Economic Impact of Next-Generation Sequencing Versus Single-Gene Testing to Detect Genomic Alterations in Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Using a Decision Analytic Model.

PURPOSE: The aim of the current study was to assess the economic impact of using next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing strategies among patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and US commercial payers. METHODS: A decision analytic model considered patients who were newly diagnosed with mNSCLC who received programmed death ligand 1 and genomic alteration tests-EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, MET, HER2, RET, and NTRK1-using upfront NGS (all alterations tested simultaneously plus KRAS), sequential testing (sequence of single-gene tests), exclusionary testing (KRAS plus sequential testing), and hotspot panels (EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF tested simultaneously plus single-gene tests or NGS for MET, HER2, RET, and NTRK1). Model outcomes for each strategy were time-to-test results, the proportion of patients identified harboring alterations with or without US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies, and total testing costs. A budget impact analysis assessed the economic effects of increasing the proportion of NGS-tested patients. RESULTS: In a hypothetical 1,000,000-member health plan, 2,066 Medicare-insured patients and 156 commercially insured patients were estimated to have mNSCLC and to be eligible for testing. Time-to-test results were 2.0 weeks for NGS and the hotspot panel, faster than exclusionary and sequential testing by 2.7 and 2.8 weeks, respectively. NGS was associated with cost savings for both CMS ($1,393,678; $1,530,869; and $2,140,795 less than exclusionary, sequential testing, and hotspot panels, respectively) and commercial payers ($3,809; $127,402; and $250,842 less than exclusionary, sequential testing, and hotspot panels, respectively). Increasing the proportion of NGS-tested patients translated into substantial cost savings for both CMS and commercial payers. CONCLUSION: Use of upfront NGS testing in patients with mNSCLC was associated with substantial cost savings and shorter time-to-test results for both CMS and commercial payers.

Economic analysis of BRAF gene mutation testing in real world practice using claims data: costs of single gene versus panel tests in patients with lung cancer.

AIMS: To assess the time to BRAF testing, compare the characteristics of tested vs not-tested patients, and describe the costs for sequential vs next-generation sequencing (NGS) BRAF testing. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer after December 1, 2013 were identified from two US claims databases; their characteristics were assessed during the 12 months before diagnosis (index date). Testing modalities were analyzed from the index date to end of continuous health plan enrollment or data availability (December 2015), based on combinations of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) procedure codes. Time to BRAF testing was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Costs were analyzed from a payer's perspective. RESULTS: A total of 28,011 patients newly-diagnosed with lung cancer were identified. Of them, 1,260 (4.5%) were tested for BRAF: 3.2% and 4.2% were tested at 6 and 12 months, respectively, after the index date. Compared to non-tested patients, tested patients were younger (58.3 vs 65.3 years; p < .001), had a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (2.8 vs 2.9; p = .005), and a higher proportion had metastases (70.9% vs 43.4%; p < .001). In 76.0% of cases, BRAF was tested along with KRAS. BRAF was tested using NGS in 6.6% of cases. The average reimbursed amounts for the 10 most common CPT code combinations were $207-$2,074. Using the average costs of individual mutation tests, the total cost of sequential testing comprising KRAS, EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF tests was $3,763 ($464, $696, $1,070, $1,127, and $406, respectively), that of NGS was $2,860. LIMITATIONS: Claims data did not include BRAF test results. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients newly-diagnosed with lung cancer, 4.5% were tested for BRAF. Tested patients were younger and had a lower comorbidity burden, but more advanced disease. While reimbursed amounts varied greatly based on combinations of testing procedures, NGS testing was associated with cost savings compared to sequential testing of individual mutations.

Treatment patterns, clinical and economic outcomes of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer receiving ceritinib: a retrospective observational claims analysis.

Objective: To describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and costs among patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving ceritinib in second or later line of therapy. Methods: Adult patients with NSCLC receiving ceritinib were identified from two large US claims databases (2006-2015). Patient characteristics, comorbidity profile, treatment patterns prior to ceritinib, and ceritinib dosing patterns were described. All-cause, HRU, and costs incurred during the observation period after ceritinib initiation were reported per patient per six months. Results: One hundred sixty-four patients were included (mean age 54.2 years, 57.3% female); the majority had metastatic disease (94.5%) and the average Charlson Comorbidity Index was 7.6. 150 (91.5%) patients received crizotinib prior to ceritinib - average crizotinib duration was 10.2 months and time between crizotinib discontinuation and ceritinib initiation was 2.1 months (median= 0; 25th-75th percentile= 0-0.8). Most patients (73.8%) initiated ceritinib on the recommended dose (750 mg) and maintained the dose until the end of the observation period (mean of 7.4 months) or ceritinib discontinuation; 61 (37.2%) patients discontinued ceritinib during the observation period. A total of 76 (46.3%) patients had at least one inpatient admission during the observation period after ceritinib initiation. Mean total healthcare cost per patient per six months was $111,468. Conclusions: Patients with ALK-positive NSCLC receiving ceritinib had a high comorbidity burden and generally started ceritinib on the recommended dose quickly after crizotinib discontinuation. Medical costs accounted for nearly a half of the total healthcare costs.

Brain metastases in patients with ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer: clinical symptoms, treatment patterns and economic burden.

OBJECTIVE: Brain metastases (BM) are highly prevalent among anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients; yet little is known about their real-world treatment patterns and clinical and economic burdens. This study aimed to describe these patients' treatment patterns, symptoms, and costs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective study pooling data from three large administrative databases in the US (08/2011-06/2013). ALK+ NSCLC patients with BM and continuous enrollment for ≥ 60 days before and ≥ 30 days after the first observed BM diagnosis were identified by pharmacy records for crizotinib among patients with lung cancer and BM diagnostic codes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment patterns, symptoms, healthcare resource utilization, and costs, before and after BM diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 213 crizotinib patients with BM diagnoses meeting the selection criteria, 23.0% had BM prior to NSCLC diagnosis; 47.4% had BM prior to crizotinib initiation; 19.2% during crizotinib treatment; and 10.3% post-crizotinib treatment. For those diagnosed with BM after NSCLC diagnosis, the median time between the NSCLC and BM diagnoses was 88 days. Following the first observed BM diagnosis, 88.7% used chemotherapy, 63.4% had radiotherapy, and 31.9% had stereotactic radiosurgery. The prevalence of BM-related symptoms substantially increased post-BM-diagnosis: fatigue (from 15% to 39%), headaches (from 5% to 24%), and depression (from 5% to 15%). Monthly costs per patient averaged $5983 before the BM diagnosis and $22,645 after diagnosis. Patients' resource utilization increased significantly post-BM-diagnosis, with a 3-fold increase in OP visits and a 6-fold increase in IP stays. Post-BM-diagnosis costs were driven by pharmacy (42.0%), inpatient (29.6%), and outpatient costs (26.0%). LIMITATIONS: The study sample was limited to crizotinib-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Post-BM-diagnosis, patients experience high symptom burden. Post-BM-diagnosis, treatment is highly variable and costly: average monthly costs per patient almost quadrupled post-BM-diagnosis.

Economic evaluation of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients with bone metastases.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are common in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer. In a study of autopsies of patients with prostate cancer, 65%-75% had bone metastases. Bone metastases place a substantial economic burden on payers with estimated total annual costs of $1.9 billion in the United States. Skeletal-related events (SREs), including pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery to bone, and radiation to bone, affect approximately 50% of patients with bone metastases. They are associated with a decreased quality of life and increased health care costs. Zoledronic acid is an effective treatment in preventing SREs in solid tumors and multiple myeloma. Recently, denosumab was FDA-approved for prevention of SREs in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. A Phase 3 clinical trial (NCT00321620) demonstrated that denosumab had superior efficacy in delaying first and subsequent SREs compared with zoledronic acid. However, the economic value of denosumab has not been assessed in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of denosumab with zoledronic acid in the treatment of bone metastases in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer. METHODS: An Excel-based Markov model was developed to assess costs and effectiveness associated with the 2 treatments over a 1- and 3-year time horizon. Because the evaluation was conducted from the perspective of a U.S. third-party payer, only direct costs were included. Consistent with the primary outcome in the Phase 3 trial, effectiveness was assessed based on the number of SREs. The model consisted of 9 health states defined by SRE occurrence, SRE history, disease progression, and death. A hypothetical cohort of patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer received either denosumab 120 mg or zoledronic acid 4 mg at the model entry and transitioned among the 9 health states at the beginning of each 13-week cycle. Transition probabilities associated with experiencing the first SRE, subsequent SREs, disease progression, and death were primarily derived from the results of the Phase 3 clinical trial and were supplemented with published literature. The model assumed that a maximum of 1 SRE could occur in each cycle. Drug costs included wholesale acquisition cost, health care professional costs associated with drug administration, and drug monitoring costs, if applicable. Nondrug costs included incremental costs associated with disease progression, costs associated with SREs, and terminal care costs, which were derived from the literature. Adverse event (AE) costs were estimated based on the incidence rates reported in the Phase 3 trial. Resource utilization associated with AEs was estimated based on consultation with a senior medical director employed by the study sponsor. All costs were presented in 2010 dollars. The base case estimated the incremental total cost per SRE avoided over a 1-year time horizon. Results for a 3-year time horizon were also estimated. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: In the base case, the total per patient costs incurred over 1 year were estimated at $35,341 ($19,230 drug costs and $16,111 nondrug costs) for denosumab and $27,528 ($10,960 drug costs and $16,569 nondrug costs) for zoledronic acid, with an incremental total direct cost of $7,813 for denosumab. The estimated numbers of SREs per patient during the 1-year period were 0.49 for denosumab and 0.60 for zoledronic acid, resulting in an incremental number of SREs of -0.11 in the denosumab arm. The estimated incremental total direct costs per SRE avoided with the use of denosumab instead of zoledronic acid were $71,027 for 1 year and $51,319 for 3 years. The 1-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were sensitive to the drug costs, median time to first SRE, and increased risk of SRE associated with disease progression. Results of the PSA showed that based on willingness-to-pay thresholds of $70,000, $50,000, and $30,000 per SRE avoided, respectively, denosumab was cost-effective compared with zoledronic acid in 49.5%, 17.5%, and 0.3% of the cases at 1 year, respectively, and 79.0%, 49.8%, and 4.1% of the cases at 3 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although denosumab has demonstrated benefits over zoledronic acid in preventing or delaying SREs in a Phase 3 trial, it may be a costly alternative to zoledronic acid from a U.S. payer perspective.

Treatment of progressive or recurrent glioblastoma multiforme in adults with herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase gene vector-producer cells followed by intravenous ganciclovir administration: a phase I/II multi-institutional trial.

To determine the safety and evaluate the efficacy of repeated administration of virus-producing cells (GLI 328) containing the herpes simplex virus thymidine-kinase gene followed by ganciclovir treatment in adults with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme, we conducted a phase I/II multi-institutional trial. Eligible patients underwent surgical resection of tumor, followed by injections of vector producing cells (VPC) into the brain adjacent to the cavity. An Ommaya reservoir placed after surgery was used to inject a further dose of VPC seven days after surgery, followed seven days later by ganciclovir. Further gene therapy was given at 28-day intervals for up to a total of five cycles. Toxicity and anti-tumor effect were assessed. Of 30 patients who enrolled in the study, 16 experienced serious adverse events possibly related to the experimental therapy. Laboratory testing, including polymerase chain reaction analysis to detect replication-competent retrovirus in peripheral blood lymphocytes and tissues, as well as co-cultivation bioassays, were negative. Before receiving ganciclovir, 37% of the patients showed evidence of transduced peripheral blood leukocytes, but only 12% showed a persistence of transduced cells at the end of the first cycle of ganciclovir. Median survival was 8.4 months. Twenty percent of the patients (n = 6) survived more than 12 months from the date of study entry. This treatment modality is feasible and appears to have some evidence of efficacy. Toxicity may be related in part to the method of gene delivery.