Cost-Effectiveness of Next-Generation Sequencing Versus Single-Gene Testing for the Molecular Diagnosis of Patients With Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer From the Perspective of Spanish Reference Centers

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of using next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing (SgT) for the detection of genetic molecular subtypes and oncogenic markers in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the setting of Spanish reference centers.

METHODS

A joint model combining decision tree with partitioned survival models was developed. A two-round consensus panel was performed to describe clinical practice of Spanish reference centers, providing data on testing rate, prevalence of alterations, turnaround times, and treatment pathways. Treatment efficacy data and utility values were obtained from the literature. Only direct costs (euros, 2022), obtained from Spanish databases, were included. A lifetime horizon was considered, so a 3% discount rate for future costs and outcomes was considered. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

A target population of 9,734 patients with advanced NSCLC was estimated. If NGS was used instead of SgT, 1,873 more alterations would be detected and 82 more patients could potentially be enrolled in clinical trials. In the long term, using NGS would provide 1,188 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in the target population compared with SgT. On the other hand, the incremental cost of NGS versus SgT in the target population was €21,048,580 euros for a lifetime horizon (€1,333,288 for diagnosis phase only). The obtained incremental cost-utility ratios were €25,895 per QALY gained, below the standard cost-effectiveness thresholds.

CONCLUSION

Using NGS in Spanish reference centers for the molecular diagnosis of patients with metastatic NSCLC would be a cost-effective strategy over SgT.

Economic burden of locoregional and metastatic relapses in resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer in Spain

BACKGROUND

There are scarce data of the costs of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) recurrence in Spain. The objective of this study is to assess the economic burden of disease recurrence, for both locoregional and/or metastatic relapses, after appropriate early-stage NSCLC treatment in Spain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A two-round consensus panel of Spanish oncologists and hospital pharmacists was conducted to collect information on patient's flow, treatments, use of healthcare resources and sick leaves in patients with relapsed NSCLC. A decision-tree model was developed to calculate the economic burden of disease recurrence after appropriate early-stage NSCLC. Both direct and indirect costs were considered. Direct costs included drug acquisition and healthcare resources costs. Indirect costs were estimated using the human-capital approach. Unit costs were obtained from national databases (euros of 2022). A multi-way sensitivity analysis was performed to provide a range to the mean values.

RESULTS

Among a cohort of 100 patients with relapsed NSCLC, 45 patients would have locoregional relapse (36.3 would eventually progress to metastasis and 8.7 would be considered in remission) and 55 patients would have metastatic relapse. Over time, 91.3 patients would experience a metastatic relapse (55 as first relapse and 36.6 after previous locoregional relapse). The overall cost incurred by the 100-patients cohort is €10,095,846 (€9,336,782 direct costs, €795,064 indirect costs). The average cost of a locoregional relapse is €25,194 (€19,658 direct costs, €5536 indirect costs), while the average cost a patient with metastasis who receives up to 4 lines of treatment is €127,167 (€117,328 direct, €9839 indirect).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study that specifically quantifies the cost of relapse in NSCLC in Spain. Our findings shown that the overall cost of a relapse after appropriate treatment of early-stage NSCLC patients is substantial, and it increases considerably in the metastatic relapse setting, mainly due to the high cost and long duration of first-line treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus pembrolizumab as first-line treatment in PD-L1-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Spain

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab has recently been approved for first-line treatment of high PD-L1 expression metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients with no EGFR or ALK mutations, on the basis of the IMpower110 trial. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab compared with pembrolizumab among these patients in Spanish settings, based on the results of the two cut-offs of the IMpower110 study.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned-survival model was adapted to Spanish settings to calculate health outcomes and costs over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data for atezolizumab were collected from the interim and the exploratory results (data cut-off: Sept'18 and Feb'20, respectively) of the IMpower110 trial while a network meta-analysis was used to model pembrolizumab treatment. Utility data were collected from the trial. Direct medical costs were considered based on resources identified by experts. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. Health outcomes were expressed as cost per Life Year (LY) and cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, the incremental results showed that atezolizumab generated similar health outcomes (LYs and QALYs) to pembrolizumab, with minimal differences depending on the cut-off used (+ 0.70 and + 0.42 LYs and QALYs with Sept'18 cut-off and - 0.80 and - 0.72 LYs and QALYs with Feb'20 cut-off). However, for both cut-offs, atezolizumab produced meaningfully less costs than pembrolizumab (€ - 54,261 with Sept'18 cut-off and € - 81,907 with Feb'20 cut-off). The sensitivity analyses carried out confirmed the robustness of the base-case results.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing the two cut-off of IMpower110, shows that atezolizumab provides similar health gains to pembrolizumab but at a lower cost for the first-line treatment of metastasic NSCLC patients in Spain.

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

AIMS

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of molecular diagnosis by next-generation sequencing versus sequential single testing in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients from a south Spanish hospital perspective

BACKGROUND

To assess the cost-effectiveness of using next-generation sequencing (NGS) compared to sequential single-testing (SST) for molecular diagnostic and treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a Spanish single-center perspective, the Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio (HUVR).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A decision-tree model was developed to assess the alterations detection alterations and diagnostic cost in patients with advanced NSCLC, comparing NGS versus SST. Model inputs such as testing, positivity rates, or treatment allocation were obtained from the literature and the clinical practice of HUVR experts through consultation. Several sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Using NGS for molecular diagnosis of a 100-patients hypothetical cohort, 30 more alterations could be detected and 3 more patients could be enrolled in clinical-trials than using SST. On the other hand, diagnostic costs were increased up to €20,072 using NGS instead of SST. Using NGS time-to-results would be reduced from 16.7 to 9 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of NGS at HUVR for the diagnostic of patients with advanced NSCLC provides significant clinical benefits compared to SST in terms of alterations detected, treatment with targeted-therapies and clinical-trial enrollment, and could be considered a cost-effective strategy.

Clinical and economic impact of 'ROS1-testing' strategy compared to a 'no-ROS1-testing' strategy in advanced NSCLC in Spain

Background

Detection of the ROS1 rearrangement is mandatory in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to allow targeted therapy with specific inhibitors. However, in Spanish clinical practice ROS1 determination is not yet fully widespread. The aim of this study is to determine the clinical and economic impact of sequentially testing ROS1 in addition to EGFR and ALK in Spain.

Methods

A joint model (decision-tree and Markov model) was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of testing ROS1 strategy versus a no-ROS1 testing strategy in Spain. Distribution of ROS1 techniques, rates of testing, positivity, and invalidity of biomarkers included in the analysis (EGFR, ALK, ROS1 and PD-L1) were based on expert opinion and Lungpath real-world database. Treatment allocation depending on the molecular testing results was defined by expert opinion. For each treatment, a 3-states Markov model was developed, where progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) curves were parameterized using exponential extrapolations to model transition of patients among health states. Only medical direct costs were included (€ 2021). A lifetime horizon was considered and a discount rate of 3% was applied for both costs and effects. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty.

Results

A target population of 8755 patients with advanced NSCLC (non-squamous or never smokers squamous) entered the model. Over a lifetime horizon, the ROS1 testing scenario produced additional 157.5 life years and 121.3 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with no-ROS1 testing scenario. Total direct costs were increased up to € 2,244,737 for ROS1 testing scenario. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 18,514 €/QALY. Robustness of the base-case results were confirmed by the sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

Our study shows that ROS1 testing in addition to EGFR and ALK is a cost-effective strategy compared to no-ROS1 testing, and it generates more than 120 QALYs in Spain over a lifetime horizon. Despite the low prevalence of ROS1 rearrangements in NSCLC patients, the clinical and economic consequences of ROS1 testing should encourage centers to test all advanced or metastatic NSCLC (non-squamous and never-smoker squamous) patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09397-4.