Cost-effectiveness and Budgetary Consequence Analysis of Durvalumab Consolidation Therapy vs No Consolidation Therapy After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Context of the US Health Care System

Importance

In early 2018, durvalumab became the first immunotherapy to be approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose cancer has not progressed after definitive chemoradiotherapy. However, the cost-effectiveness and potential economic implications of using this high-priced therapy in this indication are unknown to date.

Objective

To explore the cost-effectiveness and potential budgetary consequences of durvalumab consolidation therapy vs no consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC in the context of the US health care system.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A decision analytic microsimulation model was developed in an academic medical setting to compare the following 2 postchemoradiotherapy strategies: all patients receive no consolidation therapy until progression vs all patients receive durvalumab consolidation therapy until progression or for a maximum of 1 year. The potential budgetary consequence was calculated by applying the proportion of patients with NSCLC who were diagnosed in stage III and received chemoradiotherapy to the projected number of annual new cases for 2018 to 2022 to find total eligible patients and then multiplied by the mean difference in annual cost between the strategies over this 5-year period. Simulated conditions were matched to those of the PACIFIC phase 3 randomized clinical trial and reasonable treatment strategies for metastatic NSCLC. All simulated patients begin disease free after having received radical treatment with chemoradiotherapy and are followed up as they progress to metastatic disease first-line treatment, metastatic disease second-line treatment, end-stage progressive disease, and death.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of durvalumab consolidation therapy vs no consolidation therapy, given as aggregate cost of treatment per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Results

Among 2 million simulated patients, durvalumab consolidation therapy was cost-effective compared with no consolidation therapy at a $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year willingness-to-pay threshold, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $67 421 per quality-adjusted life-year, and would contribute an additional $768 million to national cancer spending in year 1. The annual budgetary consequence would then decrease to $241 million in year 5.

Conclusions and Relevance

Durvalumab consolidation therapy represents an indication where expensive immunotherapies can be cost-effective. Treating with immunotherapy earlier in the course of cancer progression can provide significant value, despite having a substantial budgetary consequence.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening in the United States: A Comparative Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

Recommendations vary regarding the maximum age at which to stop lung cancer screening: 80 years according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), 77 years according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and 74 years according to the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of different stopping ages for lung cancer screening.

DESIGN

By using shared inputs for smoking behavior, costs, and quality of life, 4 independently developed microsimulation models evaluated the health and cost outcomes of annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).

DATA SOURCES

The NLST; Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial; SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program; Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study; and U.S. Smoking History Generator.

TARGET POPULATION

Current, former, and never-smokers aged 45 years from the 1960 U.S. birth cohort.

TIME HORIZON

45 years.

PERSPECTIVE

Health care sector.

INTERVENTION

Annual LDCT according to NLST, CMS, and USPSTF criteria.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

The 4 models showed that the NLST, CMS, and USPSTF screening strategies were cost-effective, with ICERs averaging $49 200, $68 600, and $96 700 per QALY, respectively. Increasing the age at which to stop screening resulted in a greater reduction in mortality but also led to higher costs and overdiagnosis rates.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the NLST and CMS strategies had higher probabilities of being cost-effective (98% and 77%, respectively) than the USPSTF strategy (52%).

LIMITATION

Scenarios assumed 100% screening adherence, and models extrapolated beyond clinical trial data.

CONCLUSION

All 3 sets of lung cancer screening criteria represent cost-effective programs. Despite underlying uncertainty, the NLST and CMS screening strategies have high probabilities of being cost-effective.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

CISNET (Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network) Lung Group, National Cancer Institute.

Pancreatic cancer treatment costs, including patient liability, by phase of care and treatment modality, 2000-2013

OBJECTIVES

Our study provides phase-specific cost estimates for pancreatic cancer based on stage and treatment. We compare treatment costs between the different phases and within the stage and treatment modality subgroups.

METHODS

Our cohort included 20,917 pancreatic cancer patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database diagnosed between 2000 and 2011. We allocated costs into four phases of care-staging (or surgery), initial, continuing, and terminal- and calculated the total, cancer-attributable, and patient-liability costs in 2018 US dollars. We fit linear regression models using log transformation to determine whether costs were predicted by age and calendar year.

RESULTS

Monthly cost estimates were high during the staging and surgery phases, decreased over the initial and continuing phases, and increased during the three-month terminal phase. Overall, the linear regression models showed that cancer-attributable costs either remained stable or increased by year, and either were unaffected by age or decreased with older age; continuing phase costs for stage II patients increased with age.

CONCLUSIONS

Our estimates demonstrate that pancreatic cancer costs can vary widely by stage and treatment received. These cost estimates can serve as an important baseline foundation to guide resource allocation for cancer care and research in the future.

A simulation study of the effect of lung cancer screening in China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea

More than 50% of the world's lung cancer cases occur in Asia and more than 20% of cancer deaths in Asia are attributable to lung cancer. The U.S. National Lung Screening Trial has shown that lung cancer screening with computed tomography (CT) can reduce lung cancer deaths. Using the Lung Cancer Policy Model-Asia (LCPM-Asia), we estimated the potential mortality reduction achievable through the implementation of CT-based lung cancer screening in China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. The LCPM-Asia was calibrated to the smoking prevalence of each of the aforementioned countries based on published national surveys and to lung cancer mortality rates from the World Health Organization. The calibrated LCPM-Asia was then used to simulate lung cancer deaths under screening and no-screening scenarios for the four countries. Using screening eligibility criteria recommended by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which are based on age and smoking history, we estimated the lung cancer mortality reduction from screening through year 2040. By 2040, lung cancer screening would result in 91,362 life-years gained and 4.74% mortality reduction in South Korea; 290,325 life-years gained and 4.33% mortality reduction in Japan; 3,014,215 life-years gained and 4.22% mortality reduction in China; and 8,118 life-years gained and 3.76% mortality reduction in Singapore. As for mortality reduction by smoker type, current smokers would have the greatest mortality reduction in each country, ranging from 5.56% in Japan to 6.86% in Singapore. Among the four countries, lung cancer screening under CMS eligibility criteria was most effective in South Korea and least effective in Singapore. Singapore's low smoking prevalence and South Korea's aging population and higher smoking prevalence may partially explain the discrepancy in effectiveness. CT screening was shown to be promising as a means of reducing lung cancer mortality in the four countries.

Disparities and Trends in Genetic Testing and Erlotinib Treatment among Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Despite reports of socioeconomic disparities in rates of genetic testing and targeted therapy treatment for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), little is known about whether such disparities are changing over time.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis to identify disparities and trends in genetic testing and treatment with erlotinib. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, we identified 9,900 patients with stage IV NSCLC diagnosed in 2007 to 2011 at age 65 or older. We performed logistic regression analyses to identify patient factors associated with odds of receiving a genetic test and erlotinib treatment, and to assess trends in these differences with respect to diagnosis year.

RESULTS

Patients were more likely to receive genetic testing if they were under age 75 at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR), 1.55] independent of comorbidity level, and this age-based gap showed a decrease over time (OR, 0.93). For untested patients, erlotinib treatment was associated with race (OR, 0.58, black vs. white; OR, 2.45, Asian vs. white), and was more likely among female patients (OR, 1.45); for tested patients, erlotinib treatment was less likely among low-income patients (OR, 0.32). Most of these associations persisted or increased in magnitude.

CONCLUSIONS

Race and sex are associated with rates of erlotinib treatment for patients who did not receive genetic testing, and low-income status is associated with treatment rates for those who did receive testing. The racial disparity remained stable over time, while the income-based disparity grew larger.

IMPACT

Attention to reducing disparities is needed as precision cancer treatments continue to be developed.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Population impact of lung cancer screening in the United States: Projections from a microsimulation model

BACKGROUND

Previous simulation studies estimating the impacts of lung cancer screening have ignored the changes in smoking prevalence over time in the United States. Our primary rationale was to perform, to our knowledge, the first simulation study that estimates the health outcomes of lung cancer screening with explicit modeling of smoking trends for the whole US population.

METHODS/FINDINGS

Utilizing a well-validated microsimulation model, we estimated the benefits and harms of an annual low-dose computed tomography screening scenario with a realistic screening adherence rate versus a no-screening scenario for the US population from 2016-2030. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) eligibility criteria were applied: age 55-77 years at time of screening, history of at least 30 pack-years of smoking, and current smoker or former smoker with fewer than 15 years since quitting. In the screened population, cumulative mortality reduction was projected to reach 16.98% (95% CI 16.90%-17.07%). Cumulative mortality reduction was estimated to be 3.52% (95% CI 3.50%-3.53%) for the overall study population, with annual mortality reduction peaking at 4.38% (95% CI 4.36%-4.41%) in 2021 and falling to 3.53% (95% CI 3.50%-3.56%) by 2030. Lung cancer screening would save a projected 148,484 life-years (95% CI 147,429-149,540) across the total population through 2030. There were estimated to be 9,054 (95% CI 9,011-9,098) overdiagnosed cases among the 252,429 (95% CI 251,208-253,649) screen-detected lung cancer diagnoses, yielding an overdiagnosis rate of 3.59%. The limitations of our study are that we do not explicitly model race or socioeconomic status and our model was calibrated to data from studies performed in academic centers, both of which may impact the generalizability of our results. We also exclusively model the effects of the CMS guidelines for lung cancer screening and not any other screening strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The mortality reduction and life-years gained estimated by this study are lower than those of single birth cohort studies. Single cohort studies neglect the changing dynamics of smoking behavior across generations, whereas this study reflects the trend of decreasing smoking prevalence since the 1960s. Maximum benefit could be derived from lung cancer screening through 2021; in later years, mortality reduction due to screening will decline. If a comprehensive screening program is not implemented in the near future, the opportunity to achieve these benefits will have passed.

Evaluating lung cancer screening in China: Implications for eligibility criteria design from a microsimulation modeling approach

More than half of males in China are current smokers and evidence from western countries tells us that an unprecedented number of smoking-attributable deaths will occur as the Chinese population ages. We used the China Lung Cancer Policy Model (LCPM) to simulate effects of computed tomography (CT)-based lung cancer screening in China, comparing the impact of a screening guideline published in 2015 by a Chinese expert group to a version developed for the United States by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The China LCPM, built using an existing lung cancer microsimulation model, can project population outcomes associated with interventions for smoking-related diseases. After calibrating the model to published Chinese smoking prevalence and lung cancer mortality rates, we simulated screening from 2016 to 2050 based on eligibility criteria from the CMS and Chinese guidelines, which differ by age to begin and end screening, pack-years smoked, and years since quitting. Outcomes included number of screens, mortality reduction, and life-years saved for each strategy. We projected that in the absence of screening, 14.98 million lung cancer deaths would occur between 2016 and 2050. Screening with the CMS guideline would prevent 0.72 million deaths and 5.8 million life-years lost, resulting in 6.58% and 1.97% mortality reduction in males and females, respectively. Screening with the Chinese guideline would prevent 0.74 million deaths and 6.6 million life-years lost, resulting in 6.30% and 2.79% mortality reduction in males and females, respectively. Through 2050, 1.43 billion screens would be required using the Chinese screening strategy, compared to 988 million screens using the CMS guideline. In conclusion, CT-based lung cancer screening implemented in 2016 and based on the Chinese screening guideline would prevent about 20,000 (2.9%) more lung cancer deaths through 2050, but would require about 445 million (44.7%) more screens than the CMS guideline.

Combined Biomarker and Computed Tomography Screening Strategies for Lung Cancer: Projections of Health and Economic Tradeoffs in the US Population

Background: Lung cancer screening with computed tomography (CT) of individuals who meet certain age and smoking history criteria is the current standard-of-care. Methods: Using a published simulation model, we compared outcomes associated with seven biomarker + CT screening strategies to CT screening alone using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services eligibility criteria. We assumed that the biomarker had conditionally independent performance; was used for first-line screening in some, or all, individuals screened; and could be extended to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–ineligible smokers. Strategies differed by inclusion criteria (e.g., pack-years) and proportion of individuals for whom CT remained the first-line test. Each model run simulated a combined cohort of one million men and one million women born in 1950. Primary outcomes were cancer-specific mortality reduction and screening costs; biomarker costs were measured relative to CT. Efficiency frontiers identified optimal health and economic tradeoffs. Sensitivity analysis evaluated the stability of results. Results: Standard-of-care screening yielded an 8.3% cancer-specific mortality reduction in the simulated US population (screened + unscreened individuals). For a biomarker test with 75% sensitivity and 95% specificity, mortality reductions across biomarker + CT strategies ranged from 7.0% to 23.9%. If the biomarker’s cost was >0.86× that of CT, standard-of-care screening remained on the efficiency frontier, indicating that health and economic tradeoffs were equally (or more) efficient relative to all biomarker + CT strategies. Biomarker + CT strategy costs were principally driven by biomarker specificity; mortality reduction was driven by sensitivity. Conclusion: Combined biomarker + CT strategies have the potential to improve future lung cancer screening effectiveness in the United States and achieve economic efficiency that is greater than the current standard-of-care.

Evaluating the impacts of screening and smoking cessation programmes on lung cancer in a high-burden region of the USA: a simulation modelling study

OBJECTIVE

While the US Preventive Services Task Force has issued recommendations for lung cancer screening, its effectiveness at reducing lung cancer burden may vary at local levels due to regional variations in smoking behaviour. Our objective was to use an existing model to determine the impacts of lung cancer screening alone or in addition to increased smoking cessation in a US region with a relatively high smoking prevalence and lung cancer incidence.

SETTING

Computer-based simulation model.

PARTICIPANTS

Simulated population of individuals 55 and older based on smoking prevalence and census data from Northeast Pennsylvania.

INTERVENTIONS

Hypothetical lung cancer control from 2014 to 2050 through (1) screening with CT, (2) intensified smoking cessation or (3) a combination strategy.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were lung cancer mortality rates. Secondary outcomes included number of people eligible for screening and number of radiation-induced lung cancers.

RESULTS

Combining lung cancer screening with increased smoking cessation would yield an estimated 8.1% reduction in cumulative lung cancer mortality by 2050. Our model estimated that the number of screening-eligible individuals would progressively decrease over time, indicating declining benefit of a screening-only programme. Lung cancer screening achieved a greater mortality reduction in earlier years, but was later surpassed by smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining smoking cessation programmes with lung cancer screening would provide the most benefit to a population, especially considering the growing proportion of patients ineligible for screening based on current recommendations.