Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Osimertinib in Patients with Resected EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: For many patients with resected epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), current standard of care (SoC) is adjuvant chemotherapy; however, disease recurrence remains high. Based on positive results from ADAURA (NCT02511106), adjuvant osimertinib was approved for treatment of resected stage IB‒IIIA EGFRm NSCLC. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant osimertinib in patients with resected EGFRm NSCLC. METHODS: A five-health-state, state-transition model with time dependency was developed to estimate lifetime (38 years) costs and survival of resected EGFRm patients treated with adjuvant osimertinib or placebo (active surveillance), with/without prior adjuvant chemotherapy, using a Canadian Public Healthcare perspective. Transitions between health states were modeled using ADAURA and FLAURA (NCT02296125) data, Canadian life tables, and real-world data (CancerLinQ Discovery®). The model used a 'cure' assumption: patients remaining disease free for 5 years after treatment completion for resectable disease were deemed 'cured.' Health state utility values and healthcare resource usage estimates were derived from Canadian real-world evidence. RESULTS: In the reference case, adjuvant osimertinib treatment led to a mean 3.20 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; (11.77 vs 8.57) per patient, versus active surveillance. The modeled median percentage of patients alive at 10 years was 62.5% versus 39.3%, respectively. Osimertinib was associated with mean added costs of Canadian dollars (C$)114,513 per patient and a cost/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) of C$35,811 versus active surveillance. Model robustness was demonstrated by scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this cost-effectiveness assessment, adjuvant osimertinib was cost-effective compared with active surveillance for patients with completely resected stage IB‒IIIA EGFRm NSCLC after SoC.

The economic value of liquid biopsy for genomic profiling in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Background: Liquid biopsy (LB) can detect actionable genomic alterations in plasma circulating tumor circulating tumor DNA beyond tissue testing (TT) alone in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of adding LB to TT in the Canadian healthcare system. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision analytic Markov model from the Canadian public payer (Ontario) perspective and a 2-year time horizon in patients with treatment-naïve stage IV non-squamous NSCLC and ⩽10 pack-year smoking history. LB was performed using the comprehensive genomic profiling Guardant360™ assay. Standard of care TT for each participating institution was performed. Costs and outcomes of molecular testing by LB + TT were compared to TT alone. Transition probabilities were calculated from the VALUE trial (NCT03576937). Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess uncertainty in the model. Results: Use of LB + TT identified actionable alterations in more patients, 68.5 versus 52.7% with TT alone. Use of the LB + TT strategy resulted in an incremental cost savings of $3065 CAD per patient (95% CI, 2195-3945) and a gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.02) versus TT alone. More patients received chemo-immunotherapy based on TT with higher overall costs, whereas more patients received targeted therapy based on LB + TT with net cost savings. Major drivers of cost-effectiveness were drug acquisition costs and prevalence of actionable alterations. Conclusion: The addition of LB to TT as initial molecular testing of clinically selected patients with advanced NSCLC did not increase system costs and led to more patients receiving appropriate targeted therapy.

Health and Budget Impact of Liquid-Biopsy-Based Comprehensive Genomic Profile (CGP) Testing in Tissue-Limited Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (aNSCLC) Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Molecular genetic testing using tissue biopsies can be challenging for patients due to unfavorable tumor sites, the invasive nature of a tissue biopsy, and the added time of booking a repeat biopsy (re-biopsy). Centers in Canada have found insufficient tissue rates to be approximately 10%, and even among successful biopsies, insufficient DNA in tissue samples is approximately 16%, triggering the lengthy process of re-biopsies. Using aNSCLC as an example, this study sought to characterize the health and budget impact of alternative liquid-biopsy(LBx)-based comprehensive genomic profile (CGP) testing in tissue-limited patients (TL-LBx-CGP) from a Canadian publicly funded healthcare perspective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An economic model was developed to estimate the incremental cost and life-years gained as a population associated with adopting TL-LBx-CGP. The eligible patient population was modeled using a top-down epidemiological approach based on the published literature and expert clinician input. Treatment allocation was modeled based on biomarker prevalence in the published literature, and the availability of funded therapies. Costs included molecular testing, as well as drug, administrative, and supportive costs, and relevant health data included median overall survival and median progression-free survival data. RESULTS: Incorporation of TL-LBx-CGP demonstrated an overall impact of $14.7 million with 168 life-years gained to the Canadian publicly funded healthcare system in the 3-year time horizon.

Development, validation and results from the impact of treatment evolution in non-small cell lung cancer (iTEN) model.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment of advanced NSCLC (aNSCLC) is rapidly evolving, as new targeted and immuno-oncology (I-O) treatments become available. The iTEN model was developed to predict the cost and survival benefits of changing aNSCLC treatment patterns from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. This report describes iTEN model development and validation. MATERIALS & METHODS: A discrete event patient simulation of aNSCLC was developed. A modified Delphi process using Canadian clinical experts informed the development of treatment sequences that included commonly used, Health Canada approved treatments of aNSCLC. Treatment efficacy and the timing of progression and death were estimated from published Kaplan-Meier progression free and overall survival data. Costs (2018 CDN$) included were: drug acquisition and administration, imaging, monitoring, adverse events, physician visits, best supportive care, and end-of-life. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Clinical validity of the iTEN model was assessed by comparing model survival predictions to published real-world evidence (RWE). Four RWE studies that reported the overall survival of patients treated with a broad sampling of common aNSCLC treatment patterns were used for validation. The validation coefficient of determination was R2 = 0.95, with the model generally producing estimates that were neither optimistic nor conservative. The model estimated that current Canadian practice patterns yield a median survival of almost 13 months, a five-year survival rate of 3% and a life-time per-treated-patient cost of $110,806. Cost and survival estimates are presented and were found to vary by aNSCLC subtype. In conclusion, the iTEN model is a reliable tool for forecasting the impact on cost and survival of new treatments for aNSCLC.

Erlotinib or best supportive care for third-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis.

UNLABELLED: Erlotinib has been approved as a third-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in British Columbia (BC). A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare costs and effectiveness in patients who received third-line erlotinib to those in a historical patient cohort that would have been eligible had erlotinib been available. METHODS: In a population of patients who have been treated with drugs for advanced NSCLC, overall survival (OS), progression-to-death survival (PTD) and probability of survival one year after end of second-line (1YS) were determined using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Costs were collected retrospectively from the perspective of the BC health care system. RESULTS: Incremental mean OS was 90 days (0.25 LYG), and incremental mean cost was $11,102 (CDN 2009), resulting in a mean ICER of $36,838/LYG. Univariate sensitivity analysis yielded ICERs ranging from $21,300 to $51,700/LYG. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that erlotinib may be an effective and cost-effective third-line treatment for advanced NSCLC compared to best supportive care.

Erlotinib or docetaxel for second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Erlotinib was recently approved in British Columbia (BC) as a second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted which compares costs and effectiveness in patients who received second-line erlotinib with those in patients who received docetaxel. METHODS: In a population of patients who have been treated with drugs (either erlotinib or docetaxel) for advanced NSCLC, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and probability of survival 1 year after beginning of second-line treatment (1YS) were determined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analysis, as well as χ test. Costs were collected retrospectively from the perspective of the BC health care system. RESULTS: Incremental mean OS was 1 day, and incremental mean cost was $2891. Neither costs nor effectiveness were statistically significantly different between groups. PFS and 1YS were also nonsignificantly different. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate multivariate confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib and docetaxel are statistically equivalent in terms of treatment cost and overall survival. As treatment practice patterns change, docetaxel may become more frequently prescribed. Therefore, the choice of whether to use erlotinib or docetaxel should be based on factors relating to patient preference rather than costs or effectiveness.