RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The observational multicenter prospective FLOWER study (NCT04965701) confirmed effectiveness and safety of osimertinib in the real-world (RW) management of untreated EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients. METHODS: Herein, we report updated survival data, post-progression management, cost/effectiveness and budget impact (BI) of osimertinib compared with a RW population receiving gefitinib or erlotinib. RESULTS: Overall, 189 Caucasian patients receiving first-line osimertinib were included. After a follow-up of 20.7 months, 74(39.2%) patients discontinued osimertinib, median time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) was 27.9 months, overall survival 36.8 months. At progression, tissue biopsy was performed in 29 (56.9%), liquid biopsy in 15 (29.4%) and both in 7 (13.7%) cases. The most frequent resistant mechanism was MET amplification (Nâ =â 14, 29.8%). At data cutoff, 13 (6.9%) patients were continuing osimertinib beyond progression; 52 (67.5%) received second-line treatment; no further treatments were administered in 25 (32.5%) cases. Thirty-three (63.4%) patients received chemotherapy, 12(23.1%) TKIs combination. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed a total cost per patient based on RW mTTD of 98,957.34, 21,726.28 and 19,637.83 for osimertinib, erlotinib and gefitinib, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)/month for osimertinib was 359,806.0/life-year-gained (LYG) and 197,789.77/LYG compared to erlotinib and gefitinib. For osimertinib, the BI-gap between RW-TTD and theoretical-TTD was 16,501.0 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: This updated analysis confirms the effectiveness of osimertinib in RW. Although the ICER of osimertinib seems not cost-effective, additional costs for the management of disease progression to old generation TKIs were not considered in this study. The BI-gap suggests RW mTTD as a more reliable measure for expense estimation.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Contract research organization (CRO) support is largely included in clinical trial management, although its effect in terms of time savings and benefit has not yet been quantified. We performed a retrospective multicenter analysis of lung cancer trials to explore differences in term of trial activation timelines and accrual for studies with and without CRO involvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Results regarding study timelines from feasibility data to first patient enrollment were collected from 7 Italian thoracic oncology departments. The final accruals (screened/enrolled patients) are reported. We considered CRO/sponsor-administered and CRO-free trials according to who was responsible for the management of the crucial setup phases. RESULTS: Of 113 trials, 62 (54.9%) were CRO-administered, 34 (30.1%) were sponsor-administered, and 17 (15.0%) were CRO-free. The median time from feasibility invitation to documentation obtainment was 151 days in the CRO-administered trials versus 128 in the sponsor-administered and 120 in the CRO-free trials. The time from document submission to contract signature was 142 days in the CRO-administered versus 128 in the sponsor-administered and 132 in the CRO-free trials. The time from global accrual opening to first patient enrollment was 247 days for the CRO-administered versus 194 in the sponsor-administered and 151 in the CRO-free trials. No significant differences were observed in terms of the median overall timeline: 21 months in the CRO-administered, 15 in the sponsor-administered, and 18 months in the CRO-free studies (P = .29). CONCLUSION: Although no statistically significant differences were identified, the results of our analysis support the idea that bureaucratic procedures might require more time in CRO-administered trials than in sponsor-administered and CRO-free studies. This bureaucratic delay could negatively affect Italian patients' screening and enrollment compared with other countries.
