Cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib plus chemotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: First-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to osimertinib, according to the FLAURA2 trial. METHODS: We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib plus chemotherapy with that of osimertinib alone. Clinical data were obtained from the FLAURA and FLAURA2 trials, and additional data were extracted from online resources and publications. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. We used A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The main outcomes were QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit, and incremental net health benefit. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to patients' mutation type and central nervous system (CNS) metastatic status. RESULTS: In a 20-year time horizon, the ICER of osimertinib plus chemotherapy versus osimertinib alone was $223,727.1 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses identified the cost of osimertinib and the hazard ratio for overall survival as the top 2 influential factors and a 1.9% probability of osimertinib plus chemotherapy to be cost-effective. The subgroup analyses revealed ICERs of $132,614.1, $224,449.8, $201,464.1, and $130,159.7 per QALY gained for L858R mutations, exon 19 deletions, CNS metastases, and no CNS metastases subgroups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the United States health care system, osimertinib plus chemotherapy is not cost-effective compared to osimertinib alone for treatment-naïve patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, but more favorable cost-effectiveness occurs in patients with L858R mutations and patients without baseline CNS metastases.

Budget impact models for lung cancer interventions: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Budget impact models (BIMs) forecast the financial implications of adopting new technologies and the potential need for budget reallocation, thus playing a crucial role in reimbursement decisions. Despite the importance of accurate forecasts, studies indicate large discrepancies between estimates and reality. We are developing an artificial intelligence-based clinical decision tool to identify patients with non-small cell lung cancer who are most likely to benefit from immunotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budgetary implications and describe a systematic literature review of published lung cancer BIMs. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies published between 2010 and 2023 that include BIMs that describe lung cancer interventions. Forward and backward reference searches were performed for all qualifying studies. We extracted author and publication year, country, interventions, disease stages, time horizon, analytical perspective, modeling methods used, types of costs included, sensitivity analyses conducted, and data sources used. We then evaluated adherence to the Professional Society for Health Economics and Pharmacoeconomics Research best-practice guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 25 BIMs were identified, spanning 14 different countries. Model structure could not be ascertained definitively for nearly half of the models. The cost calculator approach was most common among the others. Time horizons ranged from 1 to 5 years, in line with recommendations. Most models compared drugs, 4 compared nondrug interventions, and 7 compared diagnostic technologies. Assumptions about market uptake were poorly documented and poorly motivated. Inclusion of cancer-related costs was rare. Adherence to best practices was variable and did not appear to improve over time. CONCLUSIONS: The number of published BIMs for lung cancer exceeded expectations. There were modest trends toward publication frequency and model quality over time. Our analysis revealed variability across the models, as well as their adherence to best practices, indicating substantial room for improvement. Although none of the models were individually suitable for the purpose of evaluating an artificial intelligence-based treatment selection tool, some models provided valuable insights.

The Annual Cost of Cancer Screening in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cancer has substantial health, quality-of-life, and economic impacts. Screening may decrease cancer mortality and treatment costs, but the cost of screening in the United States is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the annual cost of initial cancer screening (that is, screening without follow-up costs) in the United States in 2021. DESIGN: Model using national health care survey and cost resources data. SETTING: U.S. health care systems and institutions. PARTICIPANTS: People eligible for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening with available data. MEASUREMENTS: The number of people screened and associated health care system costs by insurance status in 2021 dollars. RESULTS: Total health care system costs for initial cancer screenings in the United States in 2021 were estimated at $43 billion. Approximately 88.3% of costs were attributable to private insurance; 8.5% to Medicare; and 3.2% to Medicaid, other government programs, and uninsured persons. Screening for colorectal cancer represented approximately 64% of the total cost; screening colonoscopy represented about 55% of the total. Facility costs (amounts paid to facilities where testing occurred) were major drivers of the total estimated costs of screening. LIMITATIONS: All data on receipt of cancer screening are based on self-report from national health care surveys. Estimates do not include costs of follow-up for positive or abnormal screening results. Variations in costs based on geography and provider or health care organization are not fully captured. CONCLUSION: The $43 billion estimated annual cost for initial cancer screening in the United States in 2021 is less than the reported annual cost of cancer treatment in the United States in the first 12 months after diagnosis. Identification of cancer screening costs and their drivers is critical to help inform policy and develop programmatic priorities, particularly for enhancing access to recommended cancer screening services. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant icotinib versus chemotherapy for patients with stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer in China.

OBJECTIVE: Icotinib has been approved for adjuvant treatment of stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in China, yet the long-term costs and outcomes of this strategy are unknown. Thus, we examined the cost effectiveness of adjuvant icotinib, compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, for the treatment of resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC. DESIGN: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, comparing 2-year adjuvant icotinib with four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using a Markov model. Model inputs were obtained from local data and literature. The influence of model parameters and assumptions was explored in sensitivity analyses. All costs are expressed in 2022 US dollars, and costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times the per capita gross domestic product. SETTING: The Chinese healthcare system perspective. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC. INTERVENTIONS: Icotinib versus chemotherapy. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The incremental cost per QALY gained with the use of 2-year icotinib, from the Chinese healthcare system perspective, was $3440.66 compared with adjuvant chemotherapy. At a WTP threshold of $40 500, adjuvant icotinib was the optimal treatment in over 99% of replications. The interpretation of the results was insensitive to model and input assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant icotinib may be a cost-effective treatment for resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC as the WTP threshold is set at $40 500 per QALY.

Health and Economic Outcomes of Pembrolizumab in the Treatment of Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (mNSCLC) and Melanoma in Italy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In Italy, the management of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma leads to significant healthcare challenges, necessitating cost-effective treatment strategies and offering valuable insights for healthcare policymakers and stakeholders. This study was designed to assess the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) associated with the health and economic outcomes of (1) pembrolizumab-combined chemotherapy administered as a first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous and squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) where the tumour presents with a programmed death-ligand 1 expression level < 50% and of (2) adjuvant pembrolizumab treatment for stage III melanoma. METHODS: Three cost-effectiveness models developed by MSD were investigated for each treatment indication. A unique model was built to assess the overall effect of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy or watchful waiting in patients with lung cancer or melanoma, respectively. Theoretical cohorts of patients with metastatic squamous and non-squamous NSCLC were followed over time using a partitioned survival model with weekly cycles. A weekly cycle Markov model was employed for melanoma. The analysis was conducted from the Italian National Health Service perspective, considering a time horizon of 40 years (lifetime). A single closed cohort of treatable patients was followed over time for each indication (4000, 7000 and 900 for NSCLC squamous, non-squamous and melanoma, respectively). The costs evaluated included those for adverse drug events, non-drug disease management, subsequent treatment and terminal care. Drug acquisition and administration costs were excluded. RESULTS: For each treatment indication assessed, pembrolizumab produced downstream direct cost offsets (- €122,498,568, - €133,369,076 and - €32,993,242 for NSCLC squamous, non-squamous and melanoma indications, respectively), increased quality of life (+2088, +5317 and +2307 QALYs for NSCLC squamous, non-squamous and melanoma indications, respectively) and reduced disability (- 2658, - 7202 and - 3029 DALYs for NSCLC squamous, non-squamous and melanoma indications, respectively). Across indications, the total cost offsets of pembrolizumab were - €288,860,885, with 9712 QALYs gained and 12,889 DALYs avoided. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis demonstrated that, compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab is more cost effective in Italy as a first-line treatment in patients with metastatic squamous or non-squamous NSCLC and, if compared with watchful waiting, as adjuvant treatment in patients with stage III melanoma. The present analysis suggested that pembrolizumab use could lead to important health benefits for patients while offsetting a portion of cancer care costs.

Cost-effectiveness of consolidation durvalumab for inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer in Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab as a treatment option for patients with inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from healthcare and partial societal perspectives in Vietnam. METHOD: A lifetime partitioned survival model was used to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with consolidation durvalumab in comparison with the standard of care alone. Local costs and utilities were incorporated into the model. In the base-case analysis, no discount was applied to the acquisition cost of durvalumab. Scenario-based, one-way and probabilistic-sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The base-case analysis revealed that the intervention resulted in an increase of 1.38 life years or 1.08 QALYs for patients, but the intervention was not deemed cost-effective from either perspective in the base-case analysis. However, with a 70% reduction in the durvalumab acquisition cost, the intervention was observed to be cost-effective when evaluated from a healthcare perspective and when examining the undiscounted results from a partial societal standpoint. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab for the treatment of inoperable stage III NSCLC in Vietnam for various scenarios. The intervention was not cost-effective at full acquisition cost, but it is important to acknowledge that cost-effectiveness arguments alone cannot solely guide decision-makers in Vietnam; other criteria, such as budget impact and ethical concerns, are crucial factors to consider in decision-making processes.

Real-world clinical and economic outcomes for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer enrolled in a clinical trial following comprehensive genomic profiling via liquid biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Oncology clinical trial enrollment is strongly recommended for patients with cancer who are not eligible for established and approved therapies. Many trials are specific to biomarker-targeted therapies, which are typically managed as specialty pharmacy services. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of advanced cancers has been shown to detect biomarkers, guide targeted treatment, improve outcomes, and result in the clinical trial enrollment of patients, which is modeled to offset pharmacy costs experienced by US payers, yet payer policy coverage remains inconsistent. A common concern limiting coverage of CGP by payers is the potential of identifying biomarkers beyond guideline-recommended treatments, which creates a perception that insurance companies are being positioned to "pay for research." However, these biomarkers can increase clinical trial eligibility, and specialty pharmacy management may have an interest in maximizing the clinical trial enrollment of members. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if clinical trial enrollment following liquid biopsy CGP for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is clinically and/or economically impactful from a payer claims perspective. METHODS: Clinical and economic outcomes were studied using a real-world clinical genomic database (including payer claims data) from patients with NSCLC who enrolled in clinical trials immediately following liquid biopsy CGP (using Guardant360) and matched NSCLC patient controls also tested with liquid biopsy CGP. RESULTS: Real-world overall survival was significantly (log-rank P < 0.0001) better for patients enrolled in clinical trials with similar costs of care, albeit with more outpatient encounters among those enrolled compared with matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: The results, together with previous analyses, suggest that, in addition to the clinical benefits associated with targeted therapies directed by CGP and other testing approaches, payers and specialty pharmacy managers may consider clinical trial direction and enrollment as a clinical and economic benefit of liquid biopsy CGP and adopt this into coverage decision frameworks and formularies.

Cost-effectiveness of large-panel next-generation sequencing in guiding first-line treatment decisions for patients with nonsquamous advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend broad-panel genomic profiling to identify actionable genomic alterations for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of large-panel next-generation sequencing (LP-NGS) compared with current empirical single-gene test (SGT) patterns to inform first-line treatment decisions for patients with aNSCLC from a US commercial payer perspective, accounting for the effect of testing turnaround time and time to treatment initiation. METHODS: We developed a discrete-event simulation model to estimate the impact of LP-NGS vs SGT for patients with nonsquamous aNSCLC. Discrete events and timing included testing patterns, receipt of the initial test result, treatment initiation (targeted vs nontargeted therapies), switching, retesting, rebiopsies, clinical trial participation, progression on therapy, and death. LP-NGS and SGT cohorts each comprised 100,000 adults with aNSCLC simulated over a 5-year postdiagnosis period, assumed to have the same distribution of genomic alterations. The model predicted the proportion of patients receiving appropriate first-line therapy according to clinical practice guidelines. Economic outcomes included expected life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years, and the total costs of care over 5 years. Sensitivity and scenario analyses explored the robustness of the base-case model results. RESULTS: In the base-case model, LP-NGS was likely to identify more alterations than SGT. Total 5-year costs per patient were $539,658 for LP-NGS and $544,550 for SGT (net difference, $4,892 lower costs per patient for LP-NGS), which is likely to be cost-effective 95.1% of the time. The most influential model parameters on the 5-year total costs of care were preprogression nondrug medical costs on nontargeted therapy, NGS turnaround time, and clinical trial participation. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that LP-NGS to guide first-line treatment decisions is clinically more appropriate (more likely to identify alterations and subsequently allocate patients to clinically appropriate therapy) and provides a dominant cost-effectiveness treatment strategy over 5 years for patients with newly diagnosed aNSCLC in the United States.

Medical costs of lung cancer by stage, histology and first-line treatment modality in the Netherlands (2012-2021).

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide, with lung cancer treatment presenting a significant financial burden. The treatment landscape has recently shifted, seeing an increase in targeted- and immunotherapies. Such treatments are expensive, but estimates of the medical costs of the lung cancer treatment pathway largely predate their introduction. METHODS: We link medical expenditures of individuals resident in the Netherlands (n = 19.2 m) for 2013-2021 to tumour-level (n = 137,129, incident 2012-2021) Netherlands Cancer Registry data. We estimate lung cancer-attributable costs by phase of care (initial, continuing and terminal), stratified by cancer stage and histology, and observe trends in medical costs over time. RESULTS: We estimate mean costs over the lung cancer treatment pathway to be €48,443 per patient. Total medical costs are highest in the initial phase, followed by the terminal and continuing phase. Monthly treatment for stage IV lung cancer is significantly more expensive than for early-stage disease (€8293 per month of initial care relative to €3228 for stage IA). Stage IV lung cancer has become significantly more expensive to treat 2018-2021 relative to 2013-2017, with monthly expenditures rising 55 % in initial care and 148 % in continuing care. Population-wide, we find €900.6 million spent on lung cancer care in 2021, €433 million more than in 2016, of which €307.3 million is attributed to per-patient expenditure trends. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment advances are quickly inflating medical costs for late-stage lung cancer. Policy makers should carefully evaluate the cost-effectiveness of novel treatments, and incorporate stage-specific treatment costs in evaluating interventions for early detection.

First-line treatments for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy: a China-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of imported immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) such as atezolizumab and durvalumab, and domestic ICIs like serplulimab and adebrelimab, in combination with chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in China. Methods: Using a 21-day cycle length and a 20-year time horizon, a Markov model was established to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of five first-line ICIs plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, as well as against each other, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Transition probabilities were estimated by combining the results of the CAPSTONE-1 trial and a published network meta-analysis. Cost and health state utilities were collected from multiple sources. Both cost and effectiveness outcomes were discounted at a rate of 5% annually. The primary model output was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A series of sensitivity analyses were preformed to assess the robustness of the model. Results: In the base-case analysis, the addition of first-line ICIs to chemotherapy resulted in the ICERs ranged from $80,425.31/QALY to $812,415.46/QALY, which exceeded the willing-to-pay threshold set for the model. When comparing these first-line immunochemotherapy strategies, serplulimab plus chemotherapy had the highest QALYs of 1.51286 and the second lowest costs of $60,519.52, making it is the most cost-effective strategy. Our subgroup-level analysis yielded results that are consistent with the base-case analysis. The sensitivity analysis results confirmed the validity and reliability of the model. Conclusion: In China, the combination of fist-line ICIs plus chemotherapy were not considered cost-effective when compared to chemotherapy alone. However, when these fist-line immunochemotherapy strategies were compared with each other, first-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy consistently demonstrated superiority in terms of cost-effectiveness. Reducing the cost of serplulimab per 4.5 mg/kg would be a realistic step towards making first-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy more accessible and cost-effective.

Budget impact analysis of durvalumab consolidation therapy vs no consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer in the context of the Chilean health care system.

BACKGROUND: Durvalumab, used as consolidation immunotherapy, has shown to improve survival in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer who respond to chemoradiotherapy, based on the most recent follow-up of PACIFIC. The Chilean healthcare system provides access to certain immunotherapies for this condition. The present study sought to estimate the budget impact of durvalumab versus standard of care in the context of the Chilean healthcare system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model was adapted to compare two strategies: durvalumab as consolidation therapy and standard of care for treating stage III NSCLC. The number of patients eligible for treatment was estimated using published incidence data and modeled for a 5-year time horizon. Model inputs were based on published literature, and the duration of treatment was estimated using survival curves obtained from PACIFIC. Costs were estimated in Chilean pesos (CLP) and converted to USD dollars using an exchange rate of USD 1 = CLP 827. Scenario analyses were performed to assess different subsequent therapy splits, variations in the target population and dosage of durvalumab. RESULTS: Durvalumab uptake projected total costs ranging from USD 1.27 in Year 1 to 8.5 million in Year 5 from the public perspective. From the private perspective, the budget impact for the first year is USD 1.3 million to USD 3 million for 2028. This difference relies mostly on the lower number of patients treated. Both perspectives anticipated cost savings over the time horizon through reduced monitoring, adverse events, and end-of-life expenses. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the inclusion of Durvalumab for NSCLC in Chile represents an investment in the Chilean health system. The incremental costs align with clinical benefits and potential savings in healthcare resource utilization. However, a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to evaluate its economic value thoroughly.

Reply to "Matters arising: cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy combinations with or without chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a modelling approach".

In this article, we read with great attention the correspondence by Bullement et al., regarding our published study on cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy combinations with or without chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We referred to a few the most important comments from Bullement et al. in our opinion, including proportional hazard (PH) assumption, accelerated failure time (AFT) model, and health utility, and made some explanations.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy for advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China: based on the ASTRUM-004 trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the ASTRUM-004 trial, serplulimab plus chemotherapy demonstrated significantly improved survival and controllable safety. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC), considering the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: A decision tree and a Markov model were constructed to simulate the treatment. The interesting results included total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model instability. RESULTS: Compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy had an ICER of $55,539.46/QALY ($47,278.84/LY). The ICERs were estimated to be $58,706.03/QALY, $48,978.34/QALY and $59,709.54/QALY inpatients with programmed death-ligand 1 expression level of tumor proportion score (TPS) < 1%, 1% ≤ TPS < 50%, and TPS ≥ 50%. The cost-effective prices of serplulimab were $168.276/100 mg, $349.157/100 mg, and $530.039/100 mg at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $12,574.30/QALY, $25,148.60/QALY, and $37,722.90/QALY. Patient weight and price of serplulimab created the most significant impact. Presently, the probability of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 14.15%. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy might not be cost-effective in the first-line treatment for advanced sqNSCLC.

Cost-of-care discussions for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma: Findings from a large, population-based pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Costs of cancer care can result in patient financial hardship; many professional organizations recommend provider discussions about treatment costs as part of high-quality care. In this pilot study, the authors examined patient-provider cost discussions documented in the medical records of individuals who were diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma-cancers with recently approved, high-cost treatment options. METHODS: Individuals who were newly diagnosed in 2017-2018 with stage III/IV NSCLC (n = 1767) and in 2018 with stage III/IV melanoma (n = 689) from 12 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results regions were randomly selected for the National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Study. Documentation of cost discussions was abstracted from the medical record. The authors examined patient, treatment, and hospital factors associated with cost discussions in multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Cost discussions were documented in the medical records of 20.3% of patients with NSCLC and in 24.0% of those with melanoma. In adjusted analyses, privately insured (vs. publicly insured) patients were less likely to have documented cost discussions (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.80). Patients who did not receive systemic therapy or did not receive any cancer-directed treatment were less likely to have documented cost discussions than those who did receive systemic therapy (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.19-0.81] and 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.70], respectively), as were patients who were treated at hospitals without residency programs (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Cost discussions were infrequently documented in the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with advanced NSCLC and melanoma, which may hinder identifying patient needs and tracking outcomes of associated referrals. Efforts to increase cost-of-care discussions and relevant referrals, as well as their documentation, are warranted.

Impact of Adjuvant Atezolizumab on Recurrences Avoided and Treatment Cost Savings for Patients with Stage II-IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Canada.

This epidemiological model forecasted reductions in recurrences and recurrence treatment cost savings with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care among Canadians with stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at national and provincial levels. The population had resected, programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-high (≥50%), EGFR-, ALK-, stage II-IIIA NSCLC eligible for adjuvant treatment. Patients with recurrence or death and the costs of treating recurrences were estimated for those receiving adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care each year (2024-2034). Proportions of patients expected to be event free up to 10 years after treatment initiation were extrapolated with parametric survival analyses. In the base case analysis, 240 fewer recurrences were estimated to occur over 10 years (2024-2034) with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care across Canada, with 136 (57%) and 104 (43%) fewer locoregional and metastatic recurrences, respectively. Projected costs of treated recurrences were CAD 33.2 million less over 10 years with adjuvant atezolizumab at a national level (adjuvant atezolizumab, CAD 135.8 million; best supportive care, CAD 169.0 million). This model predicts a considerable long-term reduction in recurrences and substantial treatment cost savings with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care for patients with PD-L1-high early-stage NSCLC in Canada.

Comparison Between Sotorasib with Docetaxel for the Treatment of Chinese Patients with Previously Treated NSCLC with KRASG12C Mutation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Inform Drug Pricing.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to investigate the affordable price of sotorasib among patients with previously treated advanced KRASG12C-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) through a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspectives of both the Chinese healthcare system and the patients. METHODS: We developed a Markov model spanning a 20-year time horizon with a cycle length of 21 days. Our data were derived from the CodeBreaK 200 clinical trial, supplemented with published literature, publicly available national databases, and local hospitals. The primary outcomes were the affordable prices of sotorasib which would result in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of sotorasib relative to docetaxel below the preset willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model's robustness. RESULTS: At the national level, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system and patients, the price of sotorasib should be lower than US$0.04673 and $0.03231, respectively, to make it affordable, which is equivalent to $1346 and $931 per box (120 mg × 240 pieces). At the provincial level, the price ceiling of sotorasib/mg fluctuated between $0.04084 to $0.08061 from the Chinese healthcare system's perspective and between $0.02642 to $0.06620 from the patients' perspective. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that, as the price of sotorasib decreased, its likelihood of being cost-effective increased. CONCLUSION: Sotorasib might be a cost-effective therapy in China. The pharmaco-economic evidence generated from this study has significant implications not only for guiding the drug pricing of the upcoming sotorasib but also for determining the reimbursement ratio for its potential inclusion in the National Reimbursement Drugs List in the future.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Maintenance Pemetrexed Plus Best Supportive Care Compared With Best Supportive Care Alone in Treating Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Jordan.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care (BSC) in non-small cell lung cancer patients from a Jordanian healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A Markov model with 4 health states was developed to estimate life years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, and the incremental cost-utility ratio of pemetrexed plus BSC versus BSC. A lifelong time horizon was used in the base-case analysis. The transition probabilities were estimated from the PARAMOUNT trial, the utility weights were taken from published literature, and costs were based on data and unit costs at King Hussein Cancer Center and the Jordan Food and Drug Administration. Both costs and outcomes were discounted using a 3%. The parameter uncertainty was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that pemetrexed plus BSC increased QALYs and cost compared with BSC. Pemetrexed plus BSC leads to incremental 0.255 QALYs and incremental costs of US $30 826, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of US $120 886/QALY. The results were sensitive to changes in the utility estimates during the progression-free health state, the progression health state, and the cost of postprogression medications The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of pemetrexed plus BSC being a cost-effective option compared with BSC is 0 at a threshold of $56 000. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance pemetrexed for non-small cell lung cancer is not a cost-effective option compared with BSC from a healthcare system perspective based on the listed price at a threshold of $56 000/QALY.

Lung cancer in Argentina: a modelling study of disease and economic burden.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer remains a significant global public health challenge and is still one of the leading causes of cancer-related death in Argentina. This study aims to assess the disease and economic burden of lung cancer in the country. STUDY DESIGN: Burden of disease study. METHODS: A mathematical model was developed to estimate the disease burden and direct medical cost attributable to lung cancer. Epidemiological parameters were obtained from local statistics, the Global Cancer Observatory, the Global Burden of Disease databases, and a literature review. Direct medical costs were estimated through micro-costing. Costs were expressed in US dollars (US$), April 2023 (1 US$ = 216.38 Argentine pesos). A second-order Monte Carlo simulation was performed to estimate the uncertainty. RESULTS: Considering approximately 10,000 deaths, 12,000 incident cases, and 14,000 5-year prevalent cases, the economic burden of lung cancer in Argentina in 2023 was estimated to be US$ 556.20 million (396.96-718.20), approximately 1.4% of the total healthcare expenditure for the country. The cost increased with a higher stage of the disease, and the main driver was drug acquisition (80%). A total of 179,046 disability-adjusted life years could be attributable to lung cancer, representing 10% of the total cancer. CONCLUSION: The disease and economic burden of lung cancer in Argentina implies a high cost for the health system and would represent 19% of the previously estimated economic burden for 29 cancers in Argentina.