonstrated improved progression free survival (PFS) and intracranial response. Ceritinib, another second-generation ALK inhibitor has been shown to be superior to chemotherapy in ALK-rearranged disease with good CNS activity. Initial responses to ALK inhibitors are not always durable and resistance can occur as on-target or off-target alterations. Lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK inhibitor, has demonstrated activity in the treatment naïve setting and in resistance to crizotinib and second-generation ALK inhibitors. Lorlatinib has also shown improved PFS in patients harboring EML4-ALK variant 3, which is associated with the development of ALK resistance mutations, specifically G1202R. Another new ALK inhibitor, ensartinib, has demonstrated efficacy in the first-line setting and in alectinib refractory disease. Additional studies are underway examining mechanisms of resistance and best treatment options post resistance.

Real-world impact of brain metastases on healthcare utilization and costs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with EGFR-TKIs in the US

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with brain metastases (BM) is difficult to treat and associated with poor survival. This study assessed the impact of BM on healthcare-related utilization and costs (HRUC) among patients receiving epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adults newly-diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC, initiating first-/second-generation EGFR-TKI treatment, with BM or no BM (NBM), were identified retrospectively from IBM MarketScan healthcare claims databases (2013-2017). HRUC were measured during the variable-length follow-up period. Generalized linear models assessed the impact of BM on total healthcare costs, standardized to 2017 US$.

RESULTS

Overall, 222 BM and 280 NBM patients were included, with a mean duration of follow-up of 14 months. Adjusted NSCLC-related and all-cause costs over average follow-up were 1.2 times higher among BM patients (Δ$5,640 and Δ$6,366, respectively; p <0.05); differences were driven primarily by radiation treatment and radiology. More than two times more BM than NBM patients received NSCLC-related radiation treatment, in both inpatient (15.3% vs 6.8%; p <0.05) and outpatient settings (87.8% vs 37.5%; p <0.05). Per-patient per-month (PPPM) radiation costs were also higher among BM patients, both inpatient ($796 vs $464, p =0.172) and outpatient ($2,443 vs $747, p <0.05). All-cause PPPM radiology visits (2.0 vs 1.3) and associated costs ($3,824 vs $1,621) were higher among BM patients (both p <0.05).

CONCLUSION

NSCLC-related HRUC, especially those attributable to radiation treatment, were higher among patients with BM. Future research should compare the potential for CNS-active EGFR-TKIs vs first-/second-generation EGFR-TKIs combined with radiotherapy to reduce HRUC.

Economic burden in patients with ALK + non-small cell lung cancer, with or without brain metastases, receiving second-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors

Aims: To describe the real-world economic burden of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy.Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis using data from US Optum: Clinformatics Data Mart administrative claims database. Adult patients with ALK + NSCLC treated with ceritinib or alectinib as second-line ALK inhibitors between 1 January 2011 and 30 September 2017 were included. Healthcare costs and resource utilization for up to 1 year of therapy were calculated on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis and stratified by presence or absence of brain metastases (BM). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with costs. Top ten cost drivers of non-inpatient procedure costs were recorded.Results: One hundred and twelve patients received second-line ALK inhibitors. Total mean PPPM healthcare costs were $23,984 for all patients receiving up to 1 year of post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy. Total mean PPPM costs for patients with BM on or prior to post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy were 1.37-times as high as those for patients without BM (p = 0.0406). Mean PPPM outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization stays were higher for patients with BM versus no BM. The main cost drivers for non-inpatient procedures were radiation therapy, medications, and diagnostic radiology.Limitations: Analyses did not include newer ALK-directed therapies. BM development after the index date (defined as the date of the first claim for a second-line ALK inhibitor) may have been misclassified as non-BM. Findings may not be generalizable to patients with no health insurance coverage.Conclusions: Treatment of patients with ALK + NSCLC with ceritinib or alectinib as post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy represents a high economic burden. Healthcare costs and resource utilization were significantly higher for patients with ALK + NSCLC with BM versus no BM.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Progression-Free Survival Associated with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapies for ALK+ Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Little is known about real-world treatment and outcomes of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study of the Flatiron Health EHR-derived deidentified database included patients with a lung cancer diagnosis and confirmed advanced NSCLC who received ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy (January 1, 2011, through June 30, 2018). Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were characterized. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and time to discontinuation were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

First-line ALK TKI therapy was administered to 581 patients (27.5% had brain metastasis on or prior to initiation) and second-line ALK TKI therapy to 254 patients post crizotinib (45.7% had brain metastasis on or prior to second-line ALK TKI initiation). Crizotinib (84.6%; n = 492) was the most commonly administered first-line ALK TKI therapy. For second-line ALK TKI post crizotinib (n = 254), 49.6% received ceritinib, 41.7% received alectinib, 5.9% received crizotinib retreatment, and 2.8% received brigatinib. Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) rwPFS was 7.47 (6.48-8.32) months for first-line and 7.30 (5.72-8.42) months for second-line ALK TKI. Median (95% CI) rwPFS was significantly longer among first-line ALK TKI patients without than with brain metastasis (8.52 [7.57-10.59] vs. 4.97 [3.75-5.99] months; p < .0001) and patients with brain metastasis on or prior to first-line ALK TKI therapy had a significantly increased risk of progression (hazard ratio ± SE, 1.976 ± 0.112; p < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Median rwPFS in patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC was < 8 months for first- and second-line ALK TKI therapy and was even shorter in patients with brain metastasis, highlighting the need for more effective treatments in this patient population.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Results presented herein describe real-world treatment of advanced ALK+ NSCLC with ALK TKI therapies from January 2011 through June 2018. Crizotinib was the most commonly prescribed first-line ALK TKI therapy in this patient population, but the majority of data analyzed were obtained prior to Food and Drug Administration approval of alectinib and ceritinib in the first-line ALK TKI setting. Physicians should monitor patients closely to help identify when a change in treatment should occur.

Cost analysis of the management of brain metastases in patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC: alectinib versus crizotinib

Aim

To estimate management cost of NSCLC ALK+ patients with and without brain metastasis (BM), and to compare annual costs in patients treated with alectinib or crizotinib.

Methods

Management cost/year (€ 2018) in patients with and without BM was estimated with disaggregated resource consumption provided by local oncologists, including medical visits, hospitalizations, diagnostic/laboratory tests, imaging techniques and surgical procedures. The comparison of costs/year with alectinib and crizotinib, considered the cumulative 12-month incidence of BM in ALEX trial (9.4 and 41.4%, respectively).

Results

Management cost was €6173.42/patient-year without BM and €21,637.50/patient-year with BM. With alectinib, average cost/patient was lower than crizotinib (€4948.51/patient-year).

Conclusion

Prevention of BM with alectinib may result in reductions of cost/year in the management of advanced ALK+ NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of alectinib compared to crizotinib for the treatment of first-line ALK+ advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in France

The aim of the study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alectinib for first-line treatment of ALK+ advanced non-small-cell lung cancer compared to crizotinib in the French setting. This study used a partitioned survival model, with three discrete health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival and death). Survival probabilities were derived from a randomised Phase III clinical trial comparing alectinib to crizotinib (ALEX). Beyond the length of the trial (18 months), the efficacy of both treatments was considered equivalent. Occurrence of adverse events or brain metastases were considered as inter-current events. Utilities (and disutilities for intercurrent adverse events) derived from the EQ-5D were applied. Costs were attributed using standard French national public health tariffs. Projected mean overall survival was 4.62 years for alectinib and 4.18 years for crizotinib. Projected mean progression-free survival was 30.30 months for alectinib and 16.13 months for crizotinib. The total number of quality-adjusted life years projected was 3.40 for alectinib and 2.84 for crizotinib. The projected total cost of treatment over the lifetime of the model was € 246,022 for alectinib and € 195,486 for crizotinib. This extra cost was principally attributable to treatment acquisition costs and management before progression. Alectinib was associated with lower costs related to brain metastases and to management post-progression. The incremental cost per life year gained was 115,334 €/year and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 90,232 €/QALY. First-line treatment of ALK+ NSCLC with alectinib provides superior clinical outcomes to crizotinib and is cost-effective in the French context.

Alectinib in the treatment of ALK-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: clinical trial evidence and experience with a focus on brain metastases

Molecular profiling of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is required to guide the treatment strategy. Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements are found in approximately 5% of lung adenocarcinomas and are associated with specific clinical features including a high risk of brain metastases. Crizotinib was the first ALK inhibitor developed and it demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in comparison with chemotherapy. However, despite an initial response, all ALK-positive NSCLC patients develop acquired resistance to crizotinib. Because the most frequent mechanism of resistance is the development of a secondary ALK mutation, second (ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib) and third-generation (lorlatinib) ALK inhibitors were developed. Alectinib is a second-generation ALK inhibitor and was shown to be effective for a broad spectrum of ALK rearrangements and ALK mutations. It was also shown to have high intracranial efficacy. In this article, we review clinical trial evidence of alectinib efficacy as well as publications reporting the experience of alectinib in daily practice, with a focus on brain metastases.

Brain metastases

An estimated 20% of all patients with cancer will develop brain metastases, with the majority of brain metastases occurring in those with lung, breast and colorectal cancers, melanoma or renal cell carcinoma. Brain metastases are thought to occur via seeding of circulating tumour cells into the brain microvasculature; within this unique microenvironment, tumour growth is promoted and the penetration of systemic medical therapies is limited. Development of brain metastases remains a substantial contributor to overall cancer mortality in patients with advanced-stage cancer because prognosis remains poor despite multimodal treatments and advances in systemic therapies, which include a combination of surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Thus, interest abounds in understanding the mechanisms that drive brain metastases so that they can be targeted with preventive therapeutic strategies and in understanding the molecular characteristics of brain metastases relative to the primary tumour so that they can inform targeted therapy selection. Increased molecular understanding of the disease will also drive continued development of novel immunotherapies and targeted therapies that have higher bioavailability beyond the blood-tumour barrier and drive advances in radiotherapies and minimally invasive surgical techniques. As these discoveries and innovations move from the realm of basic science to preclinical and clinical applications, future outcomes for patients with brain metastases are almost certain to improve.

Extra cost of brain metastases (BM) in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a French national hospital database analysis

Purpose

To assess the incremental cost associated with the management of patients with primary non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with brain metastases at the time of diagnosis.

Methods

Data were extracted from the French Hospital medical information database (Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information (PMSI)). Patients with non-squamous NSCLC were identified through a diagnosis of lung cancer and a prescription of bevacizumab or pemetrexed. All such patients hospitalised with lung cancer for the first time in 2013 and with metastases identified at the first hospitalisation were eligible. Two cohorts were identified, one with brain metastases (group B: n=971) and one with metastases at other sites (group A: n=1529). For each patient, total in-hospital medical resource consumption associated with the initial hospitalisation in 2013 and with any follow-up stays in the following 24 months was documented. Costs were attributed from official French national tariffs and expressed in 2017 euros.

Results

The mean number of hospitalisations per patient in the 24-moth follow-up period was 17 in group A and 21 in group B. >99% of patients in both groups received chemotherapy. 58% of patients in group B and 13% in group A were managed by radiotherapy. 37% in group B and 24% in group A received palliative care. The associated cost was €2979 per patient-month for patients in group B and €2426 for patients in group A, representing a differential cost of €553 per month. Radiotherapy (+€164/month) and palliative care (+€130/month) were the principal drivers of the incremental cost.

Conclusions

The presence of brain metastases at the time of diagnosis of non-squamous NSCLC carries a significant burden, and ways of lowering this burden are needed.