Cost effectiveness of personalized therapy for first-line treatment of stage IV and recurrent incurable adenocarcinoma of the lung

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients with Unresectable Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer with PD-L1 Expression Status in Japan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Atezolizumab has demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the IMpower110 trial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab as the first-line treatment for patients with unresectable advanced NSCLC, including programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1)-positive probability testing, from the perspective of healthcare costs in Japan.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis model for atezolizumab, including PD-L1-positive probability testing, was used to construct a partitioned survival model with three health states. To assess the robustness, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted. The acceptable probability was defined as the probability of willingness-to-pay (WTP) over the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Multiple repetitions at WTP thresholds were calculated by continuously reducing the atezolizumab price.

RESULTS

The ICER per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for atezolizumab therapy only for patients with high PD-L1 expression compared to platinum-based chemotherapy for all patients was 31,975,792 yen per QALY. This is higher than the WTP threshold of 15,000,000 yen. If the cost of atezolizumab were reduced to 54% of the original cost (563,917 yen), the strategy of using atezolizumab for patients with high PD-L1 could become more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated that atezolizumab was not cost-effective compared to platinum-based chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable advanced NSCLC. However, we suggest that the price of atezolizumab should be reduced to 54% of the original cost to meet the WTP threshold of 15,000,000 yen per QALY.

Challenges and opportunities in building a health economic framework for personalized medicine in oncology

Personalized medicine has allowed for knowledge at an individual level for several diseases and this has led to improvements in prevention and treatment of various types of neoplasms. Despite the greater availability of tests, the costs of genomic testing and targeted therapies are still high for most patients, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Although value frameworks and health technology assessment are fundamental to allow decision-making by policymakers, there are several concerns in terms of personalized medicine pharmacoeconomics. A global effort may improve these tools in order to allow access to personalized medicine for an increasing number of patients with cancer.

Clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of liquid biopsy application in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a modelling approach

PURPOSE

Targeted therapies are effective therapeutic approaches in advanced stages of NSCLC and require precise molecular profiling to identify oncogenic drivers. Differential diagnosis on a molecular level contributes to clinical decision making. Liquid biopsy (LB) use has demonstrated its potential to serve as an alternative to tissue biopsy (TB) particularly in cases where tissue sampling is not feasible or insufficient. We aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of ctDNA-based LB use (molecular multigene testing) according to German care guidelines for metastatic NSCLC.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and clinical benefits associated with the use of LB as an add-on to TB according to the guidelines for NSCLC patients. Usual care TB served as comparator. A microsimulation model was used to simulate a cohort of non-squamous NSCLC patients stage IV. The parameters used for modelling were obtained from the literature and from the prospective German CRISP registry ("Clinical Research platform Into molecular testing, treatment, and outcome of non-Small cell lung carcinoma Patients"). For each pathway, average direct medical costs, and QALYs gained per patient were used for calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

RESULTS

The use of LB as an add-on was costlier (€144,981 vs. €144,587) but more effective measured in QALYs (1.20 vs. 1.19) for the care pathway of NSCLC patients (ICER €53,909/QALY). Cost-effectiveness was shown for EGFR-mutated patients (ICER €-13,247/QALY).

CONCLUSION

Including LB as an add-on into the care pathway of advanced NSCLC has positive clinical effects in terms of QALYs accompanied by a moderate cost-effectiveness.

First-line Immuno-chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Introduction

Many randomized controlled trials have indicated that immuno-chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits, though the cost of immuno-chemotherapy was so prohibitive and the options were varied. This investigation aimed at evaluating effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness for immuno-chemotherapy as a first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC patients.

Methods

Multiple scientific literature repositories were searched for clinical studies where immuno-chemotherapy was regarded as the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC, which were published in English between Jan 1, 2000, and Nov 30, 2021. This study conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based upon US-resident payer perspectives. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated through NMA. In addition, costings, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost–benefit ratio (ICER) were estimated by CEA.

Results

We identified 200 relevant search records, of which four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2,793 patients) were included. NMA demonstrated that the effect of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was ranked at a more elevated position in comparison to other immuno-chemotherapy options and chemotherapy alone, within the general population. The influence of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy was ranked higher within populations experiencing non-brain metastases (NBMs) andbrain metastases (BMs), respectively. The CEA revealed that the ICERs of immuno-chemotherapy over chemotherapyalone were higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY in any population. However, treatment with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy were more favorable health advantages than other immuno-chemotherapy regimens and chemotherapy alone, and the results were 1.02 QALYs and 0.89 QALYs within overall populations and populations with BMs, respectively.

Conclusion

The NMA and cost-effectiveness investigation demonstrated that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could be an optimal first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC when compared with other immuno-chemotherapy regimens. Durvalumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be the most favorable first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC with BMs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sugemalimab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in Chinese patients with metastatic NSCLC

INTRODUCTION

Because of its low immunogenicity and associated risk of toxicity, sugemalimab is expected to reshape the first-line treatment landscape for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China. However, it remains unclear whether the use of expensive sugemalimab is cost-effective in this population.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed based on the GEMSTONE-302 study to assess the efficacy of sugemalimab in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Efficacy and safety data were entered, with costs and utility values derived from the literature, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated, and univariate sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. We also considered cost-effectiveness in two different treatment regimen scenarios after disease progression.

RESULTS

Compared with the placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy, patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with sugemalimab plus platinum-based chemotherapy saw an increase of 0.56 life-years (LYs) and 0.41 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and patients with squamous NSCLC resulted in an ICER per QALY of $45,280.02. Patients with nonsquamous metastatic NSCLC resulted in an ICER of $45,294.15 per QALY. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that disease-free survival utility had the greatest impact on the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for QALYs was $27,354/QALY, sugemalimab, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, was more cost-effective than the placebo.

CONCLUSION

From a Chinese health care system perspective, first-line treatment of squamous or nonsquamous metastatic NSCLC with sugemalimab plus platinum-based chemotherapy may have cost-effectiveness compared with placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy at a WTP threshold of $27,354/QALY.

Economic evaluation of FLOT and ECF/ECX perioperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

The perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin plus docetaxel (FLOT) was recommended by the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology Guidelines for gastric cancer (2018 edition) for patients with resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (class IIA). However, the economic impact of FLOT chemotherapy in China remains unclear. The analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of FLOT versus epirubicin, cisplatin plus fluorouracil or capecitabine (ECF/ECX) in patients with locally advanced resectable tumours.

DESIGN

We developed a Markov model to compare the healthcare and economic outcomes of FLOT and ECF/ECX in patients with resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Costs were estimated from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. Clinical and utility inputs were derived from the FLOT4 phase II/III clinical trial and published literature. Sensitivity analyses were employed to assess the robustness of our result. The annual discount rate for costs and health outcomes was set at 5%.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) was calculated as the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

RESULTS

The base-case analysis found that compared with ECF/ECX, the use of FLOT chemotherapy was associated with an additional 1.08 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of US$851/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis results suggested that the HR of overall survival and progression-free survival had the greatest impact on the ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that FLOT was more likely to be cost-effective compared with ECF/ECX at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$31 513/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with locally advanced resectable tumours, the FLOT chemotherapy is a cost-effective treatment option compared with ECF/ECX in China.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01216644.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Versus Durvalumab as First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the USA

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Durvalumab and atezolizumab are approved as first-line therapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Although cost-effectiveness analyses compared these immunotherapy drugs with standard chemotherapy-alone regimens, no head-to-head cost-effectiveness comparisons for these treatments exist. The aim of the present analysis is to determine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab and atezolizumab as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer from the US payers' perspective.

METHODS

This study is based on two placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trials: CASPIAN and IMpower133. A Markov model was developed to simulate the three health states: progression-free survival, progressed disease, and death in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Transition probabilities were estimated from the clinical trial survival curves and extended with life-time modelling. Health utilities and direct costs of adverse event treatment were included. Main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life-years saved (QALYS). Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of variables on the ICER.

RESULTS

Durvalumab group has a cost of $187,503 with an effectiveness of 1.08 while atezolizumab has a cost of $160,219 and an effectiveness of 0.932. Durvalumab is not cost-effective compared to atezolizumab with an ICER of $165,182 QALYS, which is over the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000. The model was most sensitive to durvalumab cost and the cost of treating durvalumab adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

With the ICER of durvalumab treatment group being very close to $150,000, setting a higher willingness-to-pay threshold or decreasing the drug cost through contract pricing can increase the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab compared to atezolizumab.

Pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy versus cetuximab plus chemotherapy to treat recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: An updated KEYNOTE-048 based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES

Recently, updated data from KEYNOTE-048 revealed that pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy could improve progression-free survival (PFS)2 compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov structure was conducted to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. cetuximab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic HNSCC from the United States payer's perspective. Total cost, health outcomes, and incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Additional analyses were conducted in the total population and in two different programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive scores (CPSs) (≥1 and ≥ 20) population. Sensitivity analysis were used to test the stability of the model.

RESULTS

When compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy, the pembrolizumab monotherapy strategy was dominated by lower cost and better efficacy in all three populations. The incremental costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) yielded by pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy were $16016.88 and 0.11 in the total population, and $24467.47 and 0.18 and $30448.46 and 0.20 in the populations with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 and CPS ≥ 20, respectively, leading to ICERs of $147876.14, $134237.84, and $153660.78 per QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

First-line treatment with pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy are cost-effective strategies compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy when the value of willingness-to-pay (WTP) was $150000 per QALY for the total and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 populations with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC.

The economic value of liquid biopsy for genomic profiling in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Background:

Liquid biopsy (LB) can detect actionable genomic alterations in plasma circulating tumor circulating tumor DNA beyond tissue testing (TT) alone in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of adding LB to TT in the Canadian healthcare system.

Methods:

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision analytic Markov model from the Canadian public payer (Ontario) perspective and a 2-year time horizon in patients with treatment-naïve stage IV non-squamous NSCLC and ⩽10 pack-year smoking history. LB was performed using the comprehensive genomic profiling Guardant360™ assay. Standard of care TT for each participating institution was performed. Costs and outcomes of molecular testing by LB + TT were compared to TT alone. Transition probabilities were calculated from the VALUE trial (NCT03576937). Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess uncertainty in the model.

Results:

Use of LB + TT identified actionable alterations in more patients, 68.5 versus 52.7% with TT alone. Use of the LB + TT strategy resulted in an incremental cost savings of $3065 CAD per patient (95% CI, 2195–3945) and a gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.02) versus TT alone. More patients received chemo-immunotherapy based on TT with higher overall costs, whereas more patients received targeted therapy based on LB + TT with net cost savings. Major drivers of cost-effectiveness were drug acquisition costs and prevalence of actionable alterations.

Conclusion:

The addition of LB to TT as initial molecular testing of clinically selected patients with advanced NSCLC did not increase system costs and led to more patients receiving appropriate targeted therapy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Camrelizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy Alone as the First-Line Treatment in Patients With IIIB-IV Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Without EGFR and ALK Alteration from a Perspective of Health - Care System in China

Objective: The CAMEL clinical trial (412 patients were randomly assigned to either camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (n = 205) or chemotherapy alone (n = 207)) demonstrated that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (CC) improved the overall survival time (OS) and progression-free survival time (PFS) of patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (non-sq NSCLC) without epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutations (EGFRm and ALKm) vs. chemotherapy (C) alone. Our objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of CC vs. C from a perspective of health - care system in China with a lifetime horizon to identify whether it will be cost-effective. Materials and Methods: A partitioned survival model (PSM) was applied for patients with IIIB-IV non-sq NSCLC without EGFRm and ALKm. Transition parameters and proportions of three health states were derived from the CAMEL trial. The model was designed using a lifetime horizon, a 21-day cycle, and a 5% discount rate of costs and outcomes. It was deemed cost-effective in China if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value is less than $32,457 per quality adjusted life-year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the influence of parameter uncertainty on the results. Results: In the base-case analysis, we found that the ICER of CC compared with C is $-7,382.72/QALY which meant that CC had lower costs and better outcomes. The results of the sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the result was robust for the ICERs never transcending the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Conclusion: Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is an obviously cost-effective therapeutic regime for patients of IIIB-IV non-sq NSCLC without EGFRm and ALKm in China at a $32,457 WTP threshold.

First-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical trial of Keynote-604 showed that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We aim to assess the efficacy and cost of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment setting of ES-SCLC from the United States (US) payers' perspective.

METHODS

A synthetical Markov model was used to evaluate cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus platinum-etoposide(EP) versus EP in first-line therapy for ES-SCLC from the data of Keynote-604. Lifetime costs life-years(LYs), quality adjusted LYs(QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios(ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Furthermore, we performed subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

Pembrolizumab plus EP resulted in additional 0.18 QALYs(0.32 LYs) and corresponding incremental costs $113,625, resulting an ICER of $647,509 per QALY versus EP. The price of pembrolizumab had a significant impact on ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that pembrolizumab combined chemotherapy may become a cost-effective option with a probability of 0%. Besides, subgroup analysis suggested that all subgroups were not cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the US payer, pembrolizumab plus EP is not a cost-effective option for first-line treatment patients with ES-SCLC at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

Atezolizumab compared to chemotherapy for first-line treatment in non-small cell lung cancer with high PD-L1 expression: a cost-effectiveness analysis from US and Chinese perspectives

Background

The IMpower110 trial revealed that atezolizumab treatment had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with high-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. The purpose of the present study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy for first-line treatment in metastatic NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression, from the perspective of US and Chinese payers.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed based on information from the IMpower110 clinical trial to estimate cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Costs were estimated from US and Chinese payer perspectives. The impact of uncertainty was explored by performing one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

In the United States, treatment with atezolizumab was estimated to increase 0.87 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of $123,424/QALY. In China, the use of atezolizumab cost an additional $68,489 compared with chemotherapy, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $78,936/QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost of atezolizumab was the most influential factor in both countries.

Conclusions

In the United States, which had a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 to $150,000 per QALY, atezolizumab was a cost-effective strategy for first-line treatment in metastatic NSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression when compared to chemotherapy. For China, with a WTP threshold of $33,210 per QALY, atezolizumab was not considered good-value treatment for NSCLC, and a price reduction of 52% appeared to be justified.

First-line Cemiplimab versus Standard Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with at Least 50% Programmed Cell Death Receptor Ligand-1 Positivity: Analysis of Cost-effectiveness

AIMS

The EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial showed that cemiplimab significantly prolongs the duration of progression-free survival and overall survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with at least 50% programmed cell death receptor ligand-1 (PD-L1) positivity, yet the financial burden may limit its use. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab versus chemotherapy in a US setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model, with three mutually exclusive health states, was used to compare the expected health outcomes and cost of cemiplimab with chemotherapy. Survival data and transition probabilities were collected from the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial. Utility values and costs are publicly available from open sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted in both the whole population and subgroups to test the robustness of the parameters and structure.

RESULTS

Treatment of NSCLC with cemiplimab yielded an extra 1.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of $98 211 compared with chemotherapy, associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $91 891/QALY and an incremental net health benefit of 0.087 QALYs at a willingness to pay threshold of $100 000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that cemiplimab provided an 83.2% probability of being cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the price of cemiplimab was the chief driver in this model. A subgroup analysis showed that cemiplimab was the preferred incremental net health benefit in more than half of the subgroups, including patients with squamous type disease and metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Cemiplimab is a cost-effective option in the first-line treatment of NSCLC in patients who are at least 50% PD-L1 positive from an American perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of precision diagnostic testing for precision medicine approaches against non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review

Precision diagnostic testing (PDT) employs appropriate biomarkers to identify cancer patients that may optimally respond to precision medicine (PM) approaches, such as treatments with targeted agents and immuno-oncology drugs. To date, there are no published systematic appraisals evaluating the cost-effectiveness of PDT in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To address this gap, we conducted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses searches for the years 2009-2019. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards were employed to screen, assess and extract data. Employing base costs, life years gained or quality-adjusted life years, as well as willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for each country, net monetary benefit was calculated to determine cost-effectiveness of each intervention. Thirty-seven studies (50%) were included for analysis; a further 37 (50%) were excluded, having failed population-, intervention-, comparator-, outcomes- and study-design criteria. Within the 37 studies included, we defined 64 scenarios. Eleven scenarios compared PDT-guided PM with non-guided therapy [epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), n = 5; programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), n = 6]. Twenty-eight scenarios compared PDT-guided PM with chemotherapy alone (anaplastic lymphoma kinase, n = 3; EGFR, n = 17; PD-L1, n = 8). Twenty-five scenarios compared PDT-guided PM with chemotherapy alone, while varying the PDT approach. Thirty-four scenarios (53%) were cost-effective, 28 (44%) were not cost-effective, and two were marginal, dependent on their country's WTP threshold. When PDT-guided therapy was compared with a therapy-for-all patients approach, all scenarios (100%) proved cost-effective. Seven of 37 studies had been structured appropriately to assess PDT-PM cost-effectiveness. Within these seven studies, all evaluated scenarios were cost-effective. However, 81% of studies had been poorly designed. Our systematic analysis implies that more robust health economic evaluation could help identify additional approaches towards PDT cost-effectiveness, underpinning value-based care and enhanced outcomes for patients with NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Durvalumab Plus Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

In the CASPIAN trial, durvalumab + chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in patients with extensive-stage SCLC from the US healthcare system perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A comprehensive Markov model was adapted to evaluate cost and effectiveness of durvalumab combination versus platinum/etoposide alone in the first-line therapy of extensive-stage SCLC based on data from the CASPIAN study. The main endpoints included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-e-ectiveness ratios (ICERs). Model robustness was assessed with sensitivity analysis, and additional subgroup analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Durvalumab + chemotherapy therapy resulted in an additional 0.27 LYs and 0.20 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $464,711.90 per QALY versus the chemotherapy treatment. The cost of durvalumab has the greatest influence on this model. Subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained higher than $150,000/QALY (the willingness-to-pay threshold in the United States) across all patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Durvalumab in combination with platinum/etoposide is not a cost-effective option in the first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage SCLC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for cT2-4N0-1 non-small cell lung cancer patients during initial treatment phase

Objective

The choice between neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) remains controversial in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There is no significant difference in NAC and AC’s effectiveness. We investigate the cost-effectiveness of NAC versus AC for NSCLC.

Method

A decision tree model was designed from a payer perspective to compare NAC and AC treatments for NSCLC patients. Parameters included overall survival (OS), surgical complications, chemotherapy adverse events (AEs), treatment initiation probability, treatment time frame, treatment cost, and quality of life (QOL). Sensitivity analyses were performed to characterize model uncertainty in the base cases.

Result

AC treatment strategy produced a cost saving of ¥3064.90 and incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of 0.10 years per patient with the same OS. NAC would be cost-effective at a ¥35,446/QALY threshold if the median OS of NAC were 2.3 months more than AC. The model was robust enough to handle variations to all input parameters except OS. In the probability sensitivity analysis, AC remained dominant in 54.4% of simulations.

Conclusion

The model cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that with operable NSCLC, AC treatment is more cost-effective to NAC. If NAC provides a longer survival advantage, this treatment strategy may be cost-effective. The OS is the main factor that influences cost-effectiveness and should be considered in therapeutic regimes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-021-00280-w.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Dacomitinib versus Gefitinib in the First-Line Treatment of EGFR-Positive Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background

The objective of the study was to evaluate the economics of dacomitinib and gefitinib in the first-line treatments for EGFR-positive advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US payer perspective.

Methods

We developed the partition survival model to compare the lifetime cost and health outcomes of dacomitinib versus gefitinib. Transition probabilities were collected from the ARCHER 1050 trial. The model only considered the direct medical costs. Utility values were taken from published research.

Results

Compared to gefitinib, dacomitinib increased 0.706 QALY and the cost increased $232,359.32. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $329,120.85 per QALY in the base case. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of drugs and the utility had more influence on the results than other parameters. Probability sensitivity analysis reflected that the parameters had little effect on the results.

Conclusion

Dacomitinib could improve the health benefits and increase the overall costs. In this simulation, dacomitinib is not likely to be economical for first-line therapy of EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Comprehensive Comparison Between Adjuvant Targeted Therapy and Chemotherapy for EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Patients: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background

Chemotherapy has been the current standard adjuvant treatment for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, while recent studies showed benefits of epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to comprehensively evaluate the benefit of EGFR-TKI compared with chemotherapy for early-stage EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients after resection from the perspective of the Chinese health care system.

Method

A Markov model was established. Clinical data were based on the phase 3, ADJUVANT trial, where stage II-IIIA, EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients were randomized into gefitinib group or chemotherapy group after resection. Cost parameters mainly included costs of drugs, examinations, and adverse events (AEs). Effect parameters were evaluated by quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Outcomes contained incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER), average cost-effective ratio (ACER), and net benefit. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set as 3 times per capita gross domestic product ($30,828/QALY). Sensitivity analyses were also conducted to verify the stability of the model.

Results

Patients who received gefitinib had both a higher cost ($12,057.98 vs. $11,883.73) and a higher QALY (1.55 vs. 1.42) than patients who received chemotherapy. With an ICER of $1,345.62/QALY, adjuvant gefitinib was of economic benefit compared with chemotherapy. The ACER and net benefit were also consistent (gefitinib vs. chemotherapy, ACER: $7,802.30/QALY vs. $8,392.77/QALY; net benefit: $35,584.85 vs. $31,767.17). Sensitivity analyses indicated the stability of the model and the impact of utility.

Conclusion

Adjuvant EGFR-TKI application for early-stage EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients was cost-effective compared with chemotherapy, which might provide a reference for clinical decision-making and medical insurance policy formulation in China.

First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from China

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel-based chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.Methods: A Markov model was developed based on the IMpower130 clinical trial. Drug costs and health state utility were obtained from the literature. Outcomes included life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty.Results: When compared to chemotherapy alone, atezolizumab plus chemotherapy provides an additional 0.34 LY and 0.19 QALY, and has an ICER of $180,560.15 per additional LY gained and that of $325,328.71 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to changes in atezolizumab cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was a 0% probability that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at willingness-to-pay values of $30,828 per QALY. If the WTP threshold increased to $325,000 per QALY, atezolizumab plus chemotherapy has a 50% chance to be cost-effective.Conclusions: From the Chinese healthcare system perspective, atezolizumab combination is not cost-effective for first-line therapy of advanced non-squamous NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus placebo plus endocrine therapy in HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND: The 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend first-line treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer with endocrine therapy plus or minus palbociclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitor. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ribociclib, a new orally available selective CDK4/6 inhibitor. While gains in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from ribociclib are important for clinical and treatment outcomes, trade-offs in adverse events (AEs) and additional costs necessitate cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to assist consideration by third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients. OBJECTIVES: To (a) develop a Markov model and (b) determine the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone as treatment for premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. METHODS: A lifetime 3-state Markov model ("stable," "progressed," and "dead" health states) was developed using a U.S. payer perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated based on OS and PFS outcomes from the randomized controlled phase 3 trial MONALEESA-7. These Kaplan-Meier curves were extended to lifetime by estimating best-fit distributions using loglogistic distribution for ribociclib curves and Weibull distribution for placebo curves. Costs were obtained from national data sources using 2019 U.S. dollars (USD) and discounted by 3%. Utilities were obtained via published breast cancer literature and were included for each health state and for time spent with each AE. Results were expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as USD per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Treatments were assumed to be cost-effective based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Base-case, 1-way sensitivity tornado diagrams and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated changes in the ICER and were driven by the cost of ribociclib and the utility of remaining in the stable health state. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy was cost-effective at an ICER of $124,513 per QALY when compared with endocrine therapy alone at a WTP threshold of $150,000. The ribociclib plus endocrine therapy arm had an effectiveness of 5.28 QALYs and a total cost of $385,112, while placebo plus endocrine therapy provided only 2.46 QALYs at a lower total cost of $67.246. The model was sensitive to the cost of ribociclib and the utility of time spent in the stable health state. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that endocrine therapy alone was cost-effective until a WTP of $125,000 and was cost-effective 72% of the time at the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy is more cost-effective than endocrine therapy alone. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic benefits of ribociclib for the treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer as they make value-based formulary decisions. Further CEAs should be considered as direct treatment comparison trials between CDK4/6 inhibitors are completed in the future. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients

Objectives

Recent studies showed prolonged survival for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)‐mutant non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with both monotherapies and combined therapies. However, high costs limit clinical applications. Thus, we conducted this cost‐effectiveness analysis to explore an optimal first‐line treatment for advanced EGFR‐mutant NSCLC patients.

Materials and Methods

Survival data were extracted from six clinical trials, including ARCHER1050 (dacomitinib vs. gefitinib); FLAURA (osimertinib vs. gefitinib/erlotinib); JO25567 and NEJ026 (bevacizumab +erlotinib vs. erlotinib); NEJ009 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib); and NCT02148380 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib vs. chemotherapy) trials. Cost‐related data were obtained from hospitals and published literature. The effect parameter (quality‐adjusted life year [QALY]) was the reflection of both survival and utility. Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER), average cost‐effectiveness ratio (ACER), and net benefit were calculated, and the willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) threshold was set at $30828/QALY from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the stability of results.

Results

We compared treatment groups with control groups in each trial. ICERs were $1897750.74/QALY (ARCHER1050), $416560.02/QALY (FLAURA), ‐$477607.48/QALY (JO25567), ‐$464326.66/QALY (NEJ026), ‐$277121.22/QALY (NEJ009), ‐$399360.94/QALY (gefitinib as comparison, NCT02148380), and ‐$170733.05/QALY (chemotherapy as comparison, NCT02148380). Moreover, ACER and net benefit showed that the combination of EGFR‐TKI with chemotherapy and osimertinib was of more economic benefit following first‐generation EGFR‐TKIs. Sensitivity analyses showed that the impact of utilities and monotherapy could be cost‐effective with a 50% cost reduction.

Conclusion

First‐generation EGFR‐TKI therapy remained the most cost‐effective treatment option for advanced EGFR‐mutant NSCLC patients. Our results could serve as both a reference for both clinical practice and the formulation of medical insurance reimbursement.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing companion diagnostic tests for EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 versus next-generation sequencing (NGS) in advanced adenocarcinoma lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The treatment of choice for advanced non-small cell lung cancer is selected according to the presence of specific alterations. Patients should undergo molecular testing for relevant modifications and the mutational status of EGFR and translocation of ALK and ROS1 are commonly tested to offer the best intervention. In addition, the tests costs should also be taken in consideration. Therefore, this work was performed in order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a unique exam using NGS (next generation sequencing) versus other routinely used tests which involve RT-PCR and FISH.

METHODS

The target population was NSCLC, adenocarcinoma, and candidates to first-line therapy. Two strategies were undertaken, strategy 1 corresponded to sequential tests with EGFR RT-PCR, then FISH for ALK and ROS1. Strategy 2 differed from 1 in that ALK and ROS1 translocation testing were performed simultaneously by FISH. Strategy 3 considered single test next-generation sequencing, a platform that includes EGFR, ALK and ROS1 genes. A decision tree analysis was used to model genetic testing options. From the test results, a microsimulation model was nested to estimate survival outcomes and costs of therapeutic options.

RESULTS

The use of NGS added 24% extra true cases as well as extra costs attributed to the molecular testing. The ICER comparing NGS with sequential tests was US$ 3479.11/correct case detected. The NGS improved a slight gain in life years and QALYs.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicated that, although precise, the molecular diagnosis by NGS of patients with advanced stage NSCLC adenocarcinoma histology was not cost-effective in terms of quality-adjusted life years from the perspective of the Brazilian supplementary health system.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs. Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background: The CheckMate 227 trial has indicated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with chemotherapy significantly increases long-term survival in the first-line setting of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: A Markov model was built to estimate the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy as the first-line therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC based on outcomes data from the CheckMate 227 trial. We calculated the cost and health outcomes at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) in populations with different programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels (≥50, ≥1, and <1%) or a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) (≥10 mutations per megabase). Sensitivity analysis were used to test the model stability.

Results: The outcomes showed that the incremental costs and QALYs by using nivolumab plus ipilimumab were $124180.76 and 1.16, $70951.42 and 0.53, $144093.63 and 0.83 for the advanced NSCLC patients with a PD-L1 expression ≥50%, ≥1%, and <1%, which led to an incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) of $107403.72, $133732.20, and $172589.15 per QALY, respectively. For patients with a high TMB, nivolumab plus ipilimumab contributed an extra 2.04 QALYs at a cost of $69182.50 per QALY.

Conclusion: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy makes a better cost-effective strategy than chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression levels ≥50% and ≥1% or a high TMB, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, but not in the patients with a PD-L1 expression <1%.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the United States (US) payers' perspective in the first-line treatment.

METHODS

A mathematical Markov model was developed to estimate cost and effectiveness of atezolizumab combination therapy versus carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel alone in the first-line therapy of metastatic non-squamous NSCLC from the data of IMpower130. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were analyzed, and model robustness was assessed by sensitivity analysis. Additional subgroup analyses were performed as well.

RESULTS

Compared to chemotherapy, treatment with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy yields an increase of 0.16 QALYs with an increase in cost of $109,809.13, resulting in an ICER of $670,309.66 per QALY. The most influential factor in this model was the cost of atezolizumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was 0% probability that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) values of $150,000 per QALY. The results of subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained greater than $150,000/QALY across the all patient subgroups.

CONCLUSION

First-line treatment with atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel is not a cost-effective option in patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of icotinib versus whole-brain irradiation with or without chemotherapy in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with brain metastases

PURPOSE

Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with brain metastases (BM) have a poor prognosis. Despite the traditional methods including radiotherapy and chemotherapy, epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) might benefit patients on survival and quality of life. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of icotinib compared with whole-brain irradiation (WBI) with or without chemotherapy for NSCLC patients with BM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was conducted based on the data of BRAIN trial. We compared the economic benefit between icotinib and the combination of WBI and WBI plus chemotherapy group. We considered disease progression as intracranial progression and overall progression separately. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe the stability of the model. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) was set as 3× per capita gross domestic product ($25929/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) from the Chinese healthcare perspective.

RESULTS

When considering progression as intracranial progression and overall progression, respectively, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $14 882.64/QALY and $13 484.21/QALY between icotinib and WBI/WBI-chemotherapy. Besides, both of the average cost-effective ratio (ACER) and net benefit showed advantage of icotinib (ACER: $34 521.42/QALY for intracranial progression and $36 562.63/QALY for overall progression; net benefit: -$8407.36 for intracranial progression and -$9836.41 for overall progression). One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that no thresholds were encountered. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed even at a WTP under $18 000/QALY, icotinib could be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

Icotinib was cost-effective compared with WBI with or without chemotherapy.

Economic Impact of Next-Generation Sequencing Versus Single-Gene Testing to Detect Genomic Alterations in Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Using a Decision Analytic Model

PURPOSE

The aim of the current study was to assess the economic impact of using next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing strategies among patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and US commercial payers.

METHODS

A decision analytic model considered patients who were newly diagnosed with mNSCLC who received programmed death ligand 1 and genomic alteration tests— EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, MET, HER2, RET, and NTRK1—using upfront NGS (all alterations tested simultaneously plus KRAS), sequential testing (sequence of single-gene tests), exclusionary testing ( KRAS plus sequential testing), and hotspot panels ( EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF tested simultaneously plus single-gene tests or NGS for MET, HER2, RET, and NTRK1). Model outcomes for each strategy were time-to-test results, the proportion of patients identified harboring alterations with or without US Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies, and total testing costs. A budget impact analysis assessed the economic effects of increasing the proportion of NGS-tested patients.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical 1,000,000-member health plan, 2,066 Medicare-insured patients and 156 commercially insured patients were estimated to have mNSCLC and to be eligible for testing. Time-to-test results were 2.0 weeks for NGS and the hotspot panel, faster than exclusionary and sequential testing by 2.7 and 2.8 weeks, respectively. NGS was associated with cost savings for both CMS ($1,393,678; $1,530,869; and $2,140,795 less than exclusionary, sequential testing, and hotspot panels, respectively) and commercial payers ($3,809; $127,402; and $250,842 less than exclusionary, sequential testing, and hotspot panels, respectively). Increasing the proportion of NGS-tested patients translated into substantial cost savings for both CMS and commercial payers.

CONCLUSION

Use of upfront NGS testing in patients with mNSCLC was associated with substantial cost savings and shorter time-to-test results for both CMS and commercial payers.

Economic Value of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Cancer Drugs with Clinically Relevant Drug-Gene Associations: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenetic testing can provide predictive insights about the efficacy and safety of drugs used in cancer treatment. Although many drug-gene associations have been reported in the literature, the strength of evidence supporting each association can vary significantly. Even among the subgroup of drugs classified by the PharmGKB database to have a high or moderate level of evidence, there is limited information regarding the economic value of pharmacogenetic testing.

OBJECTIVES

To: (a) summarize the available pharmacoeconomic evidence assessing the value of pharmacogenetic testing for cancer drugs with clinically relevant drug-gene associations; (b) determine the quality of the studies that contain this evidence; and (c) discuss the quality of this evidence with respect to the level of evidence of the drug-gene associations.

METHODS

The PharmGKB database was used to identify cancer drugs with clinically relevant drug-gene associations graded high (1A, 1B) or moderate (2A, 2B). A systematic literature review was conducted using these drugs. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched to identify cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization studies comparing pharmacogenetic testing to an alternative. Cost and effect values from every relevant comparison within the studies were extracted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was either extracted or calculated for each comparison. Quality assessment was conducted for each study using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the data.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2,191 citations, of which 35 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pharmacoeconomic studies were available for the following drugs from the PharmGKB database: fluoropyrimidine, 6-mercaptopurine, irinotecan, carboplatin, cisplatin, erlotinib, gefitinib, cetuximab, panitumumab, and trastuzumab. The studies were conducted in Asia, Europe, Canada, the United States, and Mexico and reported cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and cost-minimization outcomes. The mean QHES score was 80 (SD = 22) for the studies of drug-gene pairs with high (1A, 1B) and moderate (2A, 2B) levels of evidence (1A = 82, 1B = 93, 2A = 71, and 2B = 74). There was variation across studies in terms of reporting. 109 relevant comparisons were identified within the studies. Of those that reported cost per life-year or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (n = 58 comparisons), pharmacogenetic testing was dominant in 21% overall and 42%, 21%, 17%, and 5% of the comparisons in Asia, Europe, Canada, and the United States, respectively. Variability was observed in the ICER values regardless of geographic region or drug. Pharmacogenetic testing was cost saving in 17 of 19 cost-minimization comparisons and was favored most frequently when compared with genetically indiscriminate strategies containing the drug of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

There was mixed evidence regarding the value of pharmacogenetic testing to guide cancer treatment. For future pharmacogenomic-related economic studies, we recommend prioritizing clinically relevant drug-gene associations and greater adherence to available best practice guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation studies.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this review. Part of Hussain's research time was supported by a Merit Review Award (I01 BX000545), Medical Research Service, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Hussain also reports personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, and France Foundation, outside the submitted work. Onukwugha reports grants from Pfizer and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, along with advisory board fees from Novo Nordisk, outside the submitted work. Faruque, Neuberger, and Noh have nothing to disclose.

Budget impact analysis of comprehensive genomic profiling in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

AIMS

Broad molecular profiling of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is strongly advised to optimize genomic matching with available targeted treatment options or investigational agents. Unlike conventional molecular diagnostic testing, or smaller hotspot panels, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) identifies genomic alterations across hundreds of clinically relevant cancer genes from a single tissue specimen. The present study sought to estimate the budget impact of increased use of CGP using a 324-gene panel (FoundationOne) vs non-CGP (represented by a mix of conventional molecular diagnostic testing and smaller NGS hotspot panels) and the number needed to test with CGP to gain 1 life year.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision analytic model was developed to assess the budget impact of increased CGP in advanced NSCLC from a US private payer perspective. Model inputs were based on published literature (epidemiology and treatment outcomes), real-world data (testing and rates, medical service costs), list prices for CGP and anti-cancer drugs, and assumptions for clinical trial participation.

RESULTS

Among 2 million covered lives, 532 had advanced NSCLC; 266 underwent molecular diagnostic testing. An increase in CGP among those tested, from 2% to 10%, was associated with $0.02 per member per month budget impact, of which $0.013 was attributable to costs of prolonged drug treatment and survival and $0.005 to testing cost. Approximately 12 patients would need to be tested with CGP to add 1 life year.

LIMITATIONS

The model incorporated certain assumptions to account for inputs with a limited evidence profile and simplify the possible post-CGP treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in CGP utilization from 2% to 10% among patients with advanced NSCLC undergoing molecular diagnostic testing was associated with a modest budget impact, most of which was attributable to increased use of more effective treatments and prolonged survival.

Lung cancer costs by treatment strategy and phase of care among patients enrolled in Medicare

Background

We studied trends in lung cancer treatment cost over time by phase of care, treatment strategy, age, stage at diagnosis, and histology.

Methods

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)‐Medicare database for years 1998‐2013, we allocated total and patient‐liability costs into the following phases of care for 145 988 lung cancer patients: prediagnosis, staging, surgery, initial, continuing, and terminal. Patients served as self‐controls to determine cancer‐attributable costs based on individual precancer diagnosis healthcare costs. We fit linear regression models to determine cost by age and calendar year for each stage at diagnosis, histology, and treatment strategy and presented all costs in 2017 US dollars.

Results

Monthly healthcare costs prior to lung cancer diagnosis were $861 for a 70 years old in 2017 and rose by an average of $17 per year (P < 0.001). Surgery in 2017 cost $30 096, decreasing by $257 per year (P = 0.007). Chemotherapy and radiation costs remained stable or increased for most stage and histology groups, ranging from $4242 to $8287 per month during the initial six months of care. Costs during the final six months of life decreased for those who died of lung cancer or other causes.

Conclusions

Cost‐effectiveness analyses of lung cancer control interventions in the United States have been using outdated and incomplete treatment cost estimates. Our cost estimates enable updated cost‐effectiveness analyses to determine the benefit of lung cancer control from a health economics point of view.

Estimated Cost of Anticancer Therapy Directed by Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in a Single-Center Study

Purpose

Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) detects several classes of genomic alterations across numerous genes simultaneously and can match more patients with genomically targeted therapies than conventional molecular profiling. The current study estimated the costs of anticancer drugs and overall survival (OS) for patients who were treated with matched and unmatched therapy.

Methods

Costs were estimated for patients with complete data (188 of 500 patients) from a prospective, nonrandomized study of patients with diverse refractory cancers who underwent CGP and were treated with matched or unmatched therapy. We assessed mean time to treatment failure (TTF) and mean observed OS. Patient-specific drug and administration costs were imputed for the first regimen after CGP on the basis of drug classes, unit costs, and time on treatment.

Results

Patients on matched (n = 122) versus unmatched (n = 66) therapy had longer mean TTF (+1.5 months) and observed OS (+2.4 months) and higher drug costs (+$38,065; all P < .01). Increased drug costs were largely attributable to the longer duration of therapy associated with extended TTF (66.3%) rather than higher monthly drug costs (33.7%). Incremental increases in TTF (+1.9 months v +1.2 months) and observed OS (+2.5 months v +2.1 months) between matched and unmatched therapies were larger for those who underwent CGP in earlier- versus later-line therapy. Incremental increases in drug costs between matched and unmatched therapies were lower for earlier- compared with later-line therapy (+$27,000 v +$43,000, respectively).

Conclusion

Matched therapy was associated with longer TTF, increased OS, and manageable incremental cost increases compared with unmatched therapy. Most of these increased costs were a result of the longer duration of therapy rather than higher monthly drug costs. The benefits of matching were numerically greater in earlier versus later lines of therapy, which is consistent with the value of early use of CGP.

Cost-Effectiveness of Osimertinib in Treating Newly Diagnosed, Advanced EGFR-Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess cost and effectiveness of osimertinib in treating newly diagnosed advanced non-small cell lung cancer with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation from a public payer's perspective in the U.S. and China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Markov models were developed to compare three treatment strategies: first-line use of osimertinib, first-line use of the standard first-generation EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) followed by the second-line use of osimertinib, and the standard first-generation EGFR-TKI therapy (standard care [SOC]). Clinical data, cost, and utility data were mainly derived from published literatures. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) between the treatments.

RESULTS

The resultant incremental cost per QALY gained for the first-line osimertinib versus SOC was $312,903 in the U.S. and $41,512 in China. The incremental cost per QALY for the second-line osimertinib versus SOC was $284,532 in the U.S. and $38,860 in China. The probability of the SOC strategy being cost-effective is 1.0 if the willingness to pay threshold is below $150,000/QALY in the U.S. and below $30,000/QALY in China.

CONCLUSION

Osimertinib as first-line treatment could gain more health benefits in comparison with standard EGFR-TKIs or second-line use of osimertinib. However, because of the high cost of treatment, the cost-effectiveness analyses were not in favor of the first-line use of osimertinib from a public payer's perspective in the U.S. and China.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Osimertinib as first-line treatment yielded the greatest health outcomes but is not a cost-effective strategy for lung cancer in the U.S. and China. The price of osimertinib has a substantial impact on economic outcomes.

Systematic review of health state utility values in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with a focus on previously treated patients

BACKGROUND

Health state utility values (HSUVs) are an important input to economic evaluations and the choice of HSUV can affect the estimate of relative cost-effectiveness between interventions. This systematic review identified utility scores for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), as well as disutilities or utility decrements relevant to the experience of patients with mNSCLC, by treatment line and health state.

METHODS

The MEDLINE®, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched (September 2016) for publications describing HSUVs in mNSCLC in any treatment line. The EQ-5D website, the School of Health and Related Research Health Utilities Database (ScHARRHUD) and major pharmacoeconomic and clinical conferences in 2015-2016 were also queried. Studies in adults with previously treated mNSCLC were selected for further analysis. The information extracted included study design, description of treatment and health state, respondent details, instrument and tariff, HSUV or (dis) utility decrement estimates, quality of study, and appropriateness for use in economic evaluations.

RESULTS

Of 1883 references identified, 36 publications of 34 studies were included: 19 reported EQ-5D scores; eight reported HSUVs from valuations of vignettes made by members of the public using standard gamble (SG) or time trade-off (TTO); two reported SG or TTO directly elicited from patients; two reported EQ-5D visual analogue scale scores only; one reported Assessment of Quality of Life instrument scores; one reported HSUVs for caregivers to patients with mNSCLC using the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey; and one estimated HSUVs based on expert opinion. The range of HSUVs identified for comparable health states showed how differences in study type, tariff, health state and the measures used can drive variation in HSUV estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides a set of published HSUVs that are relevant to the experience of adult patients previously treated for mNSCLC. Our review begins to address the challenge of identifying reliable estimates of utility values in mNSCLC that are suitable for use in economic evaluations, and also highlights how varying estimates result from differences in methodology.

Clinical Utility of Rapid EGFR Genotyping in Advanced Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Targeted therapy is the cornerstone of treatment of advanced EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Next-generation sequencing (NGS), the preferred method for genotyping, typically requires several weeks. Here, we assessed workflows designed to rapidly identify patients with actionable EGFR mutations and reduce time to initiation (TTI) of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-directed therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed rapid testing for EGFR L858R mutations and exon 19 deletions on paraffin-embedded or frozen section biopsy specimens from newly diagnosed patients with metastatic NSCLC by using an EGFR-specific assay (rapid test). To determine clinical utility, we assessed concordance with NGS results, turnaround time, and TTI of EGFR therapy, and we evaluated reimbursement data.

RESULTS

Between January 2015 and September 2017, we performed 243 rapid EGFR tests and identified EGFR mutations in 43 patients (18%). With NGS results as a reference, sensitivity and specificity of the rapid EGFR polymerase chain reaction assay were 98% and 100%, respectively. The median turnaround time for NGS was 14 days, compared with 7 days for rapid testing (P < .001). In the rapid group, 95% of patients received an EGFR inhibitor in the first-line setting. The median TTI of EGFR therapy was significantly shorter in the rapid cohort when compared with 121 historical cases (22 v 37 days; P = .01). Escalation of the initiative into an interdisciplinary ultra-rapid next-day frozen-section workflow for highly symptomatic patients (n = 8) resulted in a reduction in the median (± standard deviation) turnaround time to 1 ± 0.4 days and allowed several patients to initiate therapy within 1 week of biopsy. An extended 9-month clinical evaluation phase confirmed operational sustainability (turnaround times: ultra-rapid, 0.81 ± 0.4 days; rapid, 3 ± 1.5 days), and a 63% reimbursement rate indicated financial sustainability.

CONCLUSION

Rapid genotyping facilitates earlier initiation of EGFR-directed therapies without compromising NGS workflows.

Acquired Resistance to Erlotinib in EGFR Mutation-Positive Lung Adenocarcinoma among Hispanics (CLICaP)

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) all eventually develop acquired resistance to the treatment, with half of the patients developing EGFR T790M resistance mutations.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess histological and clinical characteristics and survival outcomes in Hispanic EGFR mutated lung cancer patients after disease progression.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

EGFR mutation-positive lung cancer patients (n = 34) with acquired resistance to the EGFR-TKI erlotinib were identified from 2011 to 2015. Post-progression tumor specimens were collected for molecular analysis. Post-progression interventions, response to treatment, and survival were assessed and compared among all patients and those with and without T790M mutations.

RESULTS

Mean age was 59.4 ± 13.9 years, 65% were never-smokers, and 53% had a performance status 0-1. All patients received erlotinib as first-line treatment. Identified mutations included: 60% DelE19 (Del746-750) and 40% L858R. First-line erlotinib overall response rate (ORR) was 61.8% and progression free survival (PFS) was 16.8 months (95% CI: 13.7-19.9). Acquired resistance mutations identified were T790M mutation (47.1%); PI3K mutations (14.7%); EGFR amplification (14.7%); KRAS mutation (5.9%); MET amplification (8.8%); HER2 alterations (5.9%, deletions/insertions in e20); and SCLC transformation (2.9%). Of patients, 79.4% received treatment after progression. ORR for post-erlotinib treatment was 47.1% (CR 2/PR 14) and median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI: 2.2-36.6). Median overall survival (OS) from treatment initiation was 32.9 months (95% CI: 30.4-35.3), and only the use of post-progression therapy affected OS in a multivariate analysis (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Hispanic patients with acquired resistance to erlotinib continued to be sensitive to other treatments after progression. The proportion of T790M+ patients appears to be similar to that previously reported in Caucasians.

Healthcare costs in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and disease progression during targeted therapy: a real-world observational study

AIMS

To assess healthcare costs during treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and following disease progression in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of medical records of US community oncology practices was conducted. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB/IV) diagnosed between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2015, initiated treatment with erlotinib or afatinib (first-line or second-line), and had disease progression. Monthly Medicare-paid costs were evaluated during the TKI therapy period and following progression.

RESULTS

The study included 364 patients. The total mean monthly cost during TKI therapy was $20,106 (95% confidence interval [CI] = $16,836-$23,376), of which 47.0% and 42.4% represented hospitalization costs and anti-cancer therapy costs, respectively. Following progression on TKI therapy (data available for 316 patients), total mean monthly cost was $19,274 (95% CI = $15,329-$23,218), and was higher in the 76.3% of patients who received anti-cancer therapy following progression than in the 23.7% of those who did not ($20,490 vs $15,364; p < .001). Among patients who received it, anti-cancer therapy ($11,198; 95% CI = $7,102-$15,295) represented 54.7% of total mean monthly cost. Among patients who did not receive anti-cancer therapy, hospitalization ($13,829; 95% CI = $4,922-$22,736) represented 90.0% of total mean monthly cost. Impaired performance status and brain metastases were significant predictors of increased cost during TKI therapy.

LIMITATIONS

The study design may limit the generalizability of findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare costs during TKI treatment and following progression appeared to be similar and were largely attributed to hospitalization and anti-cancer therapy. Notably, almost one-quarter of patients did not receive anti-cancer therapy following progression, potentially indicating an unmet need; hospitalization was the largest cost contributor for these patients. Additional effective targeted therapies are needed that could prolong progression-free survival, leading to fewer hospitalizations for EGFR mutation-positive patients.

Economic Considerations in the Use of Novel Targeted Therapies for Lung Cancer: Review of Current Literature

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death and economic burden worldwide. Despite the heavy toll of lung cancer, multiple new advances have improved patient outcomes, largely through precision medicine and targeted therapy. The associated rising economic burden however may impact the uptake of novel therapeutic agents in lung cancer, thereby limiting patient access. This article identifies and reviews economic evaluations of targeted agents in lung cancer in the era of precision medicine. Articles evaluating biomarker-directed test-and-treat strategies are also reviewed to evaluate the cost impact of novel therapeutic agents at a population level. The Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument is applied to assess the quality of included studies. Forty-six studies are reviewed and encompass studies of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies, anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors, vascular endothelial growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors and immunotherapy (programmed death-1 inhibitors). Key factors influencing results of economic analyses include comparators chosen, perspective used, magnitude of clinical benefit, utility weighting of outcomes and drug acquisition costs. Biomarker-driven decision making should be integrated into cost evaluations given the important role of molecular testing for individualising treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer. We conclude that despite major clinical advances in lung cancer therapeutics, cost remains an important consideration in the adoption of novel therapies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Osimertinib for EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer after Progression following First-Line EGFR TKI Therapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the treatment of advanced NSCLC with an EGFR T790M mutation after the failure of first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy.

METHODS

A mathematical model was established by combining a decision tree and the Markov approach to project the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard chemotherapy for the treatment of patients who harbor an EGFR T790M mutation and have disease progression after first-line EGFR TKI therapy with or without metastases to the central nervous system. The clinical and outcome data were derived from randomized clinical trials and published reports. The health outcome data included quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). The cost data were estimated from the perspectives of the payer in the United States and the health care system in the People's Republic of China. All costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were presented in 2017 U.S. dollars. Sensitivity and scenario analyses with three different settings of T790M mutation testing were performed.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy, molecular testing in plasma and tissue followed by osimertinib treatment yielded an additional 0.359 and 0.313 QALYs in the entire U.S. population and the population of those with central nervous system metastases and an EGFR T790M mutation. For these populations, the incremental costs were $83,515 and $74,924 per patient, respectively, and the ICERs were $232,895 and $239,274 per QALY, respectively. For the entire Chinese population and the Chinese population with central nervous system metastases, the ICERs were $48,081 and $53,244 per QALY, respectively. For those with a known T790M mutation, the ICERs of osimertinib over chemotherapy also exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold. The most influential parameter was the price of osimertinib.

CONCLUSION

Osimertinib treatment for T790M mutation NSCLC is unlikely to be cost-effective from the perspectives of the United States and the People's Republic of China. If the price of osimertinib could be decreased, the economic outcome might become favorable.

Precision oncology: neither a silver bullet nor a dream

Precision oncology is not an illusion, nor is it the magic bullet that will eradicate all cancers. Precision oncology is simply another weapon in our growing armament against cancer. Rather than honing in on the failures of a relatively young field, one should advocate for integrating its successes into widespread clinical practice, especially for indications, such as: ABL, ALK, BRAF, BRCA1, BRCA2, EGFR, KIT, KRAS, PDGFRA, PDGFRB, ROS1, BCR-ABL, FLT3 and ROS1, where aberrations have been shown to alter responses to US FDA approved drugs - that is, level 1 data. Moreover, to truly assess the promise of precision oncology, we must first begin by defining our expectations for this field. Importantly, we must recognize that the conception of precision oncology arose as an antithesis of the 'one-size fits all' cancer therapeutics approach. Consequently, tools used for evaluating these conventional, large-scale trials, are not directly transferable for assessing nonconventional, smaller-scale trials needed for evaluating precision oncology. Hence, a thorough vetting of precision oncology as another tool of the trade, must first begin by reassessing our expectations for this field, as well as current clinical trial designs and end point measurements. Importantly, we must recognize that most targeted therapy approaches are in their infancy, with only monotherapy approaches being assessed and combination therapies likely being necessary to fulfill the promise of precision oncology.

Urine circulating-tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection of acquired EGFR T790M mutation in non-small-cell lung cancer: An outcomes and total cost-of-care analysis

OBJECTIVES

Third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have proven effective in patients with the acquired EGFR T790M resistance mutation who progress on prior EGFR TKI therapy. Median progression-free survival (PFS) on a 3rd-gen TKI was 9-10 months for T790M+ patients compared to 2.8 months for T790M- patients. PFS is similar regardless of the specimen used to assess T790M, such as tissue, plasma, or urine ctDNA. This study aimed to assess the total cost of care of a urine-testing strategy (UTS) versus a tissue-testing strategy (TTS) for T790M detection, in patients with EGFR-mutation positive lung adenocarcinoma and progression on prior TKI therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Long-term outcomes and economic implications were assessed from a US payer perspective. Endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), medical resource use and related costs.

DATA SOURCES

We included published randomized drug trials and Medicare fee schedules. A state-transition analysis and Markov model tracked patients from stable disease to progression and death. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of findings and identify factors that most influenced outcomes and costs.

RESULTS

UTS increased the rate of detection of patients with T790M mutation eligible for treatment with 3rd generation TKI by 7% compared with TTS; urine ctDNA testing detected T790M mutation in some patients for whom biopsy could not be performed or when tissue testing yielded indeterminate results. Due to enhanced targeting of TKI therapy, UTS increased PFS and OS by 0.44 and 0.35 months, respectively. UTS yields a savings of $1243-$1680 per patient due to avoidance of biopsy, potential biopsy-associated complications, and tissue-based molecular testing in approximately 55.6% of patients. Probability of T790M detection by tissue and cost of biopsy procedure were the most influential factors.

CONCLUSION

UTS prolonged PFS/OS due to increased detection of T790M mutation and decreased biopsies and complication-related costs.

A systematic review and checklist presenting the main challenges for health economic modeling in personalized medicine: towards implementing patient-level models

INTRODUCTION

The ongoing development of genomic medicine and the use of molecular and imaging markers in personalized medicine (PM) has arguably challenged the field of health economic modeling (HEM). This study aims to provide detailed insights into the current status of HEM in PM, in order to identify if and how modeling methods are used to address the challenges described in literature. Areas covered: A review was performed on studies that simulate health economic outcomes for personalized clinical pathways. Decision tree modeling and Markov modeling were the most observed methods. Not all identified challenges were frequently found, challenges regarding companion diagnostics, diagnostic performance, and evidence gaps were most often found. However, the extent to which challenges were addressed varied considerably between studies. Expert commentary: Challenges for HEM in PM are not yet routinely addressed which may indicate that either (1) their impact is less severe than expected, (2) they are hard to address and therefore not managed appropriately, or (3) HEM in PM is still in an early stage. As evidence on the impact of these challenges is still lacking, we believe that more concrete examples are needed to illustrate the identified challenges and to demonstrate methods to handle them.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of EGFR mutation testing in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel

OBJECTIVE

Assess the cost-effectiveness of an EGFR-mutation testing strategy for advanced NSCLC in first-line therapy with either gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in Mexican institutions.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis using a discrete event simulation (DES) model to simulate two therapeutic strategies in patients with advanced NSCLC. Strategy one included patients tested for EGFR-mutation and therapy given accordingly. Strategy two included chemotherapy for all patients without testing. All results are presented in 2014 US dollars. The analysis was made with data from the Mexican frequency of EGFR-mutation. A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted on EGFR prevalence. Progression-free survival (PFS) transition probabilities were estimated on data from the IPASS and simulated with a Weibull distribution, run with parallel trials to calculate a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

PFS of patients in the testing strategy was 6.76 months (95 % CI 6.10-7.44) vs 5.85 months (95 % CI 5.43-6.29) in the non-testing group. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that PFS has a direct relationship with EGFR-mutation prevalence, while the ICER and testing cost have an inverse relationship with EGFR-mutation prevalence. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that all iterations had incremental costs and incremental PFS for strategy 1 in comparison with strategy 2.

CONCLUSION

There is a direct relationship between the ICER and the cost of EGFR testing, with an inverse relationship with the prevalence of EGFR-mutation. When prevalence is >10 % ICER remains constant. This study could impact Mexican and Latin American health policies regarding mutation detection testing and treatment for advanced NSCLC.

The safety and efficacy of osimertinib for the treatment of EGFR T790M mutation positive non-small-cell lung cancer

First- and second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the evidence-based first-line treatment for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) that harbor sensitizing EGFR mutations (i.e. exon 19 deletions or L858R). However, acquired resistance to EGFR TKI monotherapy occurs invariably within a median time frame of one year. The most common form of biological resistance is through the selection of tumor clones harboring the EGFR T790M mutation, present in >50% of repeat biopsies. The presence of the EGFR T790M mutation negates the inhibitory activity of gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib. A novel class of third-generation EGFR TKIs has been identified by probing a series of covalent pyrimidine EGFR inhibitors that bind to amino-acid residue C797 of EGFR and preferentially inhibit mutant forms of EGFR versus the wild-type receptor. We review the rapid clinical development and approval of the third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib for treatment of NSCLCs with EGFR-T790M.

Economic Analysis of First-Line Treatment with Erlotinib in an EGFR-Mutated Population with Advanced NSCLC

INTRODUCTION

The cost-effectiveness of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR)-mutated advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poorly documented. We therefore conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatment with erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy in European patients with advanced-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC who were enrolled in the European Erlotinib versus Chemotherapy trial.

METHODS

The European Erlotinib versus Chemotherapy study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial performed mainly in Spain, France, and Italy. We based our economic analysis on clinical data and data on resource consumption (drugs, drug administration, adverse events, and second-line treatments) collected during this trial. Utility values were derived from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for the first-line treatment phase and for the overall strategy from the perspective of the three participating countries. Sensitivity analyses were performed by selecting the main cost drivers.

RESULTS

Compared with standard first-line chemotherapy, the first-line treatment with erlotinib was cost saving (€7807, €17,311, and €19,364 for Spain, Italy and France, respectively) and yielded a gain of 0.117 quality-adjusted life-years. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that, given a willingness to pay at least €90,000 for 1 quality-adjusted life-year, the probability that a strategy of first-line erlotinib would be cost-effective was 100% in France, 100% in Italy, and 99.8% in Spain.

CONCLUSION

This economic analysis shows that first-line treatment with erlotinib, versus standard chemotherapy, is a dominant strategy for EGFR-mutated advanced-stage NSCLC in three European countries.

Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature

Objective

Due to extended application of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic screening (PGx) tests it is important to assess whether they provide good value for money. This review provides an update of the literature.

Methods

A literature search was performed in PubMed and papers published between August 2010 and September 2014, investigating the cost-effectiveness of PGx screening tests, were included. Papers from 2000 until July 2010 were included via two previous systematic reviews. Studies’ overall quality was assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

Results

We found 38 studies, which combined with the previous 42 studies resulted in a total of 80 included studies. An average QHES score of 76 was found. Since 2010, more studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most recent studies performed cost-utility analysis, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and discussed limitations of their economic evaluations. Most studies indicated favorable cost-effectiveness. Majority of evaluations did not provide information regarding the intrinsic value of the PGx test. There were considerable differences in the costs for PGx testing. Reporting of the direction and magnitude of bias on the cost-effectiveness estimates as well as motivation for the chosen economic model and perspective were frequently missing.

Conclusions

Application of PGx tests was mostly found to be a cost-effective or cost-saving strategy. We found that only the minority of recent pharmacoeconomic evaluations assessed the intrinsic value of the PGx tests. There was an increase in the number of studies and in the reporting of quality associated characteristics. To improve future evaluations, scenario analysis including a broad range of PGx tests costs and equal costs of comparator drugs to assess the intrinsic value of the PGx tests, are recommended. In addition, robust clinical evidence regarding PGx tests’ efficacy remains of utmost importance.