EGFR mutation-guided use of afatinib, erlotinib and gefitinib for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Hong Kong - A cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) therapy targets at epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the EGFR mutation-guided target therapy versus empirical chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in the public healthcare setting of Hong Kong. METHODS: A Markov model was designed to simulate outcomes of a hypothetical cohort of advanced (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC adult patients with un-tested EGFR-sensitizing mutation status. Four treatment strategies were evaluated: Empirical first-line chemotherapy with cisplatin-pemetrexed (empirical chemotherapy group), and EGFR mutation-guided use of a TKI (afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib). Model outcome measures were direct medical cost, progression-free survival, overall survival, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost per QALY gained (ICER) was estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine robustness of model results. RESULTS: Empirical chemotherapy and EGFR mutation-guided gefitinib gained lower QALYs at higher costs than the erlotinib group. Comparing with EGFR mutation-guided erlotinib, the afatinib strategy gained additional QALYs with ICER (540,633 USD/QALY). In 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations for probabilistic sensitivity analysis, EGFR mutation-guided afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib and empirical chemotherapy were preferred strategy in 0%, 98%, 0% and 2% of time at willingness-to-pay (WTP) 47,812 USD/QALY (1x gross domestic product (GDP) per capita), and in 30%, 68%, 2% and 0% of time at WTP 143,436 USD/QALY (3x GDP per capita), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EGFR mutation-guided erlotinib appears to be the cost-effective strategy from the perspective of Hong Kong public healthcare provider over a broad range of WTP.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia.

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), gefitinib or erlotinib, as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia from a healthcare system perspective.Methods: A partitioned survival model comprising three mutually exclusive health states with a five-year time horizon was developed. Model inputs were sourced from the pivotal trial (FLAURA) and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and cost per life-year (LY) gained, were calculated. Uncertainty of the results was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: Compared with standard EGFR-TKIs, osimertinib was associated with a higher incremental cost of A$118,502, and an incremental benefit of 0.274 QALYs and 0.313 LYs. The ICER was estimated to be A$432,197/QALY gained and A$378,157/LY gained. The base-case ICER was most sensitive to changes in cost of first-line osimertinib, time horizon, and choice of overall survival data (interim versus final analysis).Conclusions: At a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/QALY, first-line osimertinib is not cost-effective compared with standard EGFR-TKIs in Australia based on the current published price. To achieve acceptable cost-effectiveness, the cost of first-line osimertinib needs to be reduced by at least 68.4%.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first and second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first line of treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have become the cornerstone treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer that harbor oncogenic EGFR mutations. The counterpart of these drugs is the financial burden that they impose, which often creates a barrier for accessing treatment in developing countries. The aim if the present study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of three different first and second generation TKIs. METHODS: We designed a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of three different TKIs (afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib) administered as first-line therapy for patients with NSCLC that harbor EGFR mutations. RESULTS: We included 99 patients with the following TKI treatment; 40 treated with afatinib, 33 with gefitinib, and 26 with erlotinib. Median PFS was not significantly different between treatment groups; 15.4 months (95% CI 9.3-19.5) for afatinib; 9.0 months (95% CI 6.3- NA) for erlotinib; and 10.0 months (95% CI 7.46-14.6) for gefitinib. Overall survival was also similar between groups: 29.1 months (95% CI 25.4-NA) for afatinib; 27.1 months (95% CI 17.1- NA) for erlotinib; and 23.7 months (95% CI 18.6-NA) for gefitinib. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean TKIs costs; being afatinib the most expensive treatment. This difference was observed in the daily cost of treatment (p < 0.01), as well as the total cost of treatment (p = 0.00095). Cost-effectiveness analysis determined that afatinib was a better cost-effective option when compared with first-generation TKIs (erlotinib and gefitinib). CONCLUSION: In our population, erlotinib, afatinib, and gefitinib were statistically equally effective in terms of OS and PFS for the treatment of patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC population. Owing to its marginally increased PFS and OS, the cost-effectiveness analysis determined that afatinib was a slightly better cost-effective option when compared with first-generation TKIs (erlotinib and gefitinib).

Treatment sequence of first and second generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor followed by osimertinib in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a real life study.

Background: We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost of patients with first line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sequence of first (1G) and second generation (2G) followed by osimertinib. Materials & methods: Using the French nationwide claims and hospitalization database, we analyzed non-small-cell lung cancer patients who had been treated with osimertinib between April 2015 and December 2017, after a first line treatment with a TKI-1G/2G. Results: The median time on treatment for sequential TKI-1G/2G followed by osimertinib was 34 months (95% CI: 31-46); 13 and 12months, respectively for TKI 1G or 2G and TKI 3G, respectively. The median overall survival for sequential TKI 1G or 2G followed by osimertinib was 37 months (95% CI: 34-42). The mean monthly costs per patient was €5162. Conclusion: These results, in line with those observed during clinical trials, confirm the effectiveness of the sequence TKI-1G/2G followed by osimertinib in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.

The rate of occurrence, healthcare resource use and costs of adverse events among metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with first- and second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials with first- and second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) reported severe adverse events (SAEs) in 6%-49% of patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer. This study describes incremental healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with real-world management of AEs in this population, with a focus on SAEs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients receiving erlotinib, gefitinib, or afatinib as first-line (1L) monotherapy were identified from IQVIA™ Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims-US database (04/01/2012-03/31/2017). Relevant AEs were selected from corresponding prescribing information; SAEs were identified from hospitalization claims. HRU and cost per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were assessed during 1L treatment and compared for patients with and without each AE using multivariate Poisson and linear regression, respectively, adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Of 1646 patients, 86.9% were treated with erlotinib, 12.1% with afatinib, and 1.0% with gefitinib. In 1L, 12.2% of patients had ≥1 acute SAE (220.1/1000 patient-years). Patients with any SAE had higher PPPM costs than patients without SAEs (cost difference = $4700, p < 0.001). Incremental costs ranged from $2604 PPPM for diarrhea to $10,143 PPPM for microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA), and were statistically significant for all SAEs (all p < 0.001) except MAHA (p < 0.0528). Patients with any SAEs had higher rates of HRU relative to patients without SAEs (hospitalization rate ratio = 6.15; outpatient visits rate ratio = 1.21; all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: More than one-tenth of patients experienced SAEs, resulting in sizeable economic burden with respect to HRU and costs. EGFR-TKIs with more favorable safety profiles may reduce the burden of managing this population.

A comparative study on erlotinib & gefitinib therapy in non-small cell lung carcinoma patients.

Background & objectives: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have been evaluated in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib and gefitinib are the first-generation EGFR-TKIs for patients with NSCLC. However, there is a paucity of studies comparing the effectiveness of these two drugs. Hence, this study was aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of erlotinib and gefitinib in NSCLC patients. Methods: This study included 71 NSCLC patients who received EGFR-TKIs between 2013 and 2016. Adverse drug reaction of both erlotinib (n=37) and gefitinib (n=34) was determined and graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grading system. Effectiveness was measured using response evaluation criteria in solid tumours and progression-free survival (PFS). Pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed by cost-effective analysis. Results: When comparing safety profile, both the drugs had similar adverse events except for dermal side effects such as acneiform eruption (51.4%), rash (54.05%) and mucositis (59.5%) for erlotinib and 20.6, 26.5 and 29.4 per cent for gefitinib, respectively. The PFS of the two drugs was compared to differentiate the effectiveness of erlotinib and gefitinib. There was no significant difference between the effectiveness of the two drugs. The pharmacoeconomic analysis showed that gefitinib was more cost-effective than erlotinib. Interpretation & conclusions: This study showed that erlotinib and gefitinib had similar effectiveness but gefitinib had a better safety profile compared to erlotinib. Therefore, gefitinib could be considered a better option for NSCLC patients compared to erlotinib. However, further studies need to be done with a large sample to confirm these findings.

ERCC1 assessment in upfront treatment with and without cisplatin-based chemotherapy in stage IIIB/IV non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

Prior studies have demonstrated an association between excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) expression level and outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of ERCC1 on survival for patients with stage IIIB/IV non-squamous NSCLC (NS-NSCLC) enrolled in the INNOVATIONS trial, thus receiving as treatment either erlotinib/bevacizumab (EB) or cisplatin/gemcitabine/bevacizumab (PGB). We retrospectively analyzed tumor tissue of 72 patients using immunohistochemistry to assess the expression of ERCC1. The distribution between treatment arms was equal (36 patients each). Two different H scores were calculated and correlated with survival. In ERCC1-positive patients, no significant difference in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) between treatment arms has been detected. ERCC1-negative patients benefited from PGB compared to EB arm (H score: HR = 0.377, 95% CI [0.167-0.849], p = 0.0151; modified H score: HR = 0.484, 95% CI [0.234-1.004], p = 0.0468). With respect to the scoring system, in the EB-arm, a significant superior PFS turned out in ERCC1-positive patients when employing the H-score (HR = 0.430, 95% CI [0.188-0.981], p = 0.0397; median 4.9 vs. 3.9 months), but not with the modified H-score. Our findings support the hypothesis that NS-NSCLC displaying a low ERCC1 expression might benefit from cisplatin-based chemotherapy. High expression indicated better PFS in the EB arm supporting the prognostic impact. However, as impact of ERCC1-assessment even might depend on scoring systems differences, the need in standardization of assessment methodology is emphasized.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib in the First-Line Treatment of Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: The survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations has improved substantially in the last decade with the development of targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Osimertinib, a third-generation TKI that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients who develop EGFR T790M mutations, has recently shown improved clinical outcomes compared with gefitinib and erlotinib for treatment-naive patients. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this cost-effectiveness analysis, we extracted individual patient data from the FLAURA randomized clinical trial and used findings of our earlier meta-analysis to develop a decision-analytic model and determine the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib (AZD9291) compared with first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs over a 10-year time horizon. All direct costs were based on US and Brazilian payer perspectives. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by using osimertinib compared with first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs in previously untreated EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Results: In the base case using the data as reported in the FLAURA trial, the incremental QALY for osimertinib was 0.594 compared with the first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs. In the United States, the osimertinib ICERs were $226 527 vs erlotinib, $231 123 vs gefitinib, and $219 874 vs afatinib. In Brazil, the ICERs were $162 329, $180 804, and $175 432, respectively. The overall survival (95% CI) reported in the FLAURA trial (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88) had the strongest association with the ICER (ranging from $84 342 to $859 771). Osimertinib price adjustments to the FLAURA trial data improved cost-effectiveness. For example, a discount of 10% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 20% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER, and a discount of 20% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 40% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER. Conclusions and Relevance: At current costs, by World Health Organization cost-effectiveness threshold criteria, osimertinib is not cost-effective for first-line therapy of EGFR-mutated NSCLC in either the United States or Brazil.

Racial disparity in oncologic and quality-of-life outcomes in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas enrolled in a randomized phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: To better understand patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL) for patients with head and neck cancer, PRQOL scores were collected in a clinical trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized to arm A (70 Gy of radiation with cisplatin) or arm B (70 Gy of radiation with cisplatin plus erlotinib at 150 mg daily). PRQOL scores were measured on days -7 (arm B only), 0, 30, and 180 with the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire. Associations with clinical factors and outcomes were explored with linear mixed, logistic, and Cox regression models. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-nine patients (97 in arm A and 92 in arm B) consented to PRQOL collection. Patients were balanced apart from more females in arm A (20 [21%] vs 8 [9%]; P = .02). There were 17 black patients (18%) in arm A and 12 (13%) in arm B (P = .39). There was no change in the mean scores in arm B from day -7 to day 0 (P = .36). Scores were lower in both arms at day 30 (P for both < .0001), with no difference by arm (P = .10). Scores on day 180 remained lower for arm A (-6.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12.6 to -1.0; P = .02). In arm B, this difference was not significant, and this suggested that the scores had returned to the baseline by day 180 (P = .73). After adjustments for potential confounders, black race was an independent predictor for inferior scores (-11.4; 95% CI, -16.84 to -5.94; P < .0001), complete response rates (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.91; P = .03), and overall survival (hazard ratio, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.63-8.47; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: PRQOL scores predictably worsened during and improved after chemoradiation. Black patients had inferior PRQOL and overall survival. Cancer 2018;124:2841-2849. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Paclitaxel and Erlotinib-co-loaded Solid Lipid Core Nanocapsules: Assessment of Physicochemical Characteristics and Cytotoxicity in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths. The aim of this study was to design solid lipid core nanocapsules (SLCN) comprising a solid lipid core and a PEGylated polymeric corona for paclitaxel (PTX) and erlotinib (ERL) co-delivery to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and evaluate their physicochemical characteristics and in vitro activity in NCI-H23 cells. METHODS: PTX/ERL-SLCN were prepared by nanoprecipitation and sonication and physicochemically characterized by dynamic light scattering, transmission electron microscopy, differential scanning calorimetry, X-ray diffraction, and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. In vitro release profiles at pH 7.4 and pH 5.0 were studied and analyzed. In vitro cytotoxicity and cellular uptake and apoptosis assays were performed in NCI-H23 cells. RESULTS: PTX/ERL-SLCN exhibited appropriately-sized spherical particles with a high payload. Both PTX and ERL showed pH-dependent and sustained release in vitro profiles. PTX/ERL-SLCN demonstrated concentration- and time-dependent uptake by NCI-H23 cells and caused dose-dependent cytotoxicity in the cells, which was remarkably greater than that of not only the free individual drugs but also the free drug cocktail. Moreover, well-defined early and late apoptosis were observed with clearly visible signs of apoptotic nuclei. CONCLUSION: PTX/ERL-SLCN could be employed as an optimal approach for combination chemotherapy of NSCLC.

Biopsy Procedures and Molecular Testing Utilization and Related Costs in Patients with Metastatic Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements are key therapeutic targets for biomarker-driven treatment with an EGFR or ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To appropriately guide treatment decisions, since 2011, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology therefore recommend EGFR and ALK analysis in tumor samples obtained at the time of diagnosis in patients with non-squamous NSCLC. Currently, there are limited data on utilization patterns and cost of biopsy procedures and biomarker tests in patients with metastatic NSCLC who receive an EGFR or ALK TKI. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe utilization patterns and costs associated with biopsy procedures and biomarker testing in patients with NSCLC who received erlotinib or crizotinib between 2009 and 2012 and (b) investigate the timing of these procedures relative to the erlotinib or crizotinib index date. METHODS: Adult patients with metastatic lung cancer were identified by ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes within the Truven Health Analytic MarketScan database. Patients were included in the analysis if they had an index erlotinib or crizotinib claim between January 1, 2009, and September 30, 2012 (index period) and were continuously enrolled for ≥ 12 months before the index claim. Because there is no specific ICD-9-CM diagnostic code for NSCLC, patients with metastatic lung cancer who received erlotinib or crizotinib were considered to have metastatic NSCLC. Using CPT and ICD-9-CM codes, lung biopsy procedures performed during the 24 months before or 12 months after the index claim date were identified. For every patient, biomarker testing claims for EGFR and ALK were identified using the molecular pathology stacked CPT code during the 2 months before or 1 month after the index date. The frequency of claims for biopsy procedures and biomarker testing was analyzed descriptively. The overall summary measures for biomarker testing, especially frequency of EGFR testing in patients receiving erlotinib, was also described as before and after 2011, the year when biomarker testing became part of the guidelines. Per patient and overall costs for biopsy procedures and biomarker testing were calculated from payer and patient perspectives. RESULTS: Of the 4,926 identified patients, 4,801 (97.5%) received erlotinib, and 125 (2.5%) received crizotinib. Biopsy procedure claims were identified for 3,579 (72.7%) patients, including 3,503 (73.0%) erlotinib recipients and 76 (60.8%) crizotinib recipients. Biomarker testing claims were identified for 675 (13.7%) patients, including 634 (13.2%) erlotinib recipients and 41 (32.8%) crizotinib recipients. Overall, most biomarker testing procedures (476 of 741) were identified in 435 (of 675) patients after year 2011. Also, among erlotinib recipients, percentage of patients receiving EGFR testing was increased over the index period. Per patient mean (SD) numbers of biopsy procedures and biomarker tests were 1.2 (1.1) and 0.2 (0.4), respectively. In the outpatient setting, per patient mean (SD) cost per biopsy procedure was $1,223 ($1,899) from the payer perspective and $60 ($147) from the patient perspective, whereas in the inpatient setting, it was $8,163 ($18,712) and $180 ($691), respectively. Among patients receiving at least 1 biomarker test, the per patient mean (SD) cost for the overall population was $891 ($1,062) and $43 ($229); for erlotinib recipients, it was $906 ($1,084) and $42 ($228); and for crizotinib recipients, it was $664 ($576) and $55 ($243) in payer and patient perspectives, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into the use and cost of biopsy and biomarker testing procedures in patients with metastatic NSCLC. The low frequency of biomarker testing highlights the need for more awareness of testing to guide treatment decisions in these patients. Costs associated with biopsy procedures and biomarker testing provide insight into the economic impact on metastatic NSCLC patients treated with targeted therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Merck & Co. Shinde is a study manager working for Merck under contract with AllSourcePPS, an Agile 1 company in Huntington Beach, California. Cao and Kothari are employees of Merck & Co., Kenilworth, New Jersey. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Shinde and Kothari. Data analysis was performed by Cao. Data interpretation was performed by Shinde, Cao, and Kothari. Shinde wrote the manuscript with assistance from Cao and Kothari. The revision was completed primarily by Shinde and Kothari.

Erlotinib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for pancreatic cancer: real-world analysis of Korean national database.

BACKGROUND: A randomized clinical trial has found that the addition of erlotinib to gemcitabine (GEM-E) for pancreatic cancer led to a modest increase in survival. The aim of this national population-based retrospective study was to compare the effectiveness of GEM-E to GEM alone for pancreatic cancer patients in real clinical practice. METHODS: Patients with pancreatic cancer (ICD-10: C25) with prescription claims of gemcitabine or erlotinib between Jan 1, 2007 and Dec 31, 2012 were retrospectively identified from the Korean Health Insurance claims database. To be included in the study population, patients were required to have had a histological or cytological diagnosis within one year before chemotherapy. Patients treated with prior radiotherapy, surgery, or chemotherapy were excluded to reduce heterogeneity. Overall survival from the initiation of therapy and the medical costs of GEM-E and GEM were compared. RESULTS: A total of 4,267 patients were included in the analysis. Overall survival was not significantly longer in patients treated with GEM-E (median 6.77 months for GEM-E vs. 6.68 months for GEM, p = 0.0977). There was also no significant difference in the respective one-year survival rates (27.0 % vs. 27.3 %; p = 0.5988). Multivariate analysis using age, gender, and comorbidities as covariates did not reveal any significant differences in survival. Based on this relative effectiveness, the incremental cost per life year gained over GEM was estimated at USD 70,843.64 for GEM-E. CONCLUSIONS: GEM-E for pancreatic cancer is not more effective than GEM in a real-world setting, and it does not provide reasonable cost-effectiveness over GEM.

Assessment of different 3D culture systems to study tumor phenotype and chemosensitivity in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a highly malignant disease with a very poor prognosis, due to the influence of the tumor stroma, which promotes tumor growth, early invasion and chemoradiation resistance. Efforts to develop models for identifying novel anticancer therapeutic compounds have been hampered by the limited ability of in vitro models to mimic these in vivo tumor-stroma interactions. This has led to the development of various three-dimensional (3D) culture platforms recapitulating the in vivo tumor-stroma crosstalk and designed to better understand basic cancer processes and screen drug action. However, a consensus for different experimental 3D platforms is still missing in PDAC. We compared four PDAC cell lines of different malignancy grown in 2D monolayers to three of the more commonly used 3D techniques (ultralow adhesion concave microwells, Matrigel inclusion and organotypic systems) and to tumors derived from their orthotopic implantation in mice. In these 3D platforms, we observed that cells grow with very different tumor morphologies and the organotypic setting most closely resembles the tumor cytoarchitecture obtained by orthotopically implanting the four cell lines in mice. We then analyzed the molecular and cellular responses of one of these cell lines to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) stimulation with EGF and inhibition with erlotinib and found that only in the 3D platforms, and especially the organotypic, cells: i) responded to EGF by changing the expression of signalling components underlying cell-stroma crosstalk and tissue architecture, growth, invasion and drug resistance (E-cadherin, EGFR, ezrin, ß1 integrin, NHERF1 and HIF-1α) similar to those reported in vivo; ii) had stimulated growth and increased erlotinib sensitivity in response to EGF, more faithfully mimicking their known in vivo behaviour. Altogether, these results, indicate the organotypic as the most relevant physiological 3D system to study the complex tumor stroma interactions driving progression and determining chemio-resistance.

Seguridad y eficacia del uso consecutivo de afatinib y erlotinib en el tratamiento de primera línea de cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas (nsclc) en pacientes con mutacion en el gen del receptor del factor de crecimiento epidérmico (EFGR), que hayan respondido previamente al tratamiento con uno de ellos / Safety and efficacy of consecutive use of afatinib and erlotinib in the first-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (nsclc) in patients with mutation in the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (egfr) who have previously responded to treatmen

En el Dictamen Preliminar de Evaluación de Tecnología Sanitaria N° 002-SDEPFyOTS-DETS IETSI-2015, luego de concluir que no existían diferencias en relación a la eficacia y seguridad entre afatinib y erlotinib, se decide aprobar el uso de erlotinib por tener un menor costo en el mercado. A partir de la aprobación del uso de erlotinib, surge una nueva pregunta a resolver con respecto a los pacientes que ya se encontraban en tratamiento con afatinib extra institucionalmente. De hecho, existen situaciones como ésta en las que se plantea el cambio de un TKI a otro, aún en condiciones en las que se ha logrado buena evolución clínica y en ausencia de efectos adversos serios al TKI de inicio, por razones más bien extramédicas (como también pueden ser cambios en la disponibilidad del TKI y costos). Así, se plantea la pregunta si el intercambio entre TKIs en dichas condiciones mantiene la respuesta lograda con el primer TKI. \tEs por ello que el presente dictamen expone la evaluación de la eficacia y seguridad del uso consecutivo, de dos TKIs distintos (i.e afatinib y erlotinib) para el tratamiento de primera línea de NSCLC avanzando (estadio 111E3) o metastásico (estadio IV) en pacientes con mutaciones en el gen EGFR, que hayan obtenido respuesta completa sin toxicidad inaceptable previamente al tratamiento con un TKI. En la presente evaluación sobre el uso consecutivo de dos TKIs (i.e afatinib y erlotinib) no se ha encontrado evidencia directa que evalúe la eficacia y seguridad sostenida al intercambiar TKIs para el tratamiento de primera línea de NSCLC en pacientes con mutación en EGFR, en pacientes que han respondido a uno de dichos TKIs sin presentar toxicidad inaceptable. -\tTomando en consideración la evidencia expuesta en el dictamen N° 002-SDEPFyOTS-DETS IETSI-2015 donde no se encontraron diferencias entre afatinib y erlotinib a nivel clínico con respecto a su eficacia y seguridad, es razonable esperar por analogía que ambos fármacos al ser similares pueden ser intercambiables con un bajo riesgo de que se modifique el curso clínico de la enfermedad logrado con el TKI inicial. La población de interés en la presente evaluación de tecnología son los pacientes que han presentado una respuesta excepcional al TKI utilizado (i.e., respuesta completa sin toxicidad importante). En estos casos, y considerando la ausencia de evidencia directa que demuestre que el intercambio de TKIs, en el contexto de no progresión, mantiene la seguridad y eficacia del TKI ya iniciado, el grado de incertidumbre escala a un mayor nivel de complejidad. Por lo tanto, se acude a la opinión de expertos. Así, en opinión de expertos se establece que ante la ausencia de evidencia directa que respalde el intercambio de TKIs y en los casos de pacientes que presentan una respuesta completa al tratamiento, lo mejor es intentar mantener la terapia con la que se ha logrado dicha respuesta y no correr el riesgo, aunque éste sea bajo, de que al cambiar de tratamiento de un TKI a otro, el curso de esta respuesta excepcional varíe. Por lo expuesto, el Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación ­ IETSI, aprueba por el periodo de un año a partir de la fecha de publicación del presente Dictamen Preliminar, el uso de afatinib en pacientes con cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas (NSCLC) con mutación del gen EGFR, con enfermedad localmente avanzada o metastásica, que presentan respuesta completa sin toxicidad inaceptable con afatinib recibido extra institucionalmente (Anexo 01). Notar que todos aquellos pacientes nuevos con diagnóstico de NSCLC con mutación en el gen EGFR, y aquellos que no cumplen los criterios de respuesta completa al afatinib sin toxicidad inaceptable, deberán acogerse al Dictamen Preliminar N° 002-SDEPFyOTS-DETS IETSI-2015. Los Comités Farmacoterapéuticos de las redes asistenciales deberán evaluar estos casos de manera exhaustiva, bajo responsabilidad, teniendo en cuenta que el presente Dictamen Preliminar no reemplaza al Dictamen Preliminar N° 002-SDEPFyOTS-DETS IETSI-2015, dado que cada dictamen responde a una población diferente. Dado que la evidencia que respalda el intercambio de TKIs, es aún limitada, se establece que el efecto de dicho intercambio se evaluará con los datos de los pacientes que hayan recibido afatinib, bajo las condiciones del presente dictamen. Esta información será tomada en cuenta en la reevaluación de este medicamento al terminar la vigencia de este Dictamen Preliminar (un año a partir de la fecha de publicación).(AU)

Seguridad y eficacia de afatinib en comparación a quimioterapia estándar o erlotinib como tratamiento de primera línea en cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas y mutación en el dominio del gen del receptor de crescimiento epidérmico (EFFR) / Safety and efficacy of afatinib compared to standard chemotherapy or erlotinib as first-line treatment in non-small cell lung cancer and mutation in the epidermal growth receptor (EFFR) gene domain

En la present evaluación de tecnología sanitaria se ha encontrado evidencia consistente que los inhibidores de tirosina quinasa-TKls, incluyendo aquellos que se encuentram en el mercado peruano con registro sanitario erlotinib y afatinib, son de mayor beneficio comparado con la quimioterapia basada en platinos en el tratamiento de cáncer de pulmón con enfermedad localmente avanzada o metaastásica con mutaciones en EGFR (incluyendo la delección del exón 19 y sustitución en el exón 21 L858R, entre otras), en pacientes que no han sido tratados previamente. El benefício de los TKls en el tratamiento de este tipo de cáncer está fundamentalmente basado en que como primera línea de tratamiento mejora la calidad de vida, la sobrevida libre de progression y el perfil de seguridad en comparación con la quimioterapia estándar. Sin embargo, no se ha podido demostrar que los TKls mejoran la sobrevida global respecto a la quimioterapia basada en platino. Al no existir ensayos clínicos que comparecen en forma directa afatinib con erlotinib, que son las alternativas existentes en el mercado peruano, la comunidad científica internacional ha realizado network meta-análisis para compararlos indirectamente y así tener alguna evidencia que pueda permitir hacer recomendaciones específicas para el uso de cualquiera de estas alternativas. Los análises de los cuatro network meta-análisis evaluados no encuentram diferencias en sobrevida global, sobrevida livre de progressión, ni en el perfil de seguridad entre afatinib y erlotinib en pacientes con cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas con mutaciones en el gen EGFR. Estos hallazgos, provenientes de ensayos clínicos individuales y revisiones sistemáticas con meta-análisis, y network meta-análisis, son el sustento por los que las guías de práctica clinica internacionales recomiendan los TKls como primera línea de tratmiento, sin hacer recomendaciones específicas que favorezcan de los TKls sobre otros. El Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación-IETSI, aprueba el uso de erlotinib (tabela 150mg) para el tratamiento de cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas con mutaciones en el gen EGFR como primera línea. Al momento no se aprueba el uso del afatinib para el tratamiento de cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas con mutaciones en el gen EFFR como primera línea por razones de costo del tratamiento, pudiéndose reconsiderar esta decisión si las condiciones de costo cambian de tal manera que afatinib compita con erlotinib en el mercado peruano, o aparezca nueva información proveniente de estudios clínicos de calidad metodológica que evidencie diferencias clínicas entre afatinib y erlotinib.

Seguridad y eficacia de afatinib en comparación a quimioterapia estándar o erlotinib como tratamiento de primera línea en cácner de pulmón de células no pequeñas y mutación en el dominio del gen receptor de crecimiento / Safety and efficacy of afatinib compared to standard chemotherapy or erlotinib as first-line treatment in non-small cell lung cancers and mutation in the domain of the growth receptor gene

INTRODUCCIÓN: Antecedentes: El presente informe expone la evaluación del medicamento afatinib respecto a su uso en pacientes con cáncer pulmonar de células no pequeñas (NSCLC, por sus siglas en inglés), con mutación en el domínio de tirosina quinasa del recpetor del factor de creciiento epidérmico (EGFR, por sus siglas en inglés) que no hayan recibido tratamiento previo. Aspectos Generales: El cáncer de pulmón es la principal causa de mortalidad en los Estados unidos y en el mundo, y ocupa la séptima posición entre los tipos de cáncer más prevalentes en el Perú. El cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas (NSCLC) representa el 85% de todos los casos de cáncer de pulmón. Dentro del NSCLC existen tres subtipos principales, los cuales se diferencian según sus características anatomo-patológicas. (i.e., carcinoma de células escamosas, adenocarcinoma y carcinoma de células grandes) lo cual tiene importantes implicancias terapéuticas. Tenología Sanitaria de Interés: Afatinib es un fármaco inhibidor de la tirosina quinasa de segunda generación. Éste se une de forma irreversible al dmínio de tirosina quinasa del receptor del facto de crecimiento epidérmico (EGFR) ErbB1 y otros miembros de la familia ErbB. A diferencia de otros inhibidores de la tirosina quinasa de primera generación (como el erlotinib, gefitinib, entre otros), los que se unen solo reversiblemente y a un número reducido de los receptores de dicha familia ErbB. Erlotinib está indicado para el tratamiento de cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas (NSCLC) localmente avanzado o metastásico siempre y cuando el paciente tenga una mutación en el dominio de tirosina quinasa del gen EGFR y el paciente no haya sido tratando previamente con otro inhibidor de tirosina quinasa. METODOLOGIA: Estrategia de Búsqueda: Se realizó una búsqueda de la literatura con respecto a la eficacia y seguridad de afatinib para el tratamiento de cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas (NSCLC) en pacientes con mutaciones en el dominio de tirosina quinasa del EGFR, en las bases de datos de MEDLINE y TRIPDATAVASE. Se hizo una búsqueda adicional en www.clinicalrials.gov, para poder identificar ensayos aún en elaboración o que no hayan sido publicados. Adicionalmente, se hizo una búsqueda dentro de la información generada por grupos que realizan revisiones sistemáticas, evaluación de tecnologías y guías de práctica clínica, tales como The Cochrane Library, The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), The National Guidline of Clearinghouyse y The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). RESULTADOS: Se realizó la búsqueda bibliográfica y de evidencia científica para el sustento del uso de afatinib como tratamiento para cáncer de pulmón, NSCLC avanzado (IIIB) o metastásico (IV) como tratamiento de primera línea en pacientes con mutaciones en el gen EGFR en comparación con quimioterapia estándar a base de platino o erlotinib. Se presenta la evidencia disponible en guías de práctica clínica, Evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias, network meta-análisis y ensayos clínicos. CONCLUSIONES: En la presente evaluación de tecnología sanitaria se ha encontrado evidencia consistente que los inhibidores de tirosina quinasa-TKls, uncluyendo aquellos que se encuentran en el mercado peruano con registro sanitario, como erlotinib y afatinib, son de mayor beneficio comparado con la quimioterapia basada en platinos en el tratamiento de cáncer de pulmón con enfermedad localmente avanzada o metastásica con mutaciones en EGFR (incluyendo la delección del exón 19 y sustitución en el exón 21 L858R, entre otras), en pacientes que no han sido tratados previamente. El Instituto de Evaluaciones de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación-IETSI, aprueba el uso de erlotinib (tableta 150mg) para el tratamiento de cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas con mutaciones en el gen EGFR como primera línea. Al momento no se aprueba el uso del afatinib para el tratamiento de cáncer de pulmón de células pequeñas con mutaciones en el gen EGFR como primera línea por razones de costo del tratamiento, pudiéndose reconsiderar esta decisión si las condiciones de costo cambian de tal manera que afatinib compita con erlotinib en el mercado peruano, o aparezca nueva información proveniente de estudios clínicos de calidad metodológica que evidencie diferencias clínicas entre afatinib y erlotinib.

Preclinical assessment of the interactions between the antiretroviral drugs, ritonavir and efavirenz, and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib.

PURPOSE: Prevalence of non-AIDS-defining cancers (NADCs) has increased in the era of potent antiretroviral treatments. Incidence rates of NADCs now exceed AIDS-defining cancers in HIV-positive patients. Treatment of NADCs may be complicated by interactions between antiretrovirals and chemotherapy mostly via inhibition or induction of CYP3A4. Erlotinib is used to treat non-small cell lung and pancreatic cancer and is primarily metabolized by CYP3A4 into multiple products including the active metabolite (OSI-420). Preclinical in vivo assessment was performed to gain a better understanding of CYP3A4-mediated interactions between antiretrovirals and erlotinib. METHODS: Erlotinib (50 mg/kg p.o.) was administered to male FVB mice in the presence and absence of dexamethasone (10 mg/kg p.o. QDx4), efavirenz (25 mg/kg p.o. QDx4), ketoconazole (50 mg/kg p.o.), or ritonavir (12.5 mg/kg p.o.). Blood samples were collected to characterize exposure (AUC). RESULTS: Administration of erlotinib with CYP3A4 inducers (dexamethasone) and inhibitors (ketoconazole and ritonavir) resulted in significant alterations in erlotinib exposure. Ketoconazole and ritonavir resulted in a 1.7- and 3.0-fold increase in erlotinib AUC, respectively, while dexamethasone results in a 0.6-fold decrease in erlotinib AUC. The CYP3A4 inducer efavirenz did not have a significant effect on erlotinib exposure. CONCLUSION: CYP3A4 inducers and inhibitors altered the exposure of erlotinib. Until a definitive clinical trial is performed, erlotinib should be used with caution in patients on a ritonavir-containing antiretroviral regimen, while standard doses may be appropriate for patients on an efavirenz-containing antiretroviral regimen.

Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information of Erlotinib, Afatinib, and Cisplatin-Pemetrexed for First-Line Treatment of Advanced EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of tyrosine kinase inhibitors erlotinib or afatinib, or chemotherapy cisplatin-pemetrexed, for first-line treatment of advanced epithelial growth factor receptor mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the United States. We also assessed the expected benefit of further research to reduce uncertainty regarding which treatment is optimal. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib, afatinib, and cisplatin-pemetrexed. Model transition and adverse-effect probabilities were from two published phase III trials: EURTAC (Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer) and LUX-Lung (Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma) 3. EURTAC survival estimates were corrected for patients entering the trial with more severe disease, compared with LUX-Lung 3. Health utilities and costs were from national estimates or the published literature. Inputs were modeled as distributions for probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value of perfect information (EVPI) analysis to estimate the expected benefit of reducing uncertainty regarding the decision of optimal treatment. RESULTS: In the base case, both tyrosine kinase inhibitors were more cost-effective than cisplatin-pemetrexed. Erlotinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $61,809/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with afatinib. The acceptability curve showed that erlotinib was the optimal treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY (10-year population EVPI = $85.9 million). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY to $70,000/QALY (EVPI = $211.5 million-$261.8 million), however, there was considerable uncertainty whether erlotinib or afatinib was the optimal treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that erlotinib is the preferred first-line treatment for advanced epithelial growth factor receptor mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Further research comparing erlotinib and afatinib is potentially justified, although accurate data are needed on the required cost and sample size of the trial.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer unsuitable for chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus supportive care (placebo) overall and within a predefined rash subgroup in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who are unfit for chemotherapy and receive only active supportive care due to their poor performance status or presence of comorbidities. SETTING: Between 2005 and 2009, a total of 670 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomised across 78 hospital sites (centres) in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 670 patients with pathologically confirmed stage IIIb-IV NSCLC, unfit for chemotherapy, predominantly poor performance status (>2 on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, ECOG) and estimated life expectancy of at least 8 weeks. Patients were followed until disease progression or death, including a subgroup of patients who developed first cycle rash. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised (1:1) to receive best supportive care plus oral placebo or erlotinib (150 mg/day) until disease progression, toxicity or death. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Overall survival (OS). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Progression-free survival (PFS), tumour response and quality adjusted life years (QALY), including within prespecified subgroups. RESULTS: The mean incremental cost per QALY in all patients was £202,571/QALY. The probability of cost-effectiveness of erlotinib in all patients was <10% at thresholds up to £100,000. However, within the rash subgroup, the incremental cost/QALY was £56,770/QALY with a probability of cost-effectiveness of about 80% for cost-effectiveness thresholds between £50,000 to £60,000. CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib has about 80% chance of being cost-effective at thresholds between £50,000-£60,000 in a subset of elderly poor performance patients with NSCLC unfit for chemotherapy who develop first cycle (28 days) rash. Erlotinib is potentially cost-effective for this population, for which few treatment options apart from best supportive care are available. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: (ISCRTN): 77383050.

Cost-Effectiveness of an Individualized First-Line Treatment Strategy Offering Erlotinib Based on EGFR Mutation Testing in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is among the top causes of cancer-related deaths. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors can increase progression-free survival compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of EGFR mutation analysis and first-line therapy with erlotinib for mutation-positive patients compared with non-individualized standard chemotherapy from the perspective of German statutory health insurance. METHODS: A state transition model was developed for a time horizon of 10 years (reference year 2014). Data sources were published data from the European Tarceva versus Chemotherapy (EURTAC) randomized trial for drug efficacy and safety and German cost data. We additionally performed deterministic, probabilistic and structural sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The individualized strategy incurred 0.013 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and additional costs of € 200, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 15,577/QALY. Results were most sensitive to uncertainty in survival curves and changes in utility values. Cross-validating health utility estimates with recent German data increased the ICER to about € 58,000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the individualized strategy is cost-effective, with a probability exceeding 50 % for a range of possible willingness-to-pay thresholds. LIMITATIONS: The uncertainty of the predicted survival curves is substantial, particularly for overall survival, which was not a primary endpoint in the EURTAC study. Also, there is limited data on quality of life in metastatic lung cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized therapy based on EGFR mutation status has the potential to provide a cost-effective alternative to non-individualized care for patients with advanced adenocarcinoma. Further clinical research is needed to confirm these results.