Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Osimertinib for Patients with Resected EGFR-mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Osimertinib With and Without Chemotherapy for Surgically Resected NSCLC

Introduction

Osimertinib is now approved as adjuvant therapy for stage IB to III NSCLC with EGFR mutations. Nevertheless, this treatment is lengthy and expensive. Its cost-effectiveness profile as monotherapy versus combination with chemotherapy is unknown. In this context, we investigate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant osimertinib with and without chemotherapy for NSCLC.

Methods

A set of Markov models was established to predict the cost-effectiveness of these different regimens. Data were sourced from the ADAURA trial's publications and protocols. Health outcomes were quantified as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated in U.S. dollars (USD) and USD per QALY, respectively. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program were used to predict additional costs to the U.S. health care system.

Results

Compared with treatment with chemotherapy alone, treatment with osimertinib plus chemotherapy yielded 5.86 QALYs with incremental costs of $414,607.69 (ICER = $380,347.85 per QALY). Treatment with osimertinib alone yielded 6.63 QALYs with an incremental cost of $402,224.32 (ICER = $213,447.59 per QALY). Osimertinib is only likely to be cost-effective if the willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY is $200,000 or more. The price of osimertinib had the strongest influence on cost-effectiveness. On the basis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data, these practices may cost the U.S. health care system an additional 8.9 billion USD/year.

Conclusions

Adjuvant osimertinib alone is more cost-effective than combination therapy, but only if the willingness-to-pay is high. A reduction in the price of osimertinib would improve its cost-effectiveness profile.

Re-evaluating adjuvant systemic therapy in cancer treatment: Scientific rigour to guide policy and practice

The landscape of adjuvant treatment in cancer care is rapidly changing. Recent randomised trials have led to regulatory approvals for neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormonal agents, targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors. This has brought about increasing complexity in this space, challenging previously established paradigms of adjuvant treatment. As these treatments are increasingly implemented, healthcare systesms around the world face the challenge of critically appraising these studies and determining whether the treatments proposed provide clinically meaningful benefit. This article considers the validity of these data in the context of fundamental principles of adjuvant therapy, as well as the scientific rigour of the relevant registration trials. We propose a greater role for practising oncologists in the regulatory and reimbursement process, using the Singaporean context as an example.

Meta-analysis of Targeted Therapies in EGFR-mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Efficacy and Safety of Osimertinib, Erlotinib, and Gefitinib as First-line Treatment

BACKGROUND

Some of the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases enhance somatic mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene within the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) domain. In such cases, first-line treatments are EGFR-TKIs, including osimertinib, erlotinib, or gefitinib. Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of first-line targeted therapies for EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC patients, focusing on osimertinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search was conducted on 3 electronic databases-Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science-from inception to May 2024 to locate relevant trials reporting the safety and efficacy of osimertinib, erlotinib, or gefitinib in treating EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. No language or data restriction was applied to the search strategy. The assessed effects were objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). RoB 2 tool was utilized to determine the risk of bias while R programming language performed all the statistical synthesis.

RESULTS

Out of 15,275 search results, only 19 trials were eligible for this meta-analysis. All the 3 EGFR-TKIs depicted effectiveness and safety among NSCLC patients, but osimertinib improved the ORR by 72% (95% CI: 65%, 78%) as compared with erlotinib (69% [95% CI: 58%, 79%]) and gefitinib (64% [95% CI: 64%, 78%]). Overall, the 3 EGFR-TKIs were effective by improving ORR 68% (95% CI: 63%, 73%). Similarly, osimertinib demonstrated highly effective impacts in disease control among NSCLC patients by 94% (95% CI: 91%, 97%) compared with gefitinib (68% [95% CI: 41%, 89%]). Overall, the 2 EGFR-TKIs were effective in disease control among NSCLC patients (82% [95% CI: 67%, 93%]).

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled analyses have shown that erlotinib, gefitinib, and osimertinib are safe and effective first-line treatment options for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. The meta-analysis outcomes have demonstrated that osimertinib, erlotinib, or gefitinib positively impact overall response rate and disease control.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant icotinib versus chemotherapy for patients with stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

Icotinib has been approved for adjuvant treatment of stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in China, yet the long-term costs and outcomes of this strategy are unknown. Thus, we examined the cost effectiveness of adjuvant icotinib, compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, for the treatment of resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

DESIGN

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, comparing 2-year adjuvant icotinib with four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using a Markov model. Model inputs were obtained from local data and literature. The influence of model parameters and assumptions was explored in sensitivity analyses. All costs are expressed in 2022 US dollars, and costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times the per capita gross domestic product.

SETTING

The Chinese healthcare system perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

INTERVENTIONS

Icotinib versus chemotherapy.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

The incremental cost per QALY gained with the use of 2-year icotinib, from the Chinese healthcare system perspective, was $3440.66 compared with adjuvant chemotherapy. At a WTP threshold of $40 500, adjuvant icotinib was the optimal treatment in over 99% of replications. The interpretation of the results was insensitive to model and input assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant icotinib may be a cost-effective treatment for resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC as the WTP threshold is set at $40 500 per QALY.

A narrative review on perioperative systemic therapy in non-small cell lung cancer

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is operable still carries a high risk of recurrence, approaching 50% of all operable cases despite adding adjuvant chemotherapy. However, the utilization of immunotherapy and targeted therapy moving beyond the metastatic NSCLC setting and into early-stage perioperative management has generated tremendous enthusiasm and has been practice-changing. Adjuvant atezolizumab in NSCLC first demonstrated a clinical benefit with an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Then, with studies studying a significant benefit in major pathologic response in surgical patients treated preoperatively with immunotherapy compared to only chemotherapy, neoadjuvant nivolumab and chemotherapy were evaluated and showed significant event-free survival benefit leading to subsequent studies evaluating perioperative immunotherapy and chemotherapy. Meanwhile, with regards to targeted therapies, adjuvant osimertinib in EGFR-mutated NSCLC and adjuvant alectinib in ALK-rearranged NSCLC have both received regulatory approvals following demonstrated clinical benefit in clinical trials. With rapidly evolving changes in the field, new combinations such as multiple immunotherapy agents and antibody-drug conjugates in development, perioperative NSCLC management has quickly become complicated with different pathways to perioperative treatment. Furthermore, circulating tumor DNA and studies looking at better tools to prognosticate immunotherapy response will help with decision-making regarding which patients should receive immunotherapy and if so, either only pre-operatively or both pre- and post-operatively. In this review, we look at the evolution of systemic therapy in the perioperative setting from adjuvant chemotherapy to adjuvant immunotherapy to perioperative immunotherapy and look at perioperative targeted therapy while looking ahead to future considerations.

Cost-effectiveness of sotorasib as a second-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer with KRASG12C mutation in China and the United States

Purpose

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sotorasib versus docetaxel in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with KRASG12C mutation from the China and United States'social perspective.

Materials and Methods

A Markov model that included three states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and death) was developed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental QALY were calculated for the two treatment strategies. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the factors that had a greater impact on the model results, and tornado diagrams were used to present the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed with 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Assume distributions based on parameter types and randomly sample all parameter distributions each time., The results were presented as cost-effectiveness acceptable curves.

Results

This economic evaluation of data from the CodeBreak 200 randomized clinical trial. In China, sotorasib generated 0.44 QAYL with a total cost of $84372.59. Compared with docetaxel, the ICER value of sotorasib was $102701.84/QALY, which was higher than willingness to pay (WTP), so sotorasib had no economic advantage. In the US, sotorasib obtained 0.35 QALY more than docetaxel, ICER was $15,976.50/QALY, which was more than 1 WTP but less than 3 WTP, indicating that the increased cost of sotorasib was acceptable. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of sotorasib having economic benefits gradually increased when the cost of follow-up examination was reduced in China. And there was no influence on the conclusions within the range of changes in China. When the willingness to pay (WTP) exceeds $102,500, the probability of sotorasib having cost effect increases from 0% to 49%.

Conclusion

Sotorasib had a cost effect from the perspective in the United States. However, sotorasib had no cost effect from the perspective in China, and only when the WTP exceeds $102,500, the probability of sotorasib having cost effect increases from 0% to 49%.

Osimertinib in the treatment of resected EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States

Background: In the double-blind phase III ADAURA randomized clinical trial, adjuvant osimertinib showed a substantial overall survival benefit in patients with stage IB to IIIA, EGFR-mutated, completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of adjuvant osimertinib to placebo in patients with stage IB to IIIA, EGFR-mutated, resected NSCLC. Methods: Based on the results obtained from the ADAURA trial, a Markov model with three-state was employed to simulate patients who were administered either osimertinib or placebo until disease recurrence or completion of the study period (3 years). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to explore the robustness of the model. Results: Osimertinib produced additional 1.59 QALYs with additional costs of $492,710 compared to placebo, giving rise to ICERs of $309,962.66/QALY. The results of the univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that the utility of disease-free survival (DFS), cost of osimertinib, and discount rate had the greatest impact on the outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that osimertinib exhibited a 0% chance of being considered cost-effective for patients using a WTP threshold $150,000/QALY. Conclusion: In our model, osimertinib was unlikely to be cost-effective compared to placebo for stage IB to IIIA, EGFR-mutated, completely resected NSCLC patients from the perspective of a U.S. payer at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

Economic evaluation of adjuvant therapy with osimertinib in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer and mutated EGFR

PURPOSE

The ADAURA trial demonstrated the superiority of osimertinib over a placebo with regard to disease-free survival, showing it to be indicated as an adjuvant therapy for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer with mutated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The aim of the present study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis and an analysis of the budgetary impact of adjuvant therapy with osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR who had undergone resection surgery with curative intent.

METHODS

Analyses were based on the outcomes of the ADAURA clinical trial and were conducted through a Spanish National Health Service perspective. The outcome measures used were quality-adjusted life years (QALY).

RESULTS

The average overall cost of adjuvant treatment with osimertinib over a period of 100 months in the overall sample of trial patients (stages IB-IIIA) was 220,961 €, compared with 197,849 € in the placebo group. Effectiveness, estimated according to QALY, was 6.26 years in the osimertinib group and 5.96 years in the placebo group, with the incremental cost-utility ratio being 77,040 €/QALY. With regard to the budgetary impact, it was estimated that, in 2021, approximately 1130 patients would be subsidiaries to receive osimertinib. This pertains to a difference of 17,375,330 € over 100 months to fund this treatment relative to no treatment.

CONCLUSION

Taking into account a Spanish threshold of 24,000 €/QALY, the reduction in the acquisition cost of osimertinib will have to be greater than 10%, to obtain a cost-effective alternative.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment of patients with stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer, PD-L1+≥50% of tumor cells in France: A modeling study

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus best supportive care (BSC) as adjuvant treatment following resection and platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumours have a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 50% of tumour cells and excluding those with ALK/EGFR mutations, from a French collective perspective.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A five state Markov model over a 20-year time horizon was considered, including disease-free survival (DFS1) from IMpower010 trial, three progression states (locoregional recurrence, first and second-line metastatic recurrence) and death. Utilities, quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements associated to adverse events, costs, resource use, and transition probabilities were considered in the model. These inputs were sourced from IMpower010 trial, literature, and clinical experts' opinion. Model uncertainty was assessed through deterministic, probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Atezolizumab was associated with a QALY gain of 1.662, mainly driven by additional time spent in the DFS state, and a life-year gain of 2.112 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for atezolizumab versus BSC was €21,348/QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses highlighted that uncertainty within the model had limited impact on results. Changing the DFS survival curves to other plausible distributions produced ICERs below €20,000/QALY. Introducing an increasing proportion of cured patients (91.5%) from year two to year five reduced the ICER to €13,083/QALY, while including a loss of efficacy at year two in the atezolizumab treatment arm increased the ICER to €33,755/QALY.

DISCUSSION

Atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment in stage II-IIIA NSCLC resected patients with PDL1 ≥ 50% and without ALK/EGFR mutations has a lower ICER than other oncology drugs in France and a similar ICER to other adjuvant treatment in oncology.

Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Osimertinib in Patients with Resected EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

For many patients with resected epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), current standard of care (SoC) is adjuvant chemotherapy; however, disease recurrence remains high. Based on positive results from ADAURA (NCT02511106), adjuvant osimertinib was approved for treatment of resected stage IB‒IIIA EGFRm NSCLC.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant osimertinib in patients with resected EGFRm NSCLC.

METHODS

A five-health-state, state-transition model with time dependency was developed to estimate lifetime (38 years) costs and survival of resected EGFRm patients treated with adjuvant osimertinib or placebo (active surveillance), with/without prior adjuvant chemotherapy, using a Canadian Public Healthcare perspective. Transitions between health states were modeled using ADAURA and FLAURA (NCT02296125) data, Canadian life tables, and real-world data (CancerLinQ Discovery^®). The model used a 'cure' assumption: patients remaining disease free for 5 years after treatment completion for resectable disease were deemed 'cured.' Health state utility values and healthcare resource usage estimates were derived from Canadian real-world evidence.

RESULTS

In the reference case, adjuvant osimertinib treatment led to a mean 3.20 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; (11.77 vs 8.57) per patient, versus active surveillance. The modeled median percentage of patients alive at 10 years was 62.5% versus 39.3%, respectively. Osimertinib was associated with mean added costs of Canadian dollars (C$)114,513 per patient and a cost/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) of C$35,811 versus active surveillance. Model robustness was demonstrated by scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cost-effectiveness assessment, adjuvant osimertinib was cost-effective compared with active surveillance for patients with completely resected stage IB‒IIIA EGFRm NSCLC after SoC.