Impact of concurrent medications on clinical outcomes of cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: analysis of Health Insurance Review and Assessment data.

PURPOSE: Medications regulating immune homeostasis and gut microbiota could affect the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This study aimed to investigate the impact of concurrent medications on the clinical outcomes of patients with cancer receiving ICI therapy in South Korea. METHODS: We identified patients newly treated with ICI for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial carcinoma (UC), and malignant melanoma (MM) between August 2017 and June 2020 from a nationwide database in Korea. The effect of concurrent antibiotics (ATBs), corticosteroids (CSs), proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), and opioids prescribed within 30 days before ICI initiation on the treatment duration and survival was assessed. RESULTS: In all, 8870 patients were included in the ICI cohort (NSCLC, 7,128; UC, 960; MM, 782). The patients were prescribed ATBs (33.8%), CSs (47.8%), PPIs (28.5%), and opioids (53.1%) at the baseline. The median overall survival durations were 11.1, 12.2, and 22.1 months in NSCLC, UC, and MM subgroups, respectively, since starting the ICI mostly as second-line (NSCLC and UC) and first-line (MM) therapy. Early progression was observed in 34.2% of the patients. Opioids and CS were strongly associated with poor survival across all cancer types. A high number of concurrent medications was associated with early progression and short survival. Opioid and CS use was associated with poor prognosis in all patients treated with ICIs. However, ATBs and PPIs had a cancer-specific effect on survival. CONCLUSION: A high number of concurrent medications was associated with poor clinical outcomes.

Osimertinib in the treatment of resected EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States.

Background: In the double-blind phase III ADAURA randomized clinical trial, adjuvant osimertinib showed a substantial overall survival benefit in patients with stage IB to IIIA, EGFR-mutated, completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of adjuvant osimertinib to placebo in patients with stage IB to IIIA, EGFR-mutated, resected NSCLC. Methods: Based on the results obtained from the ADAURA trial, a Markov model with three-state was employed to simulate patients who were administered either osimertinib or placebo until disease recurrence or completion of the study period (3 years). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to explore the robustness of the model. Results: Osimertinib produced additional 1.59 QALYs with additional costs of $492,710 compared to placebo, giving rise to ICERs of $309,962.66/QALY. The results of the univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that the utility of disease-free survival (DFS), cost of osimertinib, and discount rate had the greatest impact on the outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that osimertinib exhibited a 0% chance of being considered cost-effective for patients using a WTP threshold $150,000/QALY. Conclusion: In our model, osimertinib was unlikely to be cost-effective compared to placebo for stage IB to IIIA, EGFR-mutated, completely resected NSCLC patients from the perspective of a U.S. payer at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of amivantamab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in NSCLC with EGFR Exon 20 insertions.

Objective: Amivantamab plus chemotherapy has been proved to be an efficient treatment strategy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertions. The aim of this study was to conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis of amivantamab-chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations. Methods: We constructed a Markov model based on the data derived from the PAPILLON trial. We evaluated the cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the influence of different parameters on this model. Results: Compared with chemotherapy alone, amivantamab combined with chemotherapy treatment gained an incremental effectiveness of 0.473 QALYs and an incremental cost of $361,950.952, which resulted in an ICER of $765,224/QALY. The ICER was much higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of 15,0000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that amivantamab cost was the leading influential factor in the model. Conclusions: Compared with chemotherapy alone, amivantamab plus chemotherapy is not a cost-effective first-line treatment choice for NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions. The costly price of amivantamab is one of the major reasons for the high cost of this combined treatment strategy. Therefore, it is imperative to take into account the high cost of amivantamab in the subsequent clinical application and strive to attain a relative equilibrium between its significant clinical benefit and economic encumbrance.

Combination tumor-treating fields treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tumor-treating field (TTFields) was a novel antitumor therapy that provided significant survival for previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). The consistency of the cost of the new treatment regimen with its efficacy was the main objective of the study. METHODS: The primary parameters, derived from the Phase 3 LUNAR study, were collected to evaluate the cost and efficacy of TTFields plus standard-of-care (SOC) (immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs] and docetaxel [DTX]) or SOC in patients with mNSCLC by establishing a three-state Markov model over a 15-year time horizon. Primary outcome measures for this study included costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The total costs of TTFields plus SOC, TTFields plus ICI, and TTFields plus DTX were $319,358, $338,688, and $298,477, generating 1.23 QALYs, 1.58 QALYs, and 0.89 QALYs, respectively. The ICERs of TTFields plus SOC versus SOC, TTFields plus ICI versus ICI, and TTFields plus DTX versus DTX were $613,379/QALY, $387,542/QALY, and $1,359,559/QALY, respectively. At willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $150,000/QALY, the probability of combination TTFields being cost-effective was 0%. In addition, TTFields plus SOC exhibited similar efficacy (1.12 QALYs and 1.14 QALYs) and costs ($309,822 and $312,531) in the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and non-squamous cell carcinoma (NSCC) populations. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, TTFields plus SOC as second-line treatment was not a more cost-effective strategy for patients with mNSCLC. Of the analyzed regimens, TTFields plus ICI was associated with most significant health benefits.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line versus second-line use of brigatinib followed by lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

Background: The ALTA-1 L trial and EXP-3B arm of NCT01970865 trial found that both brigatinib and lorlatinib showed durable and robust responses in treating ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, brigatinib and lorlatinib treatments are costly and need indefinite administration until the disease progression. Thus, it remains uncertain whether using brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy is cost-effective compared to reserving these two drugs until progression after chemotherapy. Methods: We used a Markov model to assess clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of treating ALK-positive NSCLC individuals with brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy versus a strategy of reserving these drugs until progression after chemotherapy. Transition probabilities were estimated using parametric survival modeling based on multiple clinical trials. The drug acquisition costs, adverse events costs, administration costs were extracted from published studies before and publicly available data. We calculated lifetime direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from the perspective of a United States payer. Results: Our base-case analysis indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of using first-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib compared with second-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib is $-400,722.09/QALY which meant that second-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib had less costs and better outcomes. Univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the results were most sensitive to the cost of brigatinib. Probability sensitivity analysis revealed that using brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy had a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness versus delaying these two drugs until progression after chemotherapy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses conducted revealed the robustness of this result, as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios never exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold. Conclusion: Using brigatinib as first-line treatment followed by lorlatinib for ALK-positive NSCLC may not be cost-effective given current pricing from the perspective of a United States payer. Delaying brigatinib followed by lorlatinib until subsequent lines of treatment may be a reasonable strategy that could limit healthcare costs without affecting clinical outcomes. More mature data are needed to better estimate cost-effectiveness in this setting.

Exploratory Assessment of Galectin-1, -3, and -9 in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Galectins play a pivotal role in lung cancer oncogenic pathways, influencing apoptosis, angiogenesis, and tumor metastasis. Biomarkers that diagnose, prognose, and guide cancer treatment are crucial, with galectins having the biomarker potential for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), we assessed serum galectin-1, -3, and -9 levels in NSCLC patients. A retrospective chart review was performed to examine patient demographics, cancer stage, tumor biology, cancer treatment, and patient outcomes. Galectin levels were then compared across these factors. In this exploratory analysis, galectin-3 levels were significantly lower in patients with squamous cell lung cancer (p = 0.0019) and in patients exposed to chemotherapy (p = 0.0375). Galectin-1 levels were significantly lower in patients with previous metastasis but had no correlation with future metastasis. Abnormal galectin-1 levels were significantly correlated with decreased overall survival (OS) in NSCLC (p = 0.0357) and specifically in patients with surgically resectable NSCLC (p = 0.0112). However, abnormal galectin-1 levels were not found to correlate with decreased OS in multivariable analysis (p = 0.0513). These findings may have clinical implications as galectin-3 inhibitors are in trials for NSCLC. Additionally, they suggest that galectin-1 has potential as a prognostic marker for surgically resectable NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of immunotherapies for advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There are differences in the pharmacoeconomics of Immune checkpoint blocking (ICB) therapies for the treatment of lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC). However, no corresponding review studies have fully discussed the cost-effectiveness of ICBs in treating LSCC. The aim of this paper is to systematically review and evaluate all available pharmacoeconomic studies of ICBs for LSCC. METHOD: The inclusion criteria were based on the population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, and study designs. An electronic search was conducted by June 2023, and the following databases were used: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Search keywords included 'Carcinoma', Non-Small-Cell Lung', 'Immunotherapy', and 'Economics, Medical'. The primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness analysis of ICB therapy in LSCC patients. Drummond Checklist was used to assess quality problems and possible bias in the study design of included pharmacoeconomic studies. RESULTS: This review searched 15 articles on the economic evaluation of ICB treatment for LSCC. After a qualitative review of 15 studies, we concluded that nivolumab is more cost-effective as a monotherapy than chemotherapy alone. In the combination regimen, pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy appears to be the most cost-effective option at present, but for Chinese payers with LSCC, locally developed treatments such as sintilimab or toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy are more cost-effective. DISCUSSION: The inclusion of economic evaluation has heterogeneity in research design and outcomes, which can only support qualitative synthesis. Therefore, The results of this paper need to be treated with caution. For the Chinese market, instead of imported drugs, the possible cost-effectiveness of locally developed ICB therapies should be the focus of future research.

Osimertinib in Patients With Treatment-Naive EGFR-Mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Overall Survival, Post-progression Management and Budget Impact Analysis in Real-World.

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 (N = 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.

Outcomes and costs with the introduction of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery in public hospitals.

Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) is an effective treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but the effects of its implementation in university hospital networks has not been described. We analyzed the early clinical outcomes, estimated costs, and revenues associated with three robotic systems implemented in the Paris Public Hospital network. A retrospective study included patients who underwent RATS for NSCLC in 2019 and 2020. Ninety-day morbidity, mortality, hospital costs, and hospital revenues were described. Economic analyses were conducted either from the hospital center or from the French health insurance system perspectives. Cost drivers were tested using univariate and multivariable analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty over in-hospital length of stay (LOS), number of robotic surgeries per year, investment cost, operating room occupancy time, maintenance cost, and commercial discount. The study included 188 patients (65.8 ± 9.3 years; Charlson 4.1 ± 1.4; stage I 76.6%). Median in-hospital LOS was 6 days [5-9.5], 90-day mortality was 1.6%. Mean hospital expenses and revenues were €12,732 ± 4914 and €11,983 ± 5708 per patient, respectively. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with hospital costs were body mass index, DLCO, major complications, and transfer to intensive care unit. Sensitivity analyses showed that in-hospital LOS (€11,802-€15,010) and commercial discounts on the list price (€11,458-€12,732) had an important impact on costs. During the first 2 years following the installation of three robotic systems in Paris Public Hospitals, the clinical outcomes of RATS for NSCLC have been satisfactory. Without commercial discount, hospital expenses would have exceeded hospital revenues.Clinical registration number CNIL, N°2221601, CERC-SFCTCV-2021-07-20-Num17_MOPI_robolution.

Efficacy and Safety Assessment of Intrathoracic Perfusion Chemotherapy Combined with immunological factor Interleukin-2 in the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objective: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the gemcitabine and oxaliplatin intrathoracic perfusion chemotherapy (IPCGOR) regimen combined with interleukin-2 (IL-2) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 460 advanced NSCLC patients from the Yunnan Province Early Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Project (June 2020-October 2022), assessing the IPCGOR and IL-2 combination. Outcomes were measured based on RECIST 1.1 criteria, focusing on objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (MOS), and treatment safety. Results: The treatment demonstrated an ORR of 67.4%, a DCR of 97.4%, an mPFS of 8.5 months, and an MOS of 12.5 months. 14 patients underwent successful surgery post-treatment. Common adverse reactions were manageable, with no treatment-related deaths reported. Conclusion: The IPCGOR combined with IL-2 regimen shows promising efficacy and a tolerable safety profile for advanced NSCLC. These findings suggest its potential as a reference for treating advanced NSCLC. However, the study's retrospective nature and single-center design pose limitations. Future research should focus on prospective studies, randomized controlled trials, and long-term outcome assessments, particularly in diverse patient subgroups, to further validate and refine the clinical application of this regimen.

Early radiologic and metabolic tumour response assessment during combined chemo-radiotherapy for locally advanced NSCLC.

Background: The role of early treatment response for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) treated with concurrent chemo-radiotherapy (cCRT) is unclear. The study aims to investigate the predictive value of response to induction chemotherapy (iCX) and the correlation with pattern of failure (PoF). Materials and methods: Patients with LA-NSCLC treated with cCRT were included for analyses (n = 276). Target delineations were registered from radiotherapy planning PET/CT to diagnostic PET/CT, in between which patients received iCX. Volume, sphericity, and SUVpeak were extracted from each scan. First site of failure was categorised as loco-regional (LR), distant (DM), or simultaneous LR+M (LR+M). Fine and Gray models for PoF were performed: a baseline model (including performance status (PS), stage, and histology), an image model for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and an image model for non-SCC. Parameters included PS, volume (VOL) of tumour, VOL of lymph nodes, ΔVOL, sphericity, SUVpeak, ΔSUVpeak, and oligometastatic disease. Results: Median follow-up was 7.6 years. SCC had higher sub-distribution hazard ratio (sHR) for LRF (sHR = 2.771 [1.577:4.87], p < 0.01) and decreased sHR for DM (sHR = 0.247 [0.125:0.485], p  <  0.01). For both image models, high diagnostic SUVpeak increased risk of LRF (sHR = 1.059 [1.05:1.106], p < 0.01 for SCC, sHR = 1.12 [1.03:1.21], p < 0.01 for non-SCC). Patients with SCC and less decrease in VOL had higher sHR for DM (sHR = 1.025[1.001:1.048] pr. % increase, p = 0.038). Conclusion: Poor response in disease volume was correlated with higher sHR of DM for SCC, no other clear correlation of response and PoF was observed. Histology significantly correlated with PoF with SCC prone to LRF and non-SCC prone to DM as first site of failure. High SUVpeak at diagnosis increased the risk of LRF for both histologies.

Prognostic Impact of Preoperative Assessment of Muscle Mass and Strength in Surgically Resected Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The association between resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and long-term outcomes of muscle mass depletion and muscle weakness has also not been well documented. This study evaluated whether muscle mass depletion assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and low muscle strength assessed by the peak expiratory flow rate as a percentage of predicted value (%PEFR) were associated with surgical outcomes in patients with resected NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 219 patients with resected NSCLC between 2016 and 2021. The cutoff value for muscle mass depletion was according to guidelines, for low muscle strength, we defined by receiver operating characteristics analysis for recurrence-free survival (RFS). Survival analysis was performed, and postoperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients (34.7%) had muscle mass depletion, and 114 patients (52.1%) had low muscle strength. Muscle mass depletion and low muscle strength were independent poor prognostic factors for overall survival [hazard ratio (HR)=2.631, p=0.003; HR=1.983, p=0.044] and RFS (HR=3.120, p<0.001; HR=1.857, p=0.028) in multivariate analysis. Postoperative complication was associated with low muscle strength (p=0.009). Postoperative recurrence was associated with muscle mass depletion (p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Preoperative muscle mass depletion assessed by BIA and low muscle strength determined by %PEFR are worse prognostic factors after surgical resection for NSCLC. Our results may provide some important information for preoperative management.

Tumor microenvironment(TME) and single-source dual-energy CT(ssDECT) on assessment of inconformity between RECIST1.1 and pathological remission in neoadjuvant immunotherapy of NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: The inconformity (IC) between pathological and imaging remissions after neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC can affect the evaluation of curative effect of neoadjuvant therapy and the decision regarding the chance of surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who achieved disease control(CR/PR/SD) after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy from a clinical trial (NCT04326153) and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy during the same period were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent radical resection and systematic mediastinal lymphadenectomy after neoadjuvant treatments. The pathological remission, immunohistochemistry (CD4, CD8, CD20, CD56, FoxP3, CD68, CD163, CD11b tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, or macrophages), and single-source dual-energy computed tomography (ssDECT) scans were assessed. The IC between imaging remission by CT and pathological remission was investigated. The underlying cause of IC, the correlation between IC and DFS, and prognostic biomarkers were explored. RESULTS: After neoadjuvant immunotherapy, enhanced immune killing and reduced immunosuppressive performance were observed. 70 % of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy patients were in high/medium IC level. Massive necrosis and repair around and inside the cancer nest were the main pathological changes observed 30-45 days post-treatment with PD1/PD-L1 antibody and were the main causes of IC between the pathology and imaging responses after neoadjuvant immunotherapy. High IC and preoperative CD8 expression (H score ≥ 3) indicate a high pathological response rate and prolonged DFS. Iodine material density ssDECT images showed that the iodine content in the lesion causes hyperattenuation in post-neoadjuvant lesion in PCR patient. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to chemotherapy and targeted therapy, the efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy was underestimated based on the RECIST criteria due to the unique antitumor therapeutic mechanism. Preoperative CD8+ expression and ssDECT predict this IC and evaluate the residual tumor cells. This is of great significance for screening immune beneficiaries and making more accurate judgments about the timing of surgery.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sintilimab Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Societal Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The updated ORIENT-11 study demonstrated that sintilimab, when combined with chemotherapy, had promising survival advantage compared to standard chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment for previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy for advanced nsNSCLC from a Chinese societal perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with a embedded decision tree was developed to assess the economic value of sintilimab plus chemotherapy over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data was captured from the updated ORIENT-11 study, while costs, health productivity losses, and utility values were collected from a nationwide cross-sectional survey in tertiary hospitals across multiple provinces in China. The primary outcomes were measured using the metrics of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Costs and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5% per annum. Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses, were performed. RESULTS: Compared to standard chemotherapy, treatment with sintilimab plus chemotherapy incurred a mean total cost of $23,979 and gained 0.98 QALYs over the lifetime horizon, resulting in an ICER of $24,568 per QALY gained. The use of sintilimab accumulated direct non-medical costs of $9262 and indirect costs of $6780 over 16 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed an 84.2% probability of sintilimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective at a threshold of three times China's per capita gross domestic product in 2022 ($38,201). The model was most sensitive to the discount rate of QALYs and costs, as well as the costs of pemetrexed, sintilimab, and subsequent therapy in progressive disease state. Subgroup analyses indicated favorable incremental net monetary benefits in all subgroups. CONCLUSION: Sintilimab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment therapy for advanced nsNSCLC in China when compared to standard chemotherapy. These findings, along with the improved progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) observed in ORIENT-11, support the use of this regimen in eligible candidates for advanced nsNSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields plus standard therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer progressed after platinum-based therapy in the United States.

Background: Tumor treating fields (TTF) was first approved for treatment of glioblastoma. Recently, the LUNAR study demonstrated that TTF + standard therapy (ST) extended survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This primary objective of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the United States healthcare payers' perspective. Methods: A 3-health-state Markov model was established to compare the cost-effectiveness of TTF + ST and that of ST alone. Clinical data were extracted from the LUNAR study, supplemented by additional cost and utility data obtained from publications or online sources. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were conducted. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was set to $150,000. The main results include total costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Subgroup analyses were conducted for two types of ST, including immune checkpoint inhibitor, and docetaxel. Results: During a 10-year time horizon, the costs of TTF + ST and ST alone were $431,207.0 and $128,125.9, and the QALYs were 1.809 and 1.124, respectively. The ICER of TTF + ST compared to ST was $442,732.7 per QALY, and the INMB was -$200,395.7 at the WTP threshold. The cost of TTF per month was the most influential factor in cost-effectiveness, and TTF + ST had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold compared with ST alone. Conclusion: TTF + ST is not a cost-effective treatment for advanced NSCLC patients who progressed after platinum-based therapy from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.

Integrated budget impact model to estimate the impact of introducing selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment option for patients with RET-altered solid tumors in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the potential budget impact on US third party payers (commercial or Medicare) associated with addition of selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment for patients with Rearranged during Transfection (RET)-altered solid tumors. METHODS: An integrated budget impact model (iBIM) with 3-year (Y) time horizon was developed for 19 RET-altered tumors. It is referred to as an integrated model because it is a single model that integrated results across multiple tumor types (as opposed to tumor-specific models developed traditionally). The model estimated eligible patient populations and included tumor-specific comparator treatments for each tumor type. Estimated annual total costs (2022USD, $) included costs of drug, administration, supportive care, and toxicity. For a one-million-member plan, the number of patients with RET-altered tumors eligible for treatment, incremental total costs, and incremental per-member per-month (PMPM) costs associated with introduction of selpercatinib treatment were estimated. Uncertainty associated with model parameters was assessed using various sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Commercial perspective estimated 11.68 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 7.59 (Y1), 8.17 (Y2), and 8.76 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated (based on forecasted market share). The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (commercial) were estimated to be: $873,099 and $0.073 (Y1), $2,160,525 and $0.180 (Y2), and $2,561,281 and $0.213 (Y3), respectively. The Medicare perspective estimated 55.82 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 36.29 (Y1), 39.08 (Y2), and 41.87 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated. The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (Medicare) were estimated to be: $4,447,832 and $0.371 (Y1), $11,076,422 and $0.923 (Y2), and $12,637,458 and $1.053 (Y3), respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses across both perspectives identified drug costs, selpercatinib market share, incidence of RET, and treatment duration as significant drivers of incremental costs. CONCLUSIONS: Three-year incremental PMPM cost estimates suggest a modest impact on payer-budgets associated with introduction of tumor-agnostic selpercatinib treatment.

Healthcare Costs and Resource Utilisation of Italian Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients.

This study evaluated the economic burden of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients before and after the availability of an immuno-oncology (IO) regimen as a first-line (1L) treatment. Patients from 2014 to 2020 were categorized according to mutational status into mutation-positive and negative/unknown groups, which were further divided into pre-1L IO and post-1L IO sub-groups depending on the availability of pembrolizumab monotherapy in 1L. Healthcare costs and HCRU for a 1L treatment and overall follow-up were reported as the mean total and per-month cost per patient by groups. Of 644 patients, 125were mutation-positive and 519 negative/unknown (229 and 290 in pre- and post-1L IO, respectively). The mean total per-patient cost in 1L was lower in pre- (EUR 7804) and post-1L IO (EUR 19,301) than the mutation-positive group (EUR 45,247), persisting throughout overall disease follow-up. However, this difference was less when analyzing monthly costs. Therapy costs were the primary driver in 1L, while hospitalization costs rose during follow-up. In both mutation-positive and post-IO 1L groups, the 1L costs represented a significant portion (70.1% and 66.3%, respectively) of the total costs in the overall follow-up. Pembrolizumab introduction increased expenses but improved survival. Higher hospitalisation and emergency room occupation rates during follow-up reflected worsening clinical conditions of the negative/unknown group than the mutation-positive population.

Clinical and financial impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors following platinum chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a nationwide population-based study.

Background: Although various studies have demonstrated that the clinical efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improves the prognosis of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), studies on the financial aspects based on large population-based data are needed. This study aimed to analyze the differences in medical expenses and the effect of ICIs on the prognosis of patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Methods: Patients newly diagnosed with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who received palliative chemotherapy between 2013 and 2020 were selected from the nationwide database of the population covered by the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Interrupted time-series analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of subsequent ICI use after platinum-based cytotoxic chemotherapy (CC) on overall mortality. Progression-free survival and medical expenditure were also assessed. Results: In the final study population, 2,485 and 4,812 patients were included in the ICI and non-ICI groups, respectively. ICI treatment significantly lowered the risk of death [adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-0.84]. And the ICI-treated patients were less likely to experience disease progression (adjusted odds ratios, 0.92; 95% CI: 0.85-0.99). Furthermore, after the introduction of ICIs, both total and cancer-related medical expenses per capita showed an increasing trend [ß: $4.56K, standard error (SE): $0.27K, P<0.0001 and ß: $4.54K, SE: $0.27K, P<0.0001, respectively]. Conclusions: Subsequent ICI use after platinum-based CC improved the overall survival rate of patients with advanced NSCLC. With the increasing burden of individual medical expenses, further research is required to identify patients for whom ICI treatment may be effective.

Qualitative assessment of expectations on the content, form and way of delivery of a prehabilitation programme in patients with lung resection surgery - A Swiss tertiary centre experience.

Objective: To assess the interest in a prehabilitation programme of patients awaiting lung resection and to identify expectations from such a programme. Introduction: At present, in Switzerland, there are no multimodal clinical prehabilitation programmes for lung resection patients awaiting surgery. Methods: Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with patients who have had or were awaiting lung resection at a Swiss tertiary centre. Thematic analysis was performed to identify common prespecified themes. Results: Twenty-two patients (45.5% female, age 70.6 ± 16.6 years) were interviewed. Seventy-seven percent were interested in a prehabilitation programme. Sixty-two percent, 67% and 90% were interested in endurance, strength and respiratory training, respectively. Six patients (27%) were active smokers, of whom two (one-third) were interested in a smoking cessation programme. Seventy-six percent were interested in nutrition counselling and 90% in receiving education on risk factor management. Forty percent preferred centre-based training/counselling sessions, 20% preferred home-based training/counselling and 30% found both forms acceptable. Patients were willing to perform prehabilitation activities on 2.6 days/week for a total of 162 min/week. Participating in peer groups was desired by only 25%. Conclusions: Patients with lung resection were highly interested in participating in prehabilitation, albeit only for a mean time cost of 2.7 h per week. Offering a prehabilitation programme with a combination of in-hospital group sessions and home-based training seems feasible.

Cost of genetic testing, delayed care, and suboptimal treatment associated with polymerase chain reaction versus next-generation sequencing biomarker testing for genomic alterations in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

AIMS: To assess US payers' per-patient cost of testing associated with next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) biomarker testing strategies among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), including costs of testing, delayed care, and suboptimal treatment initiation. METHODS: A decision tree model considered biomarker testing for genomic alterations using either NGS, sequential PCR testing, or hotspot panel PCR testing. Literature-based model inputs included time-to-test results, costs for testing/medical care, costs of delaying care, costs of immunotherapy [IO]/chemotherapy [CTX] initiation prior to receiving test results, and costs of suboptimal treatment initiation after test results (i.e. costs of first-line IO/CTX in patients with actionable mutations that were undetected by PCR that would have been identified with NGS). The proportion of patients testing positive for a targetable alteration, time to appropriate therapy initiation, and per-patient costs were estimated for NGS and PCR strategies combined. RESULTS: In a modeled cohort of 1,000,000 members (25% Medicare, 75% commercial), an estimated 1,119 had mNSCLC and received testing. The proportion of patients testing positive for a targetable alteration was 45.9% for NGS and 40.0% for PCR testing. Mean per-patient costs were lowest for NGS ($8,866) compared to PCR ($18,246), with lower delayed care costs of $1,301 for NGS compared to $3,228 for PCR, and lower costs of IO/CTX initiation prior to receiving test results (NGS: $2,298; PCR:$5,991). Cost savings, reaching $10,496,220 at the 1,000,000-member plan level, were driven by more rapid treatment with appropriate therapy for patients tested with NGS (2.1 weeks) compared to PCR strategies (5.2 weeks). LIMITATIONS: Model inputs/assumptions were based on published literature or expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: NGS testing was associated with greater cost savings versus PCR, driven by more rapid results, shorter time to appropriate therapy initiation, and minimized use of inappropriate therapies while awaiting and after test results.