Economics of treatments for non-small cell lung cancer

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant atezolizumab versus best supportive care in the treatment of patients with resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer and overexpression of PD-L1

AIMS

To assess the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant atezolizumab in the treatment of early-stage NSCLC patients (stage II-IIIA) with expression PD-L1 ≥ 50% without mutations in EGFR or ALK rearrangements in Spain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 5-states Markov model (DFS, locoregional recurrence, 1 L-metastatic recurrence, 2 L-metastatic recurrence, and death states) was adapted to the Spanish setting. Demographic characteristics of the hypothetical cohort, transition probabilities from the DFS state, and safety parameters were obtained from IMpower010 study (GO29527). Transition probabilities from locoregional and metastatic health states were obtained from the literature. The usual clinical practice in Spain (use of health resources, management of the disease, etc.) was obtained from a previous analysis carried out by the authors of this study. A societal perspective was considered so both direct and indirect costs were included (expressed in € of 2021). A lifetime horizon was used, so costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate uncertainty.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, treatment with adjuvant atezolizumab provided greater effectiveness (+2.61 life years [LY] and +1.95 quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) and higher cost (€+22,538) than BSC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of the analysis were €8,625/LY gained and €11,583/QALY gained, respectively. Robustness of these base-case results was confirmed by the sensitivity analyses performed. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 90% of the simulations performed showed that adjuvant atezolizumab is cost-effective versus BSC, considering a threshold of €30,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that adjuvant treatment with atezolizumab in patients with early-stage resected NSCLC with overexpression of PD-L1 and without EGFR and ALK mutations is cost-effective versus BSC as the ICERs and ICURs obtained are below the cost-effectiveness thresholds commonly considered in Spain, thus offering a new treatment alternative for these patients.

[Evolution of the costs and management of lung cancer between 2004 and 2014]

BACKGROUND

Given its morbidity and mortality, lung cancer is a major public health issue. In recent years, it has benefited from several therapeutic innovations. The objective of this study was to compare, over two distinct periods of ten years, the impact on survival and the costs of lung cancer management.

METHODS

The monocentric study assessed survival and the direct costs of lung cancer management of patients diagnosed in Brest University hospital in 2004 and in 2014.

RESULTS

The analysis included 142 patients in 2004 and 156 in 2014. Most patients were smokers (72%), metastatic at diagnosis (60%) both in 2004 and in 2014. Median survival was not significantly improved between the 2 periods (9.7 versus 10.9 months), but there was a significant increase in the average cost of care per patient (€ 17,063 vs. € 29,264, P=<0.0001) between 2004 and 2014.

CONCLUSION

The significant increase in treatment costs did not translate into an improvement in the survival of patients with lung cancer between 2004 and 2014.

Assessing Care Value for Older Patients Receiving Radiotherapy With or Without Cisplatin or Cetuximab for Locoregionally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer

Importance

Clinicians frequently use radiotherapy with cetuximab over radiotherapy only or radiotherapy with cisplatin because of a perceived survival and tolerability advantage, but scant data are available to support this perception.

Objective

To measure the 3 aspects of value (quality, outcomes, and cost) in older patients receiving radiotherapy only, radiotherapy with cisplatin, or radiotherapy with cetuximab for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this cohort study, patient records were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare outcomes and claims database from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2014. Participants were 65 years or older; received a diagnosis between 2006 and 2013 of stages III to IVB head and neck cancer; had only 1 cancer on record; and did not undergo surgical intervention. Data analysis was conducted from February 5, 2018, to March 27, 2019.

Exposures

Patients were divided into exposure arms on the basis of their first-line therapy or identified chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy regimen.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall survival was analyzed by propensity score matching Cox proportional hazards regression models, quality by measuring 90-day emergency department (ED) visit and inpatient admission rates, and costs by assessing 90-day total Medicare spending.

Results

The overall cohort included 1091 patients, of whom 815 (74.7%) were male; the mean (SD) age was 73.9 (6.6) years. Patients receiving radiotherapy with cisplatin had higher overall survival compared with those receiving radiotherapy only (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87). This finding was not seen in patients receiving radiotherapy with cetuximab (adjusted HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75-1.20), compared with the radiotherapy only group, and it persisted after stratifying patients by age. The ED visit (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.30-2.30) and inpatient admission (adjusted IRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.12-1.98) rates in the 90 days after treatment start were higher in patients receiving radiotherapy with cisplatin compared with those treated with radiotherapy only. Patients receiving radiotherapy with cetuximab had a higher rate of ED visits (adjusted IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.82) compared with those in the radiotherapy only group. The 90-day after-treatment spending for patients receiving radiotherapy with cetuximab was $48 620 (95% CI, $46 466-$50 775) compared with $33 009 (95% CI, $31 499-$34 519) for radiotherapy with cisplatin and $27 622 (95% CI, $25 118-$30 126) for radiotherapy only.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, no survival difference, a higher rate of ED visits but not of inpatient admissions, and higher spending were observed in patients receiving radiotherapy with cetuximab compared with patients receiving radiotherapy only. The findings suggest that radiotherapy alone should be maintained as a treatment arm in evaluation of novel therapeutics for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer in older and sicker patients.

2017 HIVMA of IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Chronic Pain in Patients Living With HIV

Pain has always been an important part of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease and its experience for patients. In this guideline, we review the types of chronic pain commonly seen among persons living with HIV (PLWH) and review the limited evidence base for treatment of chronic noncancer pain in this population. We also review the management of chronic pain in special populations of PLWH, including persons with substance use and mental health disorders. Finally, a general review of possible pharmacokinetic interactions is included to assist the HIV clinician in the treatment of chronic pain in this population.It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. The Infectious Diseases Society of American considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.

Consensus Statement on Proton Therapy in Early-Stage and Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Radiation dose escalation has been shown to improve local control and survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer in some studies, but randomized data have not supported this premise, possibly owing to adverse effects. Because of the physical characteristics of the Bragg peak, proton therapy (PT) delivers minimal exit dose distal to the target volume, resulting in better sparing of normal tissues in comparison to photon-based radiation therapy. This is particularly important for lung cancer given the proximity of the lung, heart, esophagus, major airways, large blood vessels, and spinal cord. However, PT is associated with more uncertainty because of the finite range of the proton beam and motion for thoracic cancers. PT is more costly than traditional photon therapy but may reduce side effects and toxicity-related hospitalization, which has its own associated cost. The cost of PT is decreasing over time because of reduced prices for the building, machine, maintenance, and overhead, as well as newer, shorter treatment programs. PT is improving rapidly as more research is performed particularly with the implementation of 4-dimensional computed tomography-based motion management and intensity modulated PT. Given these controversies, there is much debate in the oncology community about which patients with lung cancer benefit significantly from PT. The Particle Therapy Co-operative Group (PTCOG) Thoracic Subcommittee task group intends to address the issues of PT indications, advantages and limitations, cost-effectiveness, technology improvement, clinical trials, and future research directions. This consensus report can be used to guide clinical practice and indications for PT, insurance approval, and clinical or translational research directions.

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.

Pharmacokinetic properties of two erlotinib 150 mg formulations with a genetic effect evaluation in healthy Korean subjects

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Erlotinib is a drug used to treat non-small cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer and several other types of cancer. It is a reversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor that acts on the epidermal growth factor receptor and inhibits cell proliferation, growth, migration, invasion and survival. This study was performed for the subsequent marketing of a test erlotinib formulation in Korea. We evaluated the comparative bioavailability and tolerability of the test and reference formulations in healthy adult volunteers.

METHODS

A total of 46 healthy male subjects were enrolled in a single-dose, randomized, open-label, two-period, two-sequence, crossover, bioequivalence study. During each treatment period, subjects received 150 mg of erlotinib in either the test or reference formulation. There was a 2-week washout period between each period. Blood samples were obtained 15 times during each period, before dosing and 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 48, 72 and 96 h after oral administration. Plasma concentrations of erlotinib were determined using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic parameters, including maximum plasma concentration (C(max)), area under the plasma concentration-time curve to the last sampling time (AUC(t)), AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC(∞)), and time to reach C(max) (t(max)), were measured, and all treatment-emergent adverse events and their relationships with the study medications were recorded throughout the study. An additional analysis was performed to characterize the association between the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A1, CYP1A2 and CYP3A4 genotypes and the erlotinib pharmacokinetic parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 41 subjects completed the study. There were no significant differences in the prevalence of adverse events between the two formulations, and there were no serious or unexpected adverse events during the study. Both formulations had very similar C(max), AUC, terminal half-life (t ½) and t(max) values. The 90% confidence intervals of the geometric least-squares mean ratios of the test to reference formulation were 1.09 (0.98-1.22) for C(max) and 1.10 (1.01-1.21) for AUCt. Statistical significance was observed between the CYP1A2*1M genotype and the erlotinib pharmacokinetic parameter, particularly C(max) (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the test and reference formulations of 150 mg erlotinib have similar pharmacokinetic characteristics. Both had no major safety issues and were well-tolerated. The test formulation met the regulatory criteria for assuming bioequivalence to the reference formulation for both AUCt and C max. The additional genetic analysis demonstrated that the major metabolic enzymes of erlotinib did not significantly affect erlotinib metabolism, with the exception of CYP1A2*1M.

A phase I clinical trial of dose escalation of lobaplatin in combination with fixed-dose docetaxel for the treatment of human solid tumours that had progressed following chemotherapy

In this study, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of lobaplatin (LBP) when it was combined with docetaxel (TXT) for the treatment of solid tumours that had progressed following chemotherapy was determined, and toxicities to this regimen were evaluated. A modified Fibonacci method was used for the dose escalation of LBP. The patients received TXT (at a fixed dose of 60 mg/m2) on day one (d1) and LBP (at an initial tested dose of 30 mg/m2) on day two (d2) of a treatment cycle that was repeated every 21 days. Each dose group consisted of at least three cases. In the absence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), we proceeded to the next dose group, with a dose increment of 5 mg/m2 between groups, until DLT occurred. The dose immediately below the dose that produced DLT was regarded as the MTD. The 17 patients examined in this study completed a total of 58 cycles of chemotherapy, and a total of three dose-escalation groups (30 mg/m2 LBP, 35 mg/m2 LBP, and 40 mg/m2 LBP) were established. The main adverse event that was observed was myelosuppression. DLT occurred in four patients, including three patients in the 40 mg/m2 LBP group and one patient in the 35 mg/m2 LBP group. In total, three out of the four patients in the 40 mg/m2 LBP group exhibited DLT. We determined that the treatment administered to the 35 mg/m2 LBP group represented the MTD. Thus, our phase I trial revealed that the MTD for the tested LBP combination regimen was 35 mg/m2 LBP and 60 mg/m2 TXT. This regimen resulted in mild adverse reactions and favourable patient tolerance. Therefore, we recommend the use of these dosages in phase II clinical trials.

Cost-utility analysis of maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib vs observation with predefined second-line treatment after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: IFCT-GFPC 0502-Eco phase III study

Background

The IFCT-GFPC 0502 phase III study reported prolongation of progression-free survival with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance vs. observation after cisplatin–gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis was undertaken to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these strategies for the global population and pre-specified subgroups.

Methods

A cost-utility analysis evaluated the ICER of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy vs. observation, from randomization until the end of follow-up. Direct medical costs (including drugs, hospitalization, follow-up examinations, second-line treatments and palliative care) were prospectively collected per patient during the trial, until death, from the primary health-insurance provider’s perspective. Utility data were extracted from literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results

The ICERs for gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy were respectively 76,625 and 184,733 euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Gemcitabine continuation maintenance therapy had a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (52,213 €/QALY), in responders to induction chemotherapy (64,296 €/QALY), regardless of histology (adenocarcinoma, 62,292 €/QALY, non adenocarcinoma, 83,291 €/QALY). Erlotinib maintenance showed a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (94,908 €/QALY), in patients with adenocarcinoma (97,160 €/QALY) and in patient with objective response to induction (101,186 €/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in patients with PS =1, in patients with non-adenocarcinoma or with stable disease after induction chemotherapy.

Conclusion

Gemcitabine- or erlotinib-maintenance therapy had ICERs that varied as a function of histology, PS and response to first-line chemotherapy.

Economic evaluation of first-line and maintenance treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

During these last years, there have been an increased number of new drugs for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with a growing financial effect on patients and society. The purpose of this article was to review the economics of first-line and maintenance NSCLC treatments. We reviewed economic analyses of NSCLC therapies published between 2004 and 2014. In first-line settings, in unselected patients with advanced NSCLC, the cisplatin gemcitabine doublet appears to be cost-saving compared with other platinum doublets. In patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-year gained (LYG) were $83,537, $178,613, and more than $300,000 for cisplatin-pemetrexed compared with, respectively, cisplatin-gemcitabine, cisplatin-carboplatin-paclitaxel, and carboplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab. For all primary chemotherapy agents, use of carboplatin is associated with slightly higher costs than cisplatin. In all the analysis, bevacizumab had an ICER greater than $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In epidermal growth factor receptor mutated advanced NSCLC, compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel doublet, targeted therapy based on testing available tissue yielded an ICER of $110,644 per QALY, and the rebiopsy strategy yielded an ICER of $122,219 per QALY. Compared with the triplet carboplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab, testing and rebiopsy strategies had ICERs of $25,547 and $44,036 per QALY, respectively. In an indirect comparison, ICERs per LYG and QALY of erlotinib versus gefitinib were $39,431 and $62,419, respectively. In anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive nonsquamous advanced NSCLC, the ICER of first-line crizotinib compared with that of chemotherapy was $255,970 per QALY. For maintenance therapy, gefitinib had an ICER of $19,214 per QALY, erlotinib had an ICER of $127,343 per LYG, and pemetrexed had an ICER varying between $183,589 and $205,597 per LYG. Most recent NSCLC strategies are based on apparently no cost-effective strategies if we consider an ICER below $50,000 per QALY an acceptable threshold. We need, probably on a countrywide level, to have a debate involving public health organizations and pharmaceutical companies, as well as clinicians and patients, to challenge the rising costs of managing lung cancer.

Estimating the lifelong health impact and financial burdens of different types of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Owing to the high mortality and rapidly growing costs related to lung cancer, it is worth examining the health benefits of prevention for major types of lung cancer. This study attempts to quantify the quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), loss-of-QALE, and lifetime healthcare expenditures of patients with different pathological types of lung cancer.

METHODS

A national cohort consisting of 66,535 patients with pathologically verified lung cancer was followed for 13 years (1998-2010) to obtain the survival function, which was further extrapolated to lifetime. Between 2011 and 2012, EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaires were used to measure the quality of life (QoL) for 1,314 consecutive, cross-sectional samples. After multiplying the lifetime survival function by the utility values of QoL, we estimated the QALE and loss-of-QALE. We also collected the monthly healthcare expenditures, which included National Health Insurance-reimbursed and out-of-pocket direct medical costs, for 2,456 patients from 2005 to 2012. These values were multiplied by the corresponding survival probabilities to calculate lifetime healthcare expenditures after adjustments with medical care inflation rates and annual discount rates.

RESULTS

The QALE for patients with small cell lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma, and adenocarcinoma were 1.21, 2.37, and 3.03 quality-adjusted life year (QALY), with the corresponding loss-of-QALE of 13.69, 12.22, and 15.03 QALY, respectively. The lifetime healthcare expenditures were US$ 18,455 ± 1,137, 20,599 ± 1,787, and 36,771 ± 1,998, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The lifelong health impact and financial burdens in Taiwan are heavier for adenocarcinoma than for squamous cell carcinoma. The cost-effectiveness of prevention programs could be directly compared with that of treatment strategies to improve patient value. And the methodology could be applied to other chronic diseases for resources planning of healthcare services.

Update on the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: focus on the cost-effectiveness of new agents

Background

The incidence of lung cancer and the cost of drug treatment have increased dramatically in the last decade. This article examines the costs of new target agents, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and anti-angiogenic drugs.

Methods

This study uses PubMed research to focus on the topics of lung cancer, economics, and new targeted therapies.

Results

The published papers only addressed TKIs and anti-angiogenic antibodies. For gefitinib, the results favored a clinical-based selection, despite the low number of studies. Erlotinib was studied in second line and as a maintenance treatment (with the studies reaching opposite conclusions in terms of cost-effectiveness). Economic analyses were not in favor of bevacizumab, but the studies on this topic were very heterogeneous.

Conclusion

The economic impact of a drug depends on the health care system organization. Future clinical trials must include economic analyses, particularly with TKIs in the first line.

A systematic review of economic evaluations in second and later lines of therapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Surgery is generally accepted as the first-line treatment in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy as second-line treatments. Docetaxel or erlotinib are generally recommended as the first-line chemotherapy option. The objective of this review was to identify previously published economic evaluations in NSCLC for second- and later-line treatments in order to (i) determine common modelling approaches and (ii) establish the relative cost effectiveness of these treatments. An overview of model critique was also produced to identify common criticisms from health technology assessment (HTA) bodies on the models submitted.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, MEDLINE in Process(®) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED) were searched (database start-October 2011), along with proceedings from eight major conferences (2007-2011). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) websites and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) database were also searched for appraisals in second- or later-line NSCLC. All published studies and HTA appraisals that reported economic evaluations of interventions used in current clinical practice as second- or later-line treatment in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC were included. Only studies in English were considered for inclusion. Studies which met the eligibility criteria after the screening of full-text articles were extracted by a reviewer and checked by a second party. Where multiple publications were identified describing a single study, the extracted data were compiled into one entry.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies were included which clearly evaluated second-line or later-line regimens. Most studies were either cost-effectiveness or cost-utility evaluations. Three-state transition Markov models were frequently used in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility evaluations. The model inputs were well reported and commonly consisted of data from pivotal trials. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in the majority of studies and covered variables such as cost, effectiveness, hospitalization and treatment duration. Therapies (docetaxel, pemetrexed and erlotinib) are for the most part cost-effective/cost-saving second-line therapies compared with best supportive care (BSC). Six erlotinib HTAs, across NICE, SMC, and PBAC, and four pemetrexed HTAs, one by NICE and three by SMC, were identified. The CADTH website did not provide sufficient detail on the appraisals and was excluded. Certain aspects of the models and model assumptions, e.g. efficacy inputs, were criticized or determined unjustifiable by the NICE, SMC and PBAC appraisal committees. Erlotinib and pemetrexed were considered to be cost effective versus docetaxel by NICE and SMC in the final submissions. PBAC considered erlotinib to be cost effective versus BSC following a price reduction in 2008.

CONCLUSION

Three-state Markov models are often used to conduct economic analysis in NSCLC and are regarded as appropriate to HTA agencies. Docetaxel, erlotinib and BSC are suitable comparators that should be considered for use in the model in the UK and Australia. Further, manufacturers should carefully select underlying assumptions used in the model, for both costs and clinical inputs, where the latter is derived from direct head-to-head trial data.

Cost analysis of lung cancer management in South Western Sydney

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in Western nations, and associated health-care costs are escalating. The aim of this study was to describe the current pattern of resource use and direct medical costs associated in managing lung cancer in South Western Sydney, Australia.

METHODS

All new cases of primary lung carcinoma discussed at the Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre (CTC) Lung Cancer Multidisciplinary Team meeting or seen at CTC between 1 December 2005 and 21 December 2006 were reviewed. Staging investigations, hospitalisation, treatment and follow-up investigations were documented from first consultation to last follow-up (31 October 2008 or death). Cost estimates were based on the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule and reported in Australian dollars. Infrastructure, staff and non-medical costs were excluded.

RESULTS

There were 210 patients, median age 68.2 years (range 39-90) with median follow-up of 16.6 months. The pathology and stage distribution were: 3.8% limited stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC), 10.0% extensive stage SCLC, 13.4% stage I and II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 28.5% stage III NSCLC and 44.3% stage IV NSCLC. The estimated total cost for managing this patient cohort was A$2.91 million. The cost components were: staging investigations (10.1%), treatment 41.2% (2.8% surgery, 15.8% radiotherapy and 22.6% chemotherapy), hospitalisation (43.7%) and follow-up investigations (5%). The median costs for managing NSCLC and SCLC subgroups were A$10,675 (range A$669-612,789) and A$14,799 (range A$908-31,057), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalisation and cancer treatment, particularly chemotherapy, accounted for the major components of direct medical costs in the management of lung cancer.

Economic evaluation of bevacizumab in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Background

Delivering affordable cancer care is becoming increasingly important. Bevacizumab (BEV) is a costly molecular targeted agent effective for a variety of cancer including lung cancer. The objective of this review is to assess published economic evaluation of BEV in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

A literature search in PubMed, Cochrane, and the Health Technology Assessment reports for English-language publications before February 2012 was performed. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers, and eight publications were included in the review. The results of these eight articles were tabulated and all cost estimates were reported in 2011 US dollars.

Results

Among the eight articles, three were cost studies and five were cost-effectiveness/utility analysis. For first-line treatment, BEV-containing regimen was reported to be the most costly regimen in one study but cost saving when compared with pemetrexed/cisplatin in another study. When compared with other regimens, BEV-containing regimen was reported to be cost effective in two cost-effectiveness studies (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] in the range of US$30,318–US$54,317 per life year) but not cost effective in the other three studies (ICER over US$300,000 per life year).

Conclusion

In this review of economic evaluation of BEV in the treatment of NSCLC, it was found that the literature was not conclusive on the economic benefit of BEV. The role of BEV in other treatment settings for NSCLC was unknown. Further studies, such as clinical trials with adequate power to compare the efficacy between low dose and high dose BEV, potential impact of predictive biomarkers for BEV, and comprehensive economic evaluation will strengthen the current state of knowledge on the economic value of BEV in NSCLC.

Cost effectivenes of erlotinib versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in fit elderly patients participating in a prospective phase 2 study (GFPC 0504)

Background

The median age of newly diagnosed patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is 67 years, and one-third of patients are older than 75 years. Elderly patients are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of chemotherapy, and targeted therapy might thus be a relevant alternative. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib followed by chemotherapy after progression, compared to the reverse strategy, in fit elderly patients with advanced NSCLC participating in a prospective randomized phase 2 trial (GFPC0504).

Methods

Outcomes (PFS and overall survival) and costs (limited to direct medical costs, from the third-party payer perspective) were prospectively collected until second progression. Costs after progression and health utilities (based on disease states and grade 3–4 toxicities) were derived from the literature.

Results

Median overall survival, QALY and total costs for the erlotinib-first strategy were respectively 7.1 months, 0.51 and 27 734 €, compared to 9.4 months, 0.52 and 31 688 € for the chemotherapy-first strategy. The Monte Carlo simulation demonstrates that the two strategies do not differ statistically.

Conclusion

In terms of cost effectiveness, in fit elderly patients with NSCLC, erlotinib followed by chemotherapy compares well with the reverse strategy.

Cost analysis of erlotinib versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer in frail elderly patients participating in a prospective phase 2 study (GFPC 0505)

BACKGROUND

A large proportion of elderly patients (>70 years) with newly diagnosed NSCLC are shown to be frail by a comprehensive geriatric assessment. This population is more vulnerable to adverse effects of chemotherapy and might thus benefit more from targeted therapy. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib followed by chemotherapy after progression, compared with the reverse strategy, in frail elderly patients with advanced NSCLC participating in a prospective randomized phase II trial (GFPC 0505).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Outcomes (progression-free survival and overall survival) and costs (limited to direct medical costs, from the third-party payer perspective) were collected prospectively until second progression. Costs after progression and health utilities (based on disease states and grade 3-4 toxicities) were derived from the literature.

RESULTS

Median overall survival, QALYs, and total costs for the erlotinib-first strategy were 3.9 months, 0.33, and €15,233, respectively, compared with 4.4 months, 0.35, and €15,363 for the chemotherapy-first strategy. There was no significant difference between the 2 strategies in term of cost-effectiveness (respectively €47,381 and €44,350 per QALY).

CONCLUSION

No difference in cost-effectiveness was found between an erlotinib-first strategy and a chemotherapy-first strategy in frail elderly patients with NSCLC.

Cost effectiveness of treatment with new agents in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review

In past decades, studies focusing on new chemotherapeutic agents for patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer have reported only modest gains in survival. These health gains are achieved at considerable cost, but economic evidence is lacking on superiority of one agent in terms of cost effectiveness. The objective of this systematic review was to assess fully published cost-effectiveness studies comparing the new agents docetaxel, paclitaxel, vinorelbine, gemcitabine and pemetrexed, and the targeted therapies erlotinib and gefitinib with one another. We performed systematic searches in the bibliographic databases PubMed, EMBASE and Health Economic Evaluations (HEED) [via the Cochrane Library] for fully published studies from the past 10 years. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers according to a priori inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers using standardized assessment tools. A total of 222 potential studies were identified; 11 studies and six reviews were included. The methodological quality of the full economic evaluations was fairly good. Transparency in costs and resource use, details on statistical tests and sensitivity analysis were points for improvement. In first-line treatment, gemcitabine+cisplatin was cost effective compared with other platinum-based regimens (paclitaxel, docetaxel and vinorelbine). In one study, pemetrexed+cisplatin was cost effective compared with gemcitabine+cisplatin in patients with non-squamous-cell carcinoma. In second-line treatment, docetaxel was cost effective compared with best supportive care; erlotinib was cost effective compared with placebo; and docetaxel and pemetrexed were dominated by erlotinib. We found indications of superiority in terms of cost effectiveness for gemcitabine+cisplatin in a first-line setting, and for erlotinib in a second-line setting.

Safety and efficacy of first-line bevacizumab with chemotherapy in Asian patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC: results from the phase IV MO19390 (SAiL) study

INTRODUCTION

First-line treatment with bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with advanced, nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSNSCLC) in phase III clinical trials. SAiL (MO19390), an open-label, multicenter, single-arm study, evaluated the safety and efficacy of first-line bevacizumab-based treatment in clinical practice. This report presents the results of a preplanned subanalysis of Asian patients enrolled in SAiL.

METHODS

Patients with untreated, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent NSNSCLC received bevacizumab 7.5 or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy for up to six cycles, followed by single-agent bevacizumab until disease progression. Eligibility criteria for SAiL permitted enrolment of a broad patient population. The primary end point was safety; secondary end points included time to disease progression and overall survival.

RESULTS

The Asian intent-to-treat population comprised 314 of the 2212 patients enrolled in the SAiL trial. In the Asian subanalysis, patients received a median of nine cycles of bevacizumab, and the median follow-up was 16.4 months. The incidence of clinically significant adverse events (grade ≥3) of special interest was relatively low in this population (15.6% overall); proteinuria (7.6%), hypertension (4.8%), and bleeding (2.5%) were the most common. A total of five adverse events related to bevacizumab were reported as grade 5. Disease control rate was 94.1%, median time to disease progression was 8.3 months, and median overall survival was 18.9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy of first-line bevacizumab-based treatment in Asian patients with advanced NSNSCLC is consistent with that demonstrated in phase III studies and in the overall SAiL population. There were no new safety signals.

Costs and ethical issues related to first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: considerations from a public healthcare system perspective

Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer is generally not considered to be curable, and the overall 5-year survival rate is less than 1%. Despite this poor prognosis, palliative chemotherapy can increase time and quality of life in the advanced-disease setting. New chemotherapy treatments and targeted therapies are available for this stage of disease, but their high costs are an important issue. In this perspective article, we discuss the hospital costs of antitumor drug administration and the ethical principles involved, the roles of drug agencies and oncologists, and relevant current research on these topics. These considerations have been examined from the perspective of a national public healthcare system.

First-line systemic treatment of advanced stage non-small-cell lung cancer in Asia: consensus statement from the Asian Oncology Summit 2009

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an increasing global challenge, especially in low-income countries. Most guidelines for the management of advanced-stage NSCLC have limited effect in countries with resource constraints. Following a systematic literature search, we present an overview of the management of advanced-stage NSCLC in the first-line setting, discuss resources required for systemic therapy, and provide treatment recommendations stratified to four resources levels. Treatment guidelines appropriate for different resource levels offer a realistic approach to management of advanced-stage NSCLC, by recognising the limitations of a particular health-care system. Although there are many barriers to cancer control in low-resource countries, these can be overcome by using measures that are culturally appropriate, economically feasible, and evidence-based. Initiatives include strategic planning, tobacco control, training of health-care workers, access to therapeutic agents, acquisition of information, public education, and alliances with established institutions and international organisations.