Cost-effectiveness of gefitinib, icotinib, and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China

Critical Examination of Modeling Approaches Used in Economic Evaluations of First-Line Treatments for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common type of lung cancer, with up to 32% of patients with NSCLC harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. NSCLC harboring an EGFR mutation has a dedicated treatment pathway, with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy often being the therapy of choice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systemically review and summarize economic models of first-line treatments used for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations, as well as to identify areas for improvement for future models.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted via Ovid in PubMed, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews: Health Technology Assessment, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews: National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and EconLit. An initial search was conducted on 19 December 2022 and updated on 11 April 2023. Studies were selected according to predefined criteria using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome and Study design (PICOS) framework.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven articles were included in the review, representing 59 unique studies. The majority of included models were cost-utility analyses (n = 52), with the remaining studies being cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 4) and a cost-minimization analysis (n = 1). Two studies incorporated both a cost-utility and cost-minimization analysis. Although the model structure across studies was consistently reported, justification for this choice was often lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the reporting of economic models in NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations is generally good, many of these studies lacked sufficient reporting of justification for structural choices, performing extensive sensitivity analyses and validation in economic evaluations. In resolving such gaps, the validity of future models can be increased to guide healthcare decision making in rare indications.

Cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy compared chemotherapy alone as first-line strategy for patients with ES-SCLC in China.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model that based on the Chinese health-care system perspective was conducted to evaluate the economic benefits for the two competing first-line treatment. The clinical survival and safety data were obtained from the ASTRUM-005 trial, cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and previously published study. Both cost and utility values were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy could bring additional 0.25 QALYs with the marginal cost of $37,569.32, resulting in an ICER of $147,908.74 per additional QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that model results were robust. Subgroup analyses revealed that adding serplulimab to first-line chemotherapy were unlikely to be the cost-effective option for all subgroup patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line strategy compared with chemotherapy alone for patients with ES-SCLC in China. Reduced the price of serplulimab could increase its cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of analysis serplulimab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for PD-L1-positive advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Objective

Our study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of serplulimab to chemotherapy (cisplatin and fluorouracil) for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) as the first-line treatment in China.

Methods

A three-state Markov model was established to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for serplulimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. Survival data were extrapolated from the ASTRUM-007 trial, cost data were derived from local sources, and utilities were derived from published literature. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity and probability sensitivity analyses were used to investigate the robustness of the model.

Results

In the base-case analysis, compared with chemotherapy alone, serplulimab gained an additional 0.16 QALYs with an incremental cost of $29,547.88, leading to an ICER of $184,674.25/QALY. Additionally, the subgroup analyses presented that the ICERs of serplulimab plus chemotherapy were $157,892.50/QALY and $127,996.45/QALY in advanced ESCC patients with 1≤ CPS< 10 and CPS≥ 10, respectively. These ICERs significantly exceeded the Chinese willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The deterministic sensitivity analysis illustrated that the cost of progression-free survival in serplulimab plus chemotherapy group was the parameter with the strongest influence on the ICERs.

Conclusion

In the Chinese health care system, with 3 times China's per capita gross domestic product as the WTP threshold, compared with chemotherapy alone, serplulimab combined chemotherapy is not economical for PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC in the first-line setting.

A meta-analysis for the efficacy and safety of icotinib combined with radiotherapy in treating brain metastases of non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Currently, the therapies for brain metastases of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) mainly include whole brain radiotherapy and icotinib. For exploring the efficacy and safety of radiotherapy and icotinib, a meta-analysis was performed based on a series of data.

METHOD

A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Database. The search time was set from the database establishment to December, 2022. All randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of whole brain radiotherapy alone or in combination with icotinib for whole brain metastases of NSCLC were included in our meta-analysis. Clinical outcomes and adverse reactions were analyzed using Stata17.0 software.

RESULTS

Finally, 10 clinical studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis, including 717 patients. Briefly, compared with radiotherapy alone, icotinib combined with radiotherapy increased response rate [relative ratio (RR) = 1.240; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.141, 1.348); P < .001] and disease control rate (RR = 1.240, 95% CI [1.141,1.348], P < .001). Besides, according to the outcomes of adverse reaction assessment exhibited, there were no significant differences between the 2 group patients in the incidence of rash (RR = 1.536, 95% CI [0.694, 3.402], P = .290), adverse reaction in gastrointestinal tract (RR = 1.060, 95% CI [0.792, 1.419], P = 1.419), hepatic injury (RR = 1.541, 95% CI [0.798,2.975], P = .198) and leukopenia (RR = 1.182, 95% CI [0.787, 1.777], P = .421). However, the patients receiving combination treatment showed much longer progression free survival than those receiving radiotherapy alone (standardized mean difference = 1.559; 95% CI [0.699, 2.419]; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Icotinib combined with radiotherapy can significantly short-term and long-term efficacy of NSCLC patients with brain metastases but not increase adverse reactions.

Pembrolizumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE

The KEYNOTE-062 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab for advanced gastric cancer (GC). The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced GC from the perspective of the United States and China. And the results will provide evidence and data support for more drug selection-related decisions and research in the future.

METHODS

A partitioned survival approach with three states was created for treatment of advanced GC. The survival data were derived from KEYNOTE-062 trial and the individual patient data were generated by a specific algorithm. We fitted 21 survival functions to each treatment arm and selected the most suitable distribution type for each one. Direct costs and utility values were collected from the published, available database. Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were considered as the primary measure outcomes. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the reliability of the analyses.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis of combined positive score (CPS) ≥1 patients, the ICUR of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in American and Chinese setting is $345,209/QALY and $186,802.6/QALY, respectively. And the ICUR of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy is $473,650/QALY and $377,753/QALY in the context of the US and China, respectively. For CPS≥10 patients, the ICUR of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in American and Chinese setting is $483,742/QALY and $262,965/QALY, respectively. And that of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy is $96,550/QALY and $67,896/QALY in the context of the US and China.

CONCLUSION

Compared with chemotherapy, either pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy is not regarded as a cost-effective strategy for patients with CPS≥1, advanced gastric cancer in the current American and Chinese setting. But pembrolizumab monotherapy for CPS≥10 patients would become a cost-effective option in the American setting.

Economic evaluation of five first-line PD-(L)1 inhibitors for treating non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in China: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on network meta-analysis

Background and objective: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the most malignant cancer types that causes substantial economic burden in China. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of five first-line anti-PD-(L)1 treatments, including sintilimab, camrelizumab, atezolizumab, pembrolizumab and sugemalimab with each combined with chemotherapy, for treating advanced non-squamous NSCLC (nsq-NSCLC) from Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Methods: Clinical data were obtained from the following clinical trials, namely, ORIENT-11, CameL, IMpower132, KEYNOTE-189 and GEMSTONE-302. A network meta-analysis was performed based on fractional polynomial models. We constructed a partitioned survival model with a three-week cycle length and a lifetime horizon to derive the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We performed one-way sensitivity analysis and probablistic sensitivity analysis to test the robustness. Additionally, two scenario analyses were undertaken to investigate the impact of Patient Assistant Program on the economic conclusion and to explore potential uncertainty associated with population representativeness of the global trial.

Results: Compared with camrelizumab + chemotherapy, sugemalimab + chemotherapy and atezolizumab + chemotherapy were dominated, and the ICERs generated from sintilimab + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab + chemotherapy were $15,280.83/QALY and $159,784.76/QALY, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that uncertainty around ICERs was mainly driven by HR related parameters derived from NMA and drug price. The probablistic sensitivity analysis suggested that camrelizumab treatment was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 1-time GDP per capita. When the threshold was set as 3-time GDP per capita, sintilimab strategy demonstrated the excellent cost-effective advantage. Sensitivity analysis proved the reliability of base-case results. Results from two scenario analyses indicated that the primary finding was robust.

Conclusion: In current context of Chinese healthcare system, sintilimab + chemotherapy appeared to be cost-effective for the treatment of nsq-NSCLC compared with sugemalimab, camrelizumab, pembrolizumab as well as atezolizumab combined with chemotherapy.

Economic Evaluation of Nivolumab Versus Docetaxel for the Treatment of Advanced Squamous and Non-squamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer After Prior Chemotherapy in China

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the economic value of nivolumab versus docetaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatment after platinum-based chemotherapy in adults without epidermal growth factor receptor/anaplastic lymphoma kinase aberrations in China.

METHODS

Partitioned survival models evaluated lifetime costs and benefits of nivolumab versus docetaxel by squamous and non-squamous histologies from a Chinese healthcare payer perspective. Progression-free disease, progressed disease, and death health states were considered over a 20-year time horizon. Clinical data were derived from the CheckMate pivotal Phase III trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01642004, NCT01673867, NCT02613507); patient-level survival data were extrapolated using parametric functions. China-specific health state utilities, healthcare resource utilisation, and unit costs were applied. Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty.

RESULTS

Nivolumab resulted in extended survival (1.489 and 1.228 life-years [1.226 and 0.995 discounted]) and quality-adjusted survival benefits (1.034 and 0.833 quality-adjusted life-years) at additional costs of ¥214,353 (US$31,829) and ¥158,993 (US$23,608) versus docetaxel in squamous and non-squamous aNSCLC, respectively. Nivolumab was associated with higher acquisition costs, lower subsequent treatment costs, and lower adverse event management costs than docetaxel in both histologies. Drug acquisition costs, discount rate for outcomes, and average body weight were key model drivers. Stochastic results aligned with the deterministic results.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab yielded survival and quality-adjusted survival benefits at incremental cost versus docetaxel in aNSCLC. As a traditional healthcare payer perspective was applied, the true economic benefit of nivolumab may be underestimated as not all treatment benefits and costs of relevance to society were considered.

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of non-squamous NSCLC: Evidence from China

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line treatment for patients with metastatic or advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without targetable epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genetic aberrations in patients in China.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of non-squamous NSCLC from a Chinese healthcare perspective. Survival analysis was performed to calculate the proportion of patients in each state using data from trial NCT03134872. The cost of drugs was obtained from Menet, and the cost of disease management was obtained from local hospitals. Health state data were obtained from published literature. Both deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were adopted to verify the robustness of the results.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy alone, camrelizumab plus chemotherapy provided 0.41 incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $10,482.12. Therefore, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy was $25,375.96/QALY from the Chinese healthcare perspective, much lower than three times the GDP per capita of China in 2021 ($35,936.09) as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The DSA indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to the utility value of progression-free survival, followed by the cost of camrelizumab. The PSA illustrated that camrelizumab had 80% probability of being cost-effective at the threshold of $35,936.09 per QALY gained.

Conclusion

The results suggest that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective choice in the first-line treatment for patients with non-squamous NSCLC in China. Although this study has limitations such as short time of use of camrelizumab, no adjustment of Kaplan-Meier curves and the median overall survival that has not been reached, the difference in results caused by these factors is relatively small.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sugemalimab vs. chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer

Objective: Sugemalimab is approved in China as a first-line treatment in combination with chemotherapy for metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line additional sugemalimab in combination with chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Materials and methods: A three-state Markov model was designed to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of first-line sugemalimab combination with chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy over a 10-year period. Data on clinical outcomes were obtained from GEMSTONE-302 clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were collected from local databases and published literature. The uncertainty of the model parameters was explored through sensitivity analysis. Results: Compared to chemotherapy, sugemalimab treatment for NSCLC resulted in an extra 0.50 QALYs at an additional cost of $73627.99, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 148354.07/QALY at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37663.26/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the primary motivator in this model was the cost of sugemalimab. However, none of the parameters significantly affected the model's results. Conclusion: Sugemalimab combination therapy is not economically advantageous for the first-line management of metastatic non-squamous NSCLC, according to the Chinese healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab, nivolumab and docetaxel as second- and third-line for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in China

Objective: Domestic PD-1inhibitor tislelizumab has emerged as a promising treatment for Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of our study to evaluate whether tislelizumab is cost-effective as a second- or third-line treatment for this population compared with docetaxel (conventional chemotherapy) and nivolumab (imported PD-1inhibitor), from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Material and Methods: A Markov model with a 3-week Markov cycle and a 30-year time horizon was built to compare the cost-effectiveness of second- or third-line tislelizumab versus docetaxel and nivolumab. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and adverse events (AEs)-related treatment discontinuation event, were estimated from the clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were collected from local hospitals, public database and published literature.

Results: Compared with docetaxel, tislelizumab provided an additional 0.33 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.37 vs. 1.04 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $9,286 ($23,646 vs. $14,360) for Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic NSCLC, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,959/QALY under the WTP threshold of $35,663/QALY used in the model. Compared with nivolumab, tislelizumab was associated with a lower cost ($23,646 vs. $59,447) and higher QALYs (1.37 vs. 1.20 QALYs), resulting in its dominance of nivolumab.

Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, domestic PD-1inhibitor tislelizumab immunotherapy represents a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with conventional docetaxel chemotherapy and imported PD-1inhibitor nivolumab immunotherapy in the treatment of driver-negative advanced or metastatic NSCLC beyond the first-line setting. In the era of “Universal Medical Insurance System”, the rational use of domestic anticancer drugs guided by cost-benefit evidence would be an effective means to balance the limited expenditure of medical insurance fund and the growing demand for cancer treatments.

Atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic urothelial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Purpose: According to the IMvigor130 trial, adding atezolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy was effective in the treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). Based on the perspective of the United States and China, the current study evaluated cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy for mUC patients in the first-line setting.

Methods: A partitioned survival model was adopted for mUC patients. The survival data were derived from the IMvigor130 trial. Direct cost values were collected from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Chinese Drug Bidding Database, and published literatures. The utility and toxicity data were gathered from related research studies and IMvigor130 trial. The incremental cost–utility ratios (ICURs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and analyzed. Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to observe the outputs and uncertainties.

Results: The base-case analysis showed that the ICUR of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in American and Chinese settings is $ 737,371 /QALY and $ 385,384 /QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICUR ranged from $ 555,372/QALY to $ 828,205/QALY for the United States. Also, the range was from $ 303,099/QALY to $ 433,849/QALY in the Chinese setting. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the likelihood that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy becoming the preferred strategy was a little low even if the price reduction strategy was applied.

Conclusion: Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy improved survival time, but it is not a cost-saving option compared to chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in the American and Chinese settings.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus placebo in resected EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer in China

PURPOSE

We aim to assess whether osimertinib postoperative adjuvant therapy, compared with placebo, is cost-effective in China.

METHODS

We set up the Markov model that contains three health states over a 20-year period. Data were collected from the ADAURA trial that included transition probabilities and safety data. Through the analysis of literature and local charges, we explore both the cost and utility values. Sensitivity analyses were employed using TreeAge Pro software to access model stability.

FINDINGS

Patients in the osimertinib group had 1.46 more Quality-adjusted Life Years (8.45 QALYs vs 6.99 QALYs) than the placebo group at an incremental cost of $14098.51($39962.99 vs $25864.48). Compared with the placebo group, the treatment strategy with osimertinib postoperative adjuvant therapy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9661.97/QALY. The probability of the osimertinib-assisted therapy strategy being cost-effective will reach 100% if the threshold of willingness to pay is above $15,000/QALY.

IMPLICATIONS

From the perspective of the Chinese Healthcare System, the treatment strategy with osimertinib postoperative adjuvant therapy is more cost-effective than the placebo strategy.

Cost-Effectiveness of 12 First-Line Treatments for Patients With Advanced EGFR Mutated NSCLC in the United Kingdom and China

Background

Lung cancer is imposing significant pressure on the national health insurance system worldwide, especially under the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the cost-effectiveness of all available first-line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12 first-line treatments for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC from the perspective of the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service and Chinese health care system.

Methods

We used a Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 12 treatments, including 6 EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, 4 combination treatments and 2 chemotherapies. The key clinical efficacy and safety data were from a network meta-analysis. The cost and health preference were mainly collected from the literature. The most cost-effective treatment was inferred through a sequential analysis. Uncertainty was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated, at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20000 to £50000 and £8000 to £24000 per QALY in the UK and China respectively.

Results

For clinical effectiveness, osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy (PbCT) yielded the highest QALYs, while two chemotherapy treatments gained the lowest QALYs. For costs, gefitinib treatment was the cheapest option in both countries (£24529 in the UK and £12961 in China). For cost-effectiveness, 4 treatments including gefitinib, gefitinib plus pemetrexed, gefitinib plus PbCT, and osimertinib formed the cost-effectiveness frontier in both countries. Gefitinib alone (70.7% and 80.0% under the threshold of £20000 and £8000 per QALY in the UK and China, respectively) and gefitinib plus PbCT (62.3% and 71.2% under the threshold of £50000 and £24000 per QALY in the UK and China, respectively) were most likely to be cost-effective compared with other first-line treatments.

Conclusions

Gefitinib and gefitinib plus PbCT were likely to be cost-effective for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC in both countries.

Cost-Effectiveness of Bevacizumab Biosimilar LY01008 Combined With Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Chinese Patients With Advanced or Recurrent Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Objective: To investigate whether LY01008, a locally developed bevacizumab biosimilar agent, is appropriate for widespread use among Chinese advanced or recurrent nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, our current study was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line LY01008 combined with platinum-doublet chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Material and Methods: This economic evaluation designed a Markov model to compare the healthcare cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and adverse event (AE)-related discontinuation of first-line treatment, were estimated using data from the clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were derived from local databases, hospitals, and published literature. Our base case analysis and scenario analysis focused on the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy combined with a clinical trial dosage (15 mg/kg every 3-week cycle) and a real-world dosage (7.5 mg/kg every 3-week cycle) of LY01008, respectively. Results: In the base case analysis, first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy was associated with an increase of 0.48 QALYs in effectiveness and an increase of CNY 189,988 (US$ 26,240) in healthcare costs compared with first-line chemotherapy, resulting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CNY 375,425 (US$ 54,430)/QALY. In the scenario analysis, first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy was associated with a mean healthcare cost of CNY 265,060 (US$ 38,429), resulting an ICER of CNY 221,579 (US$ 32,125/QALY) between first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy. The parameters that determine the cost of LY01008 have the greatest impact on the cost-effectiveness results. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, first-line LY01008 at a real-world dosage combined with chemotherapy is likely to represent a cost-effective strategy compared with first-line chemotherapy alone for Chinese advanced or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC patients.

First-Line Treatments for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Plus Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus chemotherapy were unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in China due to its high costs. However, the cost-effectiveness of the comparison between the regimens of ICIs plus chemotherapy were remained unclear yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ICIs plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to indirect compare the clinical benefits between the ICIs plus chemotherapy regimens. A decision-analytic model was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness from the Chinese healthcare system, the clinical efficacy and safety data were obtained from the clinical trials and the results of NMA. Cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and previously studies. Key outputs of the NMA were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model outcomes.

Results

Five clinical trials (IMpower133, CASPIAN, KEYNOTE-604, CA184-156, and EA5161) of 1,255 patients received first-line ICIs plus chemotherapy strategies were analyzed in the NMA. NMA showed that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was ranked higher than other strategies. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy achieved relatively higher health benefits and lower costs. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost of ICIs had the substantial impact on model outcomes. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the probability of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could be considered cost-effective was more than 50% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $31,313/QALY in China. In scenario analyses, when the price of nivolumab reduced 80%, the probability of nivolumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was more than 50%.

Conclusions

The NMA and cost-effectiveness revealed that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy is the most favorable first-line treatment for previously untreated ES-SCLC patients compared other ICIs plus chemotherapy regimens in China. The price reduction of nivolumab would make nivolumab plus chemotherapy be the most cost-effective option in future possible context.

Modelled Economic Analysis for Dacomitinib-A Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Treating Patients With EGFR-Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

Objectives

To establish the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib compared to gefitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Patients

Advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

Methods

Partitioned survival analysis was undertaken to examine the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib utilising individual patient data (IPD) from the pivotal randomised controlled trial (RCT) (ARCHER 1050). The three health states modelled were progression-free, post-progression, and death. Parametric survival distributions were fitted to IPD against the Kaplan-Meier survival curves corresponding to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes by randomised groups. Costs included drug acquisition and administration, outpatient management (outpatient consultation and examinations), and best supportive care costs. Utility weights were sourced from the pivotal trial and other published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

Results

In the base case, dacomitinib (CNY 265,512 and 1.95 QALY) was associated with higher costs and QALY gains compared to gefitinib (CNY 247,048 and 1.61 QALYs), resulting in an ICER of CNY 58,947/QALY. Using the empirical WTP/QALY threshold, dacomitinib is a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with EGFR-mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that dacomitinib had a 97% probability of being cost-effective.

Conclusions

Dacomitinib is a cost-effective treatment strategy in treating patients with EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib could be reduced if long-term survival data become available.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT01024413

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.

Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy in Advanced or Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Purpose: The IMpassion130 trial demonstrated the efficacy of adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel for advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel for TNBC from the perspective of Chinese health sector.

Methods: A partitioned survival model was implemented for patients with TNBC. The survival data were derived from IMpassion130 trial. Direct costs and utility values were collected from the Chinese Drug Bidding Database and published literatures. The primary analysis outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability.

Results: In the base-case analysis, the ICER of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel vs. nab-paclitaxel is respectively, $176,056/QALY, $118,146/QALY, and $323,077/QALY in the ITT, PD-L1(+) and PD-L1(–) group.

Conclusion: Adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel could improve survival time significantly in the PD-L1-positive group, but it is not a cost-effective strategy compared to nab-paclitaxel monotherapy for Chinese patients with advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the current economic context of China.

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.

Onwards and Upwards: A Systematic Survey of Economic Evaluation Methods in Oncology

INTRODUCTION

The type of methods used in economic evaluations of health technology can lead to results that may influence decisions. Despite the potential impact on decision making, there is very little documentation of methods used in economic evaluation in oncology pertaining to key assumptions and extrapolation methods of survival benefits, especially in terms of survival analysis techniques and methods for extrapolation.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this study were to identify, examine, and describe the methods used in economic evaluations in oncology over a 10-year period, while secondary objectives included examining the use of identified methods across different geographic regions.

METHODS

A systematic search of the published oncology literature was conducted to identify economic evaluations of advanced or metastatic cancers published between 2010 and 2019 using the PUBMED, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. A random sample was taken, and information on type of study, data source, modeling techniques, and survival analysis methods were abstracted and descriptively summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 8481 abstracts were identified and 76 economic evaluations were abstracted and assessed. Most identified studies were from North America (38%), East Asia (21%), continental Europe (18%), or the UK (16%), and most commonly focused on lung cancer (18%), colorectal cancer (16%), or breast cancer (13%). A large majority of studies were based on data from randomized controlled trials (82%), utilized a cost-utility approach (82%), and took a public healthcare system perspective (83%). Common model structures included Markov (49%) and partitioned survival (17%). Fitted parametric curves were the most commonly used extrapolation method (89%) for overall survival and most often utilized the Weibull distribution (64%). Secondary assessments showed modest regional variation in the use of identified methods, including the use of fitted parametric curves, testing of the proportional hazards assumption, and validation of results.

CONCLUSION

A majority of papers in the study sample reported basic characteristics of study type, data source used, modeling techniques, and utilization of survival analysis methods. However, greater detail in reporting extrapolation methods, statistical analyses, and validation of results could be potential improvements, especially across regions, in order to support greater consistency in decision making. Future research could document the diffusion of novel modeling techniques into economic evaluation.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dacomitinib versus gefitinib for the first-line therapy of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the United States and China

Background

This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib and gefitinib for the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive patients from the perspective of healthcare systems in the United States and China.

Methods

A Markov model, which included 3 health states over 10 years, was established in this study. The state transition probabilities and clinical data were extracted from the ARCHER 1050 trial (dacomitinib versus gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC). Health utilities were derived from published literature. Based on the healthcare system payer's perspective in the United States and China, the cost data were estimated from local pricing or the relevant literature. The health outcomes are expressed by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). All costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are presented in US dollars. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to test the robustness of the results.

Results

In the United States, compared with gefitinib, dacomitinib yielded an additional 0.55 QALYs, while the ICERs were $600.69 per QALY. The cost of dacomitinib was the most influential parameter. The willingness payment curve showed that dacomitinib was cost-effective at the $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Meanwhile, when the WTP threshold was higher than $200,000/QALY, the probability of dacomitinib being the best treatment plan was more than 80%. In China, compared with gefitinib, dacomitinib was associated with a mean healthcare savings of $160,173.27 and 0.41 additional QALYs per patient, which was a dominant intervention over a 10-year time horizon. The cost of progressive disease was shown to have the strongest impact on the results. Dacomitinib had more than a 90% probability of being chosen as the preferred therapy when the Chinese WTP threshold was $27,000/QALY.

Conclusions

As the first-line treatment for EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, dacomitinib is likely to be more cost-effective than gefitinib from the healthcare system's perspective in the United States and China.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Different PD-L1 Expression Status

Background

Atezolizumab could significantly improve clinical outcomes and was associated with less toxicity compared with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of PD-L1-selected patients with EGFR and ALK wild-type metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the economic outcomes remain unclear yet in China. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC with different PD-L1 expression status from the Chinese health sector perspective.

Methods

A decision-analytic model was conducted to evaluate the economic outcomes for the first-line treatment of EGFR and ALK wild-type metastatic NSCLC with atezolizumab and chemotherapy in high PD-L1 expression, high or intermediate PD-L1 expression and any PD-L1 expression populations, respectively. The efficacy and safety data were obtained from the IMpower110 trial. Cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and published literatures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated. A scenario analysis for a patient assistance program (PAP) was conducted. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model results.

Results

Atezolizumab yielded additional 0.91 QALYs, 0.57 QALYs, 0.42 QALYs in comparison with chemotherapy, and the ICERs were $123,778.60/QALY, $142,827.19/QALY, $168,902.66/QALY in the high PD-L1 expression, high or intermediate PD-L1 expression, and any PD-L1 expression populations, respectively. When PAP was available, the ICERs were $52,414.63/QALY, $52,329.73/QALY, $61,189.66/QALY in the three categories of PD-L1 expression status populations, respectively. The ICERs were exceed the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,828/QALY (three times of per capita gross domestic product of China in 2019) in China. One-way sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost of atezolizumab played a vital role in the model outcomes, and the probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed atezolizumab was unlikely to be cost-effective at the WTP threshold regardless of PD-L1 expression status and whether the PAP was available or not.

Conclusions

Atezolizumab as first-line treatment for PD-L1-selected metastatic NSCLC patients without EGFR mutations or ALK translocations is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 expression status in the Chinese context.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Trastuzumab Emtansine as Second-line Therapy for HER2-Positive Breast Cancer in China

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is the standard second-line option for the treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer for its superior clinical efficacy in prolonging progression-free survival. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of T-DM1 from the Chinese healthcare perspective. Capecitabine (Cap), capecitabine + lapatinib (Cap + Lap), capecitabine + trastuzumab (Cap + Tra), capecitabine + trastuzumab + pertuzumab (Cap + Tra + Per) were selected as comparators.

METHODS

A three-state Markov simulation model was performed. The state transition probabilities were estimated based on the results of a published network meta-analysis, and utilities were derived from the published literature. The costs populated in the model were acquired from the local charge or previously published studies. One-way sensitive analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Compared with Cap, Cap + Lap, Cap + Tra, and Cap + Tra + Per, T-DM1 was estimated to increase the cost by US$109,699.1, $106,019.1, $97,506.3, and $67,121.9, respectively, and yield a gain of 0.544 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), 0.383 QALYs, 0.367 QALYs, 0.087 QALYs, respectively. Corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were $201,652.9, $276,812.5, $265,685.0, and $771,516.1 per QALY. The probabilities of T-DM1 as the dominant option were 0% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $31,245.1/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

T-DM1, as second-line therapy in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer, is not a cost-effective option in China. Given the significant clinical efficacy, an appropriate price reduction of T-DM1 is required to benefit more HER2-positive breast cancer patients.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Hepatic Arterial Infusion of FOLFOX Combined Sorafenib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Portal Vein Invasion

Background

Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX) plus sorafenib has a more desirable effect versus sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with portal vein invasion. However, considering the high cost of hepatic arterial infusion of chemotherapy (HAIC), this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HAIC plus sorafenib (SoraHAIC) versus standard care for HCC patients from the Chinese health system perspective.

Methods

A Markov multi-state model was constructed to simulate the disease course and source consumption of SoraHAIC. Costs of primary therapeutic drugs were calculated based on the national bid price, and hepatic artery catheterization fee was collected from the Fujian Provincial Price Bureau. Clinical data, other costs, and utility values were extracted from references. Primary outcomes included life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The robustness of model was verified by uncertainty sensitivity analyses.

Results

SoraHAIC gained 1.18 QALYs (1.68 LYs) at a cost of $65,254, while the effectiveness and cost of sorafenib were 0.52 QALYs (0.79 LYs) and $14,280, respectively. The ICER of SoraHAIC vs sorafenib was $77,132/QALY ($57,153/LY). Parameter that most influenced the ICER was utility of PFS state. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that SoraHAIC was not cost-effective in the WTP threshold of 3*Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita of China ($30,492/QALY). But about 38.8% of the simulations were favorable to SoraHAIC at the WTP threshold of 3*GDP per capita of Beijing ($72,000/QALY). When 3*GDP per capita of Fujian ($47,285/QALY) and Gansu Province ($14,595/QALY) were used as WTP threshold, the acceptability of SoraHAIC was 0.3% and 0%, respectively.

Conclusions

The study results indicated that SoraHAIC was not cost-effective in medium-, and low-income regions of China. In developed areas of China (Beijing), there was a 38.8% probability that the SoraHAIC regimen would be cost-effective.

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 of Osimertinib vs Docetaxel-bevacizumab in Third-line Treatment in EGFR T790M Resistance Mutation Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in third-line treatment in EGFR T790M resistance mutation advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China from the perspective of the health care system.

METHODS

To explore modeling uncertainty, 2 different model methods (a Markov model and a partitioned survival [PS] model) were developed to simulate costs and health outcomes during a lifetime. Both models consisted of 3 health states: progression-free survival, postprogression survival, and death. Efficacy and safety data of osimertinib vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in patients who had acquired EGFR T790M resistance mutation were derived from a key head-to-head clinical trial. Cost and utility values were derived from local charges, the literature, the China Drug Bidding Database, and patients' health care documents. Two scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the results.

FINDINGS

In the Markov model, compared with docetaxel and bevacizumab, osimertinib yielded 0.69 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an additional cost (in US dollars) of $17,311 for an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $25,463 per QALY. In the PS model, osimertinib yielded an additional 0.69 QALYs with an incremental cost of $17,827 for an ICUR of $25,951 per QALY. From the Markov model, the ICUR was $29,416 per QALY in scenario 1 and $25,543 per QALY in scenario 2. From the PS model, the ICUR was $30,264 per QALY and $25,947 per QALY for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, osimertinib treatment had a 21%-63% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $9777 to $29,330 per QALY (1-3 times the gross domestic product per capita).

IMPLICATIONS

The findings from the present analysis suggest that osimertinib could be cost-effective vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in third-line treatment in EGFR T790M resistance mutation advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China.

Economic Evaluation of Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine Versus Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine for the Treatment of First-Line Advanced Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in China: Using Markov Model and Partitioned Survival Model

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as a first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China.

METHODS

The Markov model and partitioned survival (PS) model were used, and the study included three health states over the period of a lifetime. Transition probabilities and safety data were derived from the CBCSG006 trial (cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients who had acquired metastatic triple-negative breast cancer). Cost and utility values were derived from previous studies, the Chinese Drug Bidding Database, and healthcare documents. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability.

RESULTS

In the Markov model, compared with paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.15 QALYs, with an incremental cost of 1976.33 USD. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 12,826.98 USD/QALY (quality-adjusted life year). In the PS model, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.17 QALYs with an incremental cost of 2384.63 USD; the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 13,867.7 USD/QALY. In the first scenario analysis, in which the 3-year time horizon was used in both arms, the total QALYs in the cisplatin plus gemcitabine group were larger and the costs were lower, indicating that cisplatin plus gemcitabine was superior to paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. In the second scenario, in which the progression-free (PF) utility (during chemotherapy) was 0.76, the PF utility was 0.96, and the post-progression (PP) utility was 0.55, the result obtained with the Markov model showed that the ICUR was 11,063.68 USD/QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) on the Markov model, the probabilities that cisplatin plus gemcitabine would be cost-effective were 48.94-78.72% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was 9776.8 to 29,330.4 USD/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the present analysis suggest that cisplatin plus gemcitabine might be much more cost-effective than paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients receiving first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China.

The Role of Stereotactic Radiosurgery in the Management of Brain Metastases From a Health-Economic Perspective: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an effective option in the management of brain metastases, offering improved overall survival to whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT). However, given the need for active surveillance and the possibility of repeated interventions for local/distant brain recurrences, the balance between clinical benefit and economic impact must be evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of health-economic analyses of SRS for brain metastases, compared with other existing intervention options, to determine the cost-effectiveness of this treatment across different clinical scenarios.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CRD, and EconLit databases were searched for health-economic analyses, according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, using terms relevant to brain metastases and radiation-based therapies. Simple cost analysis studies were excluded. Quality analysis was based on BMJ Consolidated Health Economics Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

Eleven eligible studies were identified. For lesions with limited mass effect, SRS was more cost-effective than surgical resection (6 studies). In patients with Karnofsky performance scale (KPS) >70 and good predicted survival, SRS was cost-effective compared to WBRT (7 studies); WBRT became cost-effective with poor performance status or low anticipated life span. Following SRS, routine magnetic resonance imaging surveillance saved $1326/patient compared to symptomatic imaging due to reduced surgical salvage and hospital stay (1 study).

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, SRS is cost-effective in the management of brain metastases, particularly in high-functioning patients with longer expected survival. However, before an optimal care pathway can be proposed, emerging factors such as tumor molecular subtype, diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment, neuroprognostic score, tailored surveillance imaging, and patient utilities need to be studied in greater detail.

Analysis of treatment cost for neuroblastoma to the family: a single-center cross-sectional study in China

BACKGROUND

Neuroblastoma (NB) is notorious in childhood cancer because of its high incidence and poor prognosis. The Children's Oncology Group reported that the 3-year OS in the high-risk (HR) group is 50%, and the HR-NB with bone marrow metastasis in our center is 43.1%. Thousands of families in China suffer from the cost of NB, but the true costs of therapy are unknown; to date, no study has ever performed a detailed therapy costs analysis for NB. The objective of this study was to assess the economic burden of NB treatment in children to the family, to ultimately reduce related expenses for patients and promote the establishment of NB management policy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data in this cross-sectional study were collected via questionnaires completed by parents at the outpatient clinic and was verified via a computer system. Therapy costs of children with NB of differing risks were analyzed through descriptive statistics (1 CNY ≈ 0.1412 USD).

RESULTS

Median direct medical costs of low risk (LR), middle risk (MR), and HR NB during treatment were 180.0 (120.0, 300.0), 200.0 (166.0, 300.0), and 650.0 (415.5, 850.0) thousand Chinese yuan (CNY), respectively. Direct non-medical costs including transportation, food, and accommodation were 60.0 (37.0, 100.0), 80.0 (60.0, 120.0), and 100.0 (80.0, 157.5) thousand CNY in the LR, MR, and HR groups, respectively. Additionally, parents accrued work absences to attend treatment, and lost a total of 100.0 (50.0, 150.0) thousand CNY in indirect costs.

LIMITATIONS

Families whose children had relapsed or died were excluded from this analysis and therefore limited the conclusions drawn. Parents were asked to recall costs since initial diagnosis (1-6 years in the past), but this extended time period may have introduced recall bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct non-medical and indirect costs play an important role in the total treatment costs of NB. Children with NB treated in local hospitals and followed up in hospital specialized in childhood oncology may save many unnecessary expenses. China's healthcare system should establish mechanisms and provide financial support for children with NB.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab in the second-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus chemotherapy in the second-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Materials & methods: A Markov model reflecting the patients in the ATTRACTION-3 trial was established. Weibull survival model was employed to fit the Kaplan-Meier progression-free survival and overall survival probabilities of the nivolumab and chemotherapy strategy, respectively. Meanwhile, one-way and PSA were performed to test the uncertainty in the model. Results: Overall, the incremental effectiveness and cost of nivolumab versus chemotherapy were 0.107 quality-adjusted life-years and $14,627.90, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $136,709.35/quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusion: Nivolumab is not a cost-effective treatment option compared with chemotherapy from the perspective of Chinese society.

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Analysis of real-world data in a tertiary hospital in Taiwan

Introduction

Comparison of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) would improve patients’ clinical benefits and save costs. Using real-world data, this study attempted to directly compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib.

Methods

During May 2011-December 2017, all patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) visiting a tertiary center were invited to fill out the EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires and World Health Organization Quality of Life, brief version (WHOQOL-BREF), and received follow-ups for survival and direct medical costs. A total of 379 patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC under first-line TKIs were enrolled for analysis. After propensity score matching for the patients receiving afatinib (n = 48), erlotinib (n = 48), and gefitinib (n = 96), we conducted the study from the payers’ perspective with a lifelong time horizon.

Results

Patients receiving afatinib had the worst lifetime psychometric scores, whereas the differences in quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) were modest. Considering 3 treatments together, afatinib was dominated by erlotinib. Erlotinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness of US$17,960/life year and US$12,782/QALY compared with gefitinib. Acceptability curves showed that erlotinib had 58.6% and 78.9% probabilities of being cost-effective given a threshold of 1 Taiwanese per capita GDP per life year and QALY, respectively.

Conclusion

Erlotinib appeared to be cost-effective. Lifetime psychometric scores may provide additional information for effectiveness evaluation.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with PD-L1 test for the first-line treatment of NSCLC

Background

Pembrolizumab (Pembro) in combination with chemotherapy has been approved for the treatment of pretreated advanced NSCLC in the United States and China for its significant efficacy. However, the cost‐effectiveness is unknown considering Pembro's high price. The impact of programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) test on the cost‐effectiveness is also unknown. The current study assessed the cost‐effectiveness of combination therapy for nonsquamous NSCLC from the United States and China public payers’ perspective.

Materials and Methods

A literature‐based Markov model was conducted using KEYNOTE‐189 trial data to compare cost and quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) of three treatment strategies for nonsquamous NSCLC: Pembro‐chemotherapy combination and chemotherapy strategy without PD‐L1 test, and treatment strategy according to their PD‐L1 status.

Results

In base case analysis, the combination strategy generated an additional 0.78 QALYs and 0.59 QALYs over chemotherapy in the United States and China respectively, resulting in an ICER of $132 392/QALY in the United States and $92 533/QALY in China. In the PD‐L1 ≥1% base case, the ICERs were $77 754/QALY and $56 768/QALY respectively in the United States and China for PD‐L1 test strategy. In the PD‐L1 ≥50% base case, the ICERs were $44 731/QALY and $34 388/QALY respectively in the United States and China for PD‐L1 test strategy. Lowering Pembro price can also partly decrease the ICERs.

Conclusion

Compared with chemotherapy, the combination strategy is not cost‐effective for the treatment of NSCLC in the American and Chinese health care system at WTP threshold of $100 000/QALY for the United States and $27 351/QALY for China. Using PD‐L1 test for patient selection and price reduction could improve the cost‐effective probabilities of immunotherapy for nonsquamous NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of EGFR Mutation Testing And Afatinib Versus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin As First-Line Therapy For Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer In China

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the combined use of afatinib and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) testing versus gemcitabine-cisplatin as the first-line treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China.

Methods

A decision-analytic model, based on clinical phase III trials, was developed to simulate patient transitions. Direct costs were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 5-year lifetime horizon. Model robustness was conducted in sensitivity analyses.

Results

For the base case, EGFR mutation testing followed by afatinib treatment for advanced NSCLC increased 0.15 QALYs compared with standard chemotherapy at an additional cost of $5069.12. The ICER for afatinib maintenance was $33,416.39 per QALY gained. The utility of PFS and the cost of afatinib had the most important impact on the ICER. Scenario analyses suggested that when a patient assistance program (PAP) was available, ICER decreased to $22,972.52/QALY lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($26,508/QALY).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that gene-guided maintenance therapy with afatinib with the PAP might be a cost-effective treatment option compared with gemcitabine – cisplatin in China.

Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Ceritinib and Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatments for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

INTRODUCTION

A trial-based assessment was completed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ceritinib as a first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rearrangement of anaplastic lymphoma kinase.

METHODS

Based on the disease situation of advanced NSCLC, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the costs and benefits of ceritinib and platinum-based chemotherapy. The cost information and health utilities were obtained from published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. The stability of the model was verified by sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The base case analysis results indicated that compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, ceritinib therapy would increase benefits in a 5-, 10- and 15-year time horizon, with extra costs of $230,661.61, $149,321.52 and $136,414.43 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. The most sensitive parameter in the model analysis was the cost of ceritinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that at the current price of ceritinib, the chance of ceritinib being cost-effective was 0 at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $27,142.85 per quality-adjusted life-year (three times the per capita gross domestic product of China).

CONCLUSION

As a first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC with rearrangement of anaplastic lymphoma kinase, ceritinib is unlikely to be cost-effective at the current price from the Chinese healthcare perspective. To meet the treatment demands of patients, it may be a better option to reduce the price or provide appropriate drug assistance policies.

Effect of gefitinib on serum EGFR and CYFRA21-1 in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Changes of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and cytokeratin fragment antigen 21-1 (CYFRA21-1) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before and after gefitinib treatment were observed to explore the significance of such changes. A total of 175 patients with advanced NSCLC who were admitted to Hubei Cancer Hospital from July 2012 to October 2015 were collected and divided into two groups: the control group (85 patients who received conventional chemotherapy) and the experimental group (90 patients treated with gefitinib combined with chemotherapy). The serum expression levels of EGFR and CYFRA21-1 were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The therapeutic efficacy and 3-year survival of the two groups were compared, and the factors affecting the survival of the patients were analyzed. The total effective rate and local effective rate of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group (P<0.05). Before treatment, no significant difference was detected in the levels of EGFR and CYFRA21-1 between the two groups (P>0.05). After treatment, the expression levels of EGFR and CYFRA21-1 in the two groups were significantly lower than those before treatment (P<0.05). According to the 3-year survival rate, the experimental group was divided into the survival group and the non-survival group. Single factor analysis was performed on the general data, showing that the influencing factors of the survival include the KPS score, smoking history, number of lesions, pathological stage, EGFR, and CYFRA21-1. Gefitinib can bring significantly improved therapeutic efficacy, lower expression levels of EGFR and CYFRA21-1, and longer survival time for patients with advanced NSCLC. Indicators including confirmed smoking history, a KPS score less than or equal to 60 points, multiple lesions, pathological stage IV, high expression of EGFR and CYFRA21-1, are important factors affecting the survival of patient with advanced NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Alectinib for Patients with Untreated ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

INTRODUCTION

To assess the cost-effectiveness of alectinib versus crizotinib as first-line treatments for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients from the perspective of China's healthcare system.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to assess the clinical outcomes and costs of alectinib and crizotinib, which included five health states: progression-free (PF) without central nervous system (CNS) progression, PF with CNS progression, post-progression (PP) without CNS progression, PP with CNS progression, and death. Clinical data for transition probabilities were obtained from the ALEX trial at the updated data cutoff. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were derived from clinical expert opinions and published literature. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the results. Scenario analyses were conducted including using clinical data from the ALESIA trial in Asian patients, using utilities from the ALEX trial, and choosing different parametric survival models.

RESULTS

In base case analysis, alectinib yielded an additional 1.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with incremental costs of $54,827, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $52,869/QALY. In scenario analysis, the ICER was $56,787/QALY using clinical data from the ALESIA trial. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities of alectinib being cost-effective were 0.4% and 43.7% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were $28,109/QALY and $50,000/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Alectinib could prolong the mean time of PF and delay the time to CNS progression. However, because of its high drug cost, alectinib was unlikely to be cost-effective for untreated ALK-positive NSCLC patients in China.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib as First-line Treatment and Sequential Therapy for EGFR Mutation-positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in China

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib with gefitinib or erlotinib as first-line and sequential therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China.

METHODS

The Markov model was used, and the study included 3 health states over a 10-year period. Transition probabilities and safety data were collected from the FLAURA (AZD9291 versus gefitinib or erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer) trial. Cost and utility values were derived from local charges and literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability.

FINDINGS

The strategy with gefitinib or erlotinib first-line therapy and second-line gene-guided osimertinib therapy (GE-T790M) resulted in a gain of 0.31 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a cost of $15,200.95 per patient compared with the gefitinib or erlotinib first-line therapy and second-line chemotherapy (GE-chemotherapy). The incremental QALY and incremental cost values for first-line osimertinib therapy compared with GE-chemotherapy was 0.96 and $69,420.76, respectively. Compared with the GE-T790M strategy (0.96 QALY and $29,223.33), first-line osimertinib was estimated to be more effective (1.61 QALYs) and more costly ($83,443.14). Relative to the GE-chemotherapy strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $47,873.96 and $71,954.08 per QALY gained with GE-T790M and the osimertinib first-line strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for first-line osimertinib versus GE-T790M was estimated to be $83,766.61. The results were found to be robust for univariate and multivariable sensitivity analyses.

IMPLICATIONS

Gefitinib or erlotinib first-line and chemotherapy second-line strategies were the most cost-effective first-line treatments for EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC. Gefitinib or erlotinib first-line and gene-guided osimertinib second-line strategies were more cost-effective than osimertinib first-line treatment for patients who preferred osimertinib administration in China.

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.

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.

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.