Bayesian survival extrapolation for cost-effectiveness analysis: a case study of RELAY for ramucirumab in combination with erlotinib in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.

AIM: Increasing trend for progression-free survival (PFS)-based primary endpoint in oncology has led to lack of mature overall survival (OS) data at the time of approval. To address this evidence gap in economic evaluations, we used a joint Bayesian approach to predict survival outcomes using immature OS data from the RELAY trial. METHODS: Patient data from RELAY and systematic literature review (SLR) of phase 3 randomized clinical trials with hazard ratio (HR) estimates of mature PFS and immature OS were considered. OS and PFS were analyzed individually using a univariate model; bivariate analysis was performed using a joint model based on modified Bayesian normal induced copula estimation model. First, a Bayesian univariate model incorporated informative priors based on predicted HR and acceleration factor for OS and PFS. Second, a Bayesian-based joint model of RELAY PFS and OS data was based on the correlation between PFS and OS established in trials of similar populations. Marginal distribution of PFS was used to estimate the same for OS. RESULTS: Publications (N = 122) of first-line treatments in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer were identified in the SLR, of which 36 trials were linked to RELAY. Twenty-six trials with HR data were used. The univariate model could predict OS with reduced uncertainty compared with the frequentist approach. In the joint model, the marginal OS distribution borrowed strength from the marginal PFS distribution through the established correlation coefficient. LIMITATIONS: Bayesian approach was successfully used in RELAY analysis but may not be universally applied to oncology trials due to the different associations of OS and PFS and different trial patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that both the univariate and joint Bayesian models reduced uncertainty in predicting OS compared to frequentist method. The methodology introduced here will have potential applications in clinical decision-making for other oncology trials.

First-line systemic treatment strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oral multikinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective for treating advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) but may increase cost. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of oral multikinase inhibitors and ICIs in the first-line treatment of patients with aHCC. METHODS: A three-state Markov model was established to study the cost-effectiveness of drug treatment from the perspective of Chinese payers. The key outcomes in this study were total cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The total costs and QALYs of sorafenib, sunitinib, donafenib, lenvatinib, sorafenib plus erlotinib, linifanib, brivanib, sintilimab plus IBI305, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab were $9070 and 0.25, $9362 and 0.78, $33,814 and 0.45, $49,120 and 0.83, $63,064 and 0.81, $74,814 and 0.82, $81,995 and 0.82, $74083 and 0.85, and $104,188 and 0.84, respectively. The drug regimen with the lowest ICER was sunitinib ($551 per QALY), followed by lenvatinib ($68,869 per QALY). For oral multikinase inhibitors, the ICER of lenvatinib, sorafenib plus erlotinib, linifanib and brivanib compared with sunitinib was $779576, $1534,347, $1768,971, and $1963,064, respectively. For ICIs, sintilimab plus IBI305 is more cost effective than atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. The model was most sensitive to the price of sorafenib, the utility of PD, and the price of second-line drugs. CONCLUSION: For oral multikinase inhibitors, the order of possible treatment options is sunitinib > lenvatinib > sorafenib plus erlotinib > linifanib > brivanib > donafenib. For ICIs, the order of possible treatment options is sintilimab plus IBI305 > atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Utilization and costs of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation testing and targeted therapy in Medicare patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines in 2013 and 2014 recommended Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) testing for metastatic lung adenocarcinoma patients as the efficacy of targeted therapies depends on the mutations. However, adherence to these guidelines and the corresponding costs have not been well-studied. METHODS: We identified 2362 patients at least 65 years old newly diagnosed with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma from January 2013 to December 2015 using the SEER-Medicare database. We examined the utilization patterns of EGFR testing and targeted therapies including erlotinib and afatinib. We further examined the costs of both EGFR testing and targeted therapy in terms of Medicare costs and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. RESULTS: The EGFR testing rate increased from 38% in 2013 to 51% and 49% in 2014 and 2015 respectively. The testing rate was 54% among the 394 patients who received erlotinib, and 52% among the 42 patients who received afatinib. The median Medicare and OOP costs for testing were $1483 and $293. In contrast, the costs for targeted therapy were substantially higher with median 30-day costs at $6114 and $240 for erlotinib and $6239 and $471 for afatinib. CONCLUSION: This population-based study suggests that testing guidelines improved the use of EGFR testing, although there was still a large proportion of patients receiving targeted therapy without testing. The costs of targeted therapy were substantially higher than the testing costs, highlighting the need to improve adherence to testing guidelines in order to improve clinical outcomes while reducing the economic burden for both Medicare and patients.

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Erlotinib for the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine and gemcitabine plus erlotinib as first-line treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: On the basis of the Gemcitabine With/Out Erlotinib in Unresectable Locally Advanced/Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer (PA.3) trial, the Markov model was constructed to simulate the development of advanced pancreatic cancer. Cost-effectiveness analysis was used to determine the economic level of the treatments, according to the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The sensitivity analysis was conducted for cost-effectiveness and other indexes. FINDINGS: The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that the cost-effectiveness ratios for the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer were ¥60,492.78 (US$8892.44/€7568.88) per 6.34 quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs) for gemcitabine and ¥99,595.39 (US$14,640.52/€12,461.42) per 7.02 QALMs for gemcitabine plus erlotinib. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the 2 regimens was ¥57,503.84 ($8453.06/€7194.90) per QALM, which was higher than the WTP set in this study (¥16,161 [$2375.66/€2022.07] per QALM). The results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that the analysis results were stable. Gemcitabine was more cost-effective than gemcitabine plus erlotinib. IMPLICATIONS: Compared with gemcitabine, gemcitabine plus erlotinib was not cost-effective at the level of the WTP. Gemcitabine plus erlotinib therapy has no economic significance as a first-line medical treatment for pancreatic cancer.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Afatinib, Erlotinib, and Gefitinib as First-Line Treatments for EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: This study used Ontario Cancer Registry-linked administrative data to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer who received EGFR-TKIs as first-line treatment between 1 January, 2014 and 31 August, 2019. A net benefit regression approach accounting for baseline covariates and propensity scores was used to estimate incremental net benefits and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Outcome measures were calculated over a 68-month period and were discounted with an annual rate of 1.5%. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess and characterize the uncertainties. RESULTS: A total of 547 patients were included in the study, of whom 20.1%, 23.6%, and 56.3% received afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib, respectively. Erlotinib was dominated by afatinib and gefitinib. Compared to gefitinib, afatinib was associated with higher effectiveness (adjusted incremental quality-adjusted life-year: 0.21), higher total costs (adjusted incremental costs: $9745), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $46,506 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results from the sensitivity analyses indicated the findings of the base-case analysis were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to previously published studies, our study established head-to-head comparisons of effectiveness and treatment-related costs of first-line EGFR-TKIs. Our findings suggest afatinib was the most cost-effective option among the three EGFR-TKIs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies showed prolonged survival for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with both monotherapies and combined therapies. However, high costs limit clinical applications. Thus, we conducted this cost-effectiveness analysis to explore an optimal first-line treatment for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survival data were extracted from six clinical trials, including ARCHER1050 (dacomitinib vs. gefitinib); FLAURA (osimertinib vs. gefitinib/erlotinib); JO25567 and NEJ026 (bevacizumab +erlotinib vs. erlotinib); NEJ009 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib); and NCT02148380 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib vs. chemotherapy) trials. Cost-related data were obtained from hospitals and published literature. The effect parameter (quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) was the reflection of both survival and utility. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER), and net benefit were calculated, and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $30828/QALY from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the stability of results. RESULTS: We compared treatment groups with control groups in each trial. ICERs were $1897750.74/QALY (ARCHER1050), $416560.02/QALY (FLAURA), -$477607.48/QALY (JO25567), -$464326.66/QALY (NEJ026), -$277121.22/QALY (NEJ009), -$399360.94/QALY (gefitinib as comparison, NCT02148380), and -$170733.05/QALY (chemotherapy as comparison, NCT02148380). Moreover, ACER and net benefit showed that the combination of EGFR-TKI with chemotherapy and osimertinib was of more economic benefit following first-generation EGFR-TKIs. Sensitivity analyses showed that the impact of utilities and monotherapy could be cost-effective with a 50% cost reduction. CONCLUSION: First-generation EGFR-TKI therapy remained the most cost-effective treatment option for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. Our results could serve as both a reference for both clinical practice and the formulation of medical insurance reimbursement.

EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: treatment paradigm, current evidence, and challenges.

Therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been shown to have superior outcomes when compared to chemotherapy. First-generation EGFR TKI, including gefitinib and erlotinib, and second-generation EGFR TKI, including afatinib and dacomitinib, proved to be effective in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR-sensitizing mutation. Later, resistance mutations were identified. Consequently, osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, was studied and demonstrated activity against EGFR-sensitizing and resistant mutations. Osimertinib moved recently to the first-line setting with the positive results of the FLAURA (AZD9291 Versus Gefitinib or Erlotinib in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer) trial. The use of these drugs is limited by their cost and availability mainly in middle- to low-income countries.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding ramucirumab to the first-line erlotinib treatment for untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in China.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab plus erlotinib compared with placebo plus erlotinib in the first-line setting for patients with EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. DESIGN: A Markov model consisting of three health states using clinical survival data from the RELAY phase III randomised clinical trial, a lifetime horizon for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was constructed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab plus erlotinib. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. Additional price reduction scenario analyses were performed. SETTING: The Chinese healthcare system perspective. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with confirmed previously documented ex19del or Leu858Arg mutation stage IV NSCLC, and without known epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) Thr790Met mutation and central nervous system metastases. INTERVENTIONS: Ramucirumab plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In base-case analysis, ramucirumab plus erlotinib yield an additional 4.21 QALYs at a cost of $540 590, resulting in an ICER of $128 302/QALY. In price reduction scenario analysis, the ICER ($65 227/QALY) was decreased significantly when the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) negotiation was available for ramucirumab, and the ICER ($131 554/QALY) was increased slightly when the NRDL negotiation was unavailable for erlotinib. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated our results to be most sensitive to the unit cost of ramucirumab (10 mg/kg), and more than 52.1% reduction in the price of ramucirumab resulted in the ICER under the willingness-to-pay threshold set for affluent regions ($70 353/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Ramucirumab plus erlotinib is unlikely to be cost-effective for patients with untreated EGFR-mutated mNSCLC in China. Reducing the price of ramucirumab through the National Healthcare Security Administration negotiation was found to be the most realistic action to improve cost-effectiveness.

EGFR testing and erlotinib use in non-small cell lung cancer patients in Kentucky.

This study determined the frequency and factors associated with EGFR testing rates and erlotinib treatment as well as associated survival outcomes in patients with non small cell lung cancer in Kentucky. Data from the Kentucky Cancer Registry (KCR) linked with health claims from Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance groups were evaluated. EGFR testing and erlotinib prescribing were identified using ICD-9 procedure codes and national drug codes in claims, respectively. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with EGFR testing and erlotinib prescribing. Cox-regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with survival. EGFR mutation testing rates rose from 0.1% to 10.6% over the evaluated period while erlotinib use ranged from 3.4% to 5.4%. Factors associated with no EGFR testing were older age, male gender, enrollment in Medicaid or Medicare, smoking, and geographic region. Factors associated with not receiving erlotinib included older age, male gender, enrollment in Medicare or Medicaid, and living in moderate to high poverty. Survival analysis demonstrated EGFR testing or erlotinib use was associated with a higher likelihood of survival. EGFR testing and erlotinib prescribing were slow to be implemented in our predominantly rural state. While population-level factors likely contributed, patient factors, including geographic location (areas with high poverty rates and rural regions) and insurance type, were associated with lack of use, highlighting rural disparities in the implementation of cancer precision medicine.

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Analysis of real-world data in a tertiary hospital in Taiwan.

INTRODUCTION: Comparison of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) would improve patients' clinical benefits and save costs. Using real-world data, this study attempted to directly compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib. METHODS: During May 2011-December 2017, all patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) visiting a tertiary center were invited to fill out the EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires and World Health Organization Quality of Life, brief version (WHOQOL-BREF), and received follow-ups for survival and direct medical costs. A total of 379 patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC under first-line TKIs were enrolled for analysis. After propensity score matching for the patients receiving afatinib (n = 48), erlotinib (n = 48), and gefitinib (n = 96), we conducted the study from the payers' perspective with a lifelong time horizon. RESULTS: Patients receiving afatinib had the worst lifetime psychometric scores, whereas the differences in quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) were modest. Considering 3 treatments together, afatinib was dominated by erlotinib. Erlotinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness of US$17,960/life year and US$12,782/QALY compared with gefitinib. Acceptability curves showed that erlotinib had 58.6% and 78.9% probabilities of being cost-effective given a threshold of 1 Taiwanese per capita GDP per life year and QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: Erlotinib appeared to be cost-effective. Lifetime psychometric scores may provide additional information for effectiveness evaluation.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with patients prescribed afatinib or erlotinib as first-line therapy for EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC in the United States.

Aims: To assess healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors afatinib or erlotinib as first-line treatment.Materials and methods: This retrospective analysis used data from three large administrative claims databases in the US: Truven MarketScan, IMS PharMetrics Plus, and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. Patients with diagnosis codes of lung cancer treated with afatinib or erlotinib were included in the sample. Treatment cohorts were matched on baseline characteristics using propensity scores to account for potential selection bias. HCRU and healthcare costs were compared between the matched afatinib and erlotinib cohorts.Results: In total, 3,152 patients met the study inclusion criteria; propensity score matching of the afatinib and erlotinib patients yielded 525 matched pairs with well-balanced baseline characteristics. The afatinib cohort had significantly fewer patients with ≥1 inpatient visits (40.4% vs 52.2%, p = 0.0001) and outpatient emergency room (ER) visits (45.7% vs 54.1%, p = 0.0066). Per patient per month (PPPM) visits were significantly different between afatinib compared to erlotinib for inpatient visits (0.1 vs 0.2, p = 0.0152), other outpatient visits PPPM (2.6 vs 3.0, p = 0.022) and outpatient office visits (2.0 vs 1.7, p = 0.0059). Although costs of outpatient office ($1,624 vs $1,070; p = 0.0086) and pharmacy ($6,709 vs $5,932; p < 0.0001) visits were higher for afatinib vs erlotinib, total costs did not differ significantly between cohorts ($14,972 vs $14,412; p = 0.4415).Limitations: Retrospective claims data can be subject to coding errors or data omissions; patients were required to have continuous health plan enrolment; EGFR mutation status was not confirmed.Conclusions: Patients treated with afatinib as first-line monotherapy experienced fewer inpatient stays and ER visits compared with erlotinib. Total costs were not significantly different between the two treatment cohorts.

The economic impact of the transition from branded to generic oncology drugs.

Background: Economic evaluations are an integral component of many clinical trials. Costs used in those analyses are based on the prices of branded drugs when they first enter the market. The effect of genericization on the cost-effectiveness (ce) or cost-utility (cu) of an intervention is unknown because economic analyses are rarely updated using the costs of generic drugs. Methods: We re-examined the ce or cu of regimens previously evaluated in Canadian Cancer Trials Group (cctg) studies that included prospective economic evaluations and where genericization has occurred or is anticipated in Canada. We incorporated the new costs of generic drugs to characterize changes in ce or cu. We also determined acceptable cost levels of generic drugs that would make regimens reimbursable in a publicly funded health care system. Results: The four randomized controlled trials included (representing 1979 patients) were cctg br.10 (early lung cancer, adjuvant vinorelbine-cisplatin vs. observation, n = 172), cctg br.21 (metastatic lung cancer, erlotinib vs. placebo, n = 731), cctg co.17 (metastatic colon cancer, cetuximab vs. best supportive care, n = 557), and cctg ly.12 (relapsed or refractory lymphoma, gemcitabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin vs. cytarabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin, n = 619). Since the initial publication of those trials, the genericization of vinorelbine, erlotinib, cetuximab, and cisplatin has taken place or is expected in Canada. Costs of generics improved the ces and cus of treatment significantly. For example, genericization of erlotinib ($1460.25 per 30 days) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $45,746 per life-year gained compared with $94,638 for branded erlotinib. Likewise, genericization of cetuximab ($275.80 per 100 mg) produced an icer of $261,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained compared with $299,613 for branded cetuximab. Decreases in the cost of generic cetuximab to $129.39 and $63.51 would further improve the icer to $150,000 and $100,000 per QALY respectively. Conclusions: Genericization of a costly oncology drug can modify the ce and cu of a regimen significantly. Failure to revisit economic analyses with the costs of generics could be a missed opportunity for funding bodies to optimize value-based allocation of health care resources. At current levels, the costs of generics might not be sufficiently low to sustain publicly funded health care systems.

Effects of removing reimbursement restrictions on targeted therapy accessibility for non-small cell lung cancer treatment in Taiwan: an interrupted time series study.

INTERVENTIONS: Targeted therapies have been proven to provide clinical benefits to patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gefitinib was initially approved and reimbursed as a third-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC by the Taiwan National Health Insurance (NHI) in 2004; subsequently it became a second-line therapy (in 2007) and further a first-line therapy (in 2011) for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. Another targeted therapy, erlotinib, was initially approved as a third-line therapy in 2007, and it became a second-line therapy in 2008. OBJECTIVES: This study is aimed towards an exploration of the impacts of the Taiwan NHI reimbursement policies (removing reimbursement restrictions) related to accessibility of targeted therapies. SETTING: We retrieved 2004-2013 claims data for all patients with lung cancer diagnoses from the NHI Research Database. DESIGN AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Using an interrupted time series design and segmented regression, we estimated changes in the monthly prescribing rate by patient number and market shares by cost following each modification of the reimbursement policy for gefitinib and erlotinib for NSCLC treatment. RESULTS: Totally 92 220 patients with NSCLC were identified. The prescribing rate of the targeted therapies increased by 15.58%, decreased by 10.98% and increased by 6.31% following the introduction of gefitinib as a second-line treatment in 2007, erlotinib as a second-line treatment in 2008 and gefitinib as as first line treatment in 2011, respectively. The average time to prescription reduced by 65.84% and 41.59% following coverage of erlotinib by insurance and gefitinib/erlotinib as second-line treatments in 2007-2008 and following gefitinib as the first-line treatment in 2011. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in reimbursement policies had a significant impact on the accessibility of targeted therapies for NSCLC treatment. Removing reimbursement restrictions can significantly increase the level and the speed of drug accessibility.

Determining the Comparative Value of Pharmaceutical Risk-Sharing Policies in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: Risk-sharing arrangements (RSAs) can be used to mitigate uncertainty about the value of a drug by sharing the financial risk between payer and pharmaceutical company. We evaluated the projected impact of alternative RSAs for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapies based on real-world data. METHODS: Data on treatment patterns of Dutch NSCLC patients from four different hospitals were used to perform "what-if" analyses, evaluating the costs and benefits likely associated with various RSAs. In the scenarios, drug costs or refunds were based on response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) response, survival compared to the pivotal trial, treatment duration, or a fixed cost per patient. Analyses were done for erlotinib, gemcitabine/cisplatin, and pemetrexed/platinum for metastatic NSCLC, and gemcitabine/cisplatin, pemetrexed/cisplatin, and vinorelbine/cisplatin for nonmetastatic NSCLC. RESULTS: Money-back guarantees led to moderate cost reductions to the payer. For conditional treatment continuation schemes, costs and outcomes associated with the different treatments were dispersed. When price was linked to the outcome, the payer's drug costs reduced by 2.5% to 26.7%. Discounted treatment initiation schemes yielded large cost reductions. Utilization caps mainly reduced the costs of erlotinib treatment (by 16%). Given a fixed cost per patient based on projected average use of the drug, risk sharing was unfavorable to the payer because of the lower than projected use. The impact of RSAs on a national scale was dispersed. CONCLUSIONS: For erlotinib and pemetrexed/platinum, large cost reductions were observed with risk sharing. RSAs can mitigate uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness or budget impact of drugs, but only when the type of arrangement matches the setting and type of uncertainty.

From Diagnostic-Therapeutic Pathways to Real-World Data: A Multicenter Prospective Study on Upfront Treatment for EGFR-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (MOST Study).

INTRODUCTION: Gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib represent the approved first-line options for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Because pivotal trials frequently lack external validity, real-world data may help to depict the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway and treatment outcome in clinical practice. METHODS: MOST is a multicenter observational study promoted by the Veneto Oncology Network, aiming at monitoring the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway of patients with nonsquamous EGFR-mutant NSCLC. We reported treatment outcome in terms of median time to treatment failure (mTTF) and assessed the impact of each agent on the expense of the regional health system, comparing it with a prediction based on the pivotal trials. RESULTS: An EGFR mutation test was performed in 447 enrolled patients, of whom 124 had EGFR mutation and who received gefitinib (n = 69, 55%), erlotinib (n = 33, 27%), or afatinib (n = 22, 18%) as first-line treatment. Because erlotinib was administered within a clinical trial to 15 patients, final analysis was limited to 109 patients. mTTF was 15.3 months, regardless of the type of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) used. In the MOST study, the budget impact analysis showed a total expense of €3,238,602.17, whereas the cost estimation according to median progression-free survival from pivotal phase III trials was €1,813,557.88. CONCLUSION: Good regional adherence and compliance to the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway defined for patients with nonsquamous NSCLC was shown. mTTF did not significantly differ among the three targeted TKIs. Our budget impact analysis suggests the potential application of real-world data in the process of drug price negotiation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The MOST study is a real-world data collection reporting a multicenter adherence and compliance to diagnostic-therapeutic pathways defined for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer. This represents an essential element of evidence-based medicine, providing information on patients and situations that may be challenging to assess using only data from randomized controlled trials, e.g., turn-around time of diagnostic tests, treatment compliance and persistence, guideline adherence, challenging-to-treat populations, drug safety, comparative effectiveness, and cost effectiveness. This study may be of interest to various stakeholders (patients, clinicians, and payers), providing a meaningful picture of the value of a given therapy in routine clinical practice.

A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic evaluations of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To review and assess the quality of the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify full-text original economic evaluations of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC written in English and published from the year 2000 onwards. Study characteristics and results were recorded and compared. The quality of the studies was assessed by the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) questionnaire. RESULTS: Eleven out of 130 papers were chosen for this review. Comparative regimens consisted of a best supportive care, reverse strategy, bevacizumab, cisplatin plus pemetrexed, carboplatin plus gemcitabine or gefitinib. The methods most used in these studies were modeling and sensitivity analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. All of the studies evaluated direct costs and used quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-years gained (LYG) as outcome, with 3% and 3.5% discount rate. The studies assigned ICER that ranged from dominant to I$305,510.31/QALY and from I$31,209.55/LYG to I$66,540.20/LYG. Based on the willingness to pay threshold, seven studies concluded that erlotinib was cost-effective, two studies showed that erlotinib was cost-effective on specific patients with certain conditions, and two studies comparing erlotinib with reverse strategy did not find a difference in cost-effectiveness. The high quality of these studies was confirmed using the QHES tool: the mean score was 75.77 out of 100 (SD 9.38). CONCLUSION: Most of these high-quality studies suggested that erlotinib was cost-effective in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Disparities and Trends in Genetic Testing and Erlotinib Treatment among Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite reports of socioeconomic disparities in rates of genetic testing and targeted therapy treatment for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), little is known about whether such disparities are changing over time. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis to identify disparities and trends in genetic testing and treatment with erlotinib. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, we identified 9,900 patients with stage IV NSCLC diagnosed in 2007 to 2011 at age 65 or older. We performed logistic regression analyses to identify patient factors associated with odds of receiving a genetic test and erlotinib treatment, and to assess trends in these differences with respect to diagnosis year. RESULTS: Patients were more likely to receive genetic testing if they were under age 75 at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR), 1.55] independent of comorbidity level, and this age-based gap showed a decrease over time (OR, 0.93). For untested patients, erlotinib treatment was associated with race (OR, 0.58, black vs. white; OR, 2.45, Asian vs. white), and was more likely among female patients (OR, 1.45); for tested patients, erlotinib treatment was less likely among low-income patients (OR, 0.32). Most of these associations persisted or increased in magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: Race and sex are associated with rates of erlotinib treatment for patients who did not receive genetic testing, and low-income status is associated with treatment rates for those who did receive testing. The racial disparity remained stable over time, while the income-based disparity grew larger. IMPACT: Attention to reducing disparities is needed as precision cancer treatments continue to be developed.

Cost-effectiveness of afatinib, gefitinib, erlotinib and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China.

PURPOSE: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are becoming the standard treatments for Chinese patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an EGFR mutation. However, the economic impact is unclear yet in China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to simulate 1-month patient transitions in a 10-year time horizon from Chinese heath care system perspective. The health and economic outcomes of four first-line strategies (pemetrexed plus cisplatin [PC], gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib) among NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations were estimated and assessed via indirect comparisons. Costs in the Chinese setting were estimated by using local hospital data and literatures. A 5% annual discount rate was applied to both costs and outcomes. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Afatinib achieved additional 0.382, 0.216 and 0.174 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with marginal $7930, $3680 and $2818 costs in comparison with PC, gefitinib and erlotinib, which resulted in the ICERs of $20,758, $17,693 and $16,197 per QALY gained, respectively. The hazard ratios (HR) of overall survival (OS) of afatinib against gefitinib, erlotinib and PC strategy had substantial influential parameters. CONCLUSIONS: First-line afatinib is cost-effective compared with gefitinib, erlotinib and PC treatment for Chinese patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib as First-line Treatment and Sequential Therapy for EGFR Mutation-positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in China.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib with gefitinib or erlotinib as first-line and sequential therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China. METHODS: The Markov model was used, and the study included 3 health states over a 10-year period. Transition probabilities and safety data were collected from the FLAURA (AZD9291 versus gefitinib or erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer) trial. Cost and utility values were derived from local charges and literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability. FINDINGS: The strategy with gefitinib or erlotinib first-line therapy and second-line gene-guided osimertinib therapy (GE-T790M) resulted in a gain of 0.31 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a cost of $15,200.95 per patient compared with the gefitinib or erlotinib first-line therapy and second-line chemotherapy (GE-chemotherapy). The incremental QALY and incremental cost values for first-line osimertinib therapy compared with GE-chemotherapy was 0.96 and $69,420.76, respectively. Compared with the GE-T790M strategy (0.96 QALY and $29,223.33), first-line osimertinib was estimated to be more effective (1.61 QALYs) and more costly ($83,443.14). Relative to the GE-chemotherapy strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $47,873.96 and $71,954.08 per QALY gained with GE-T790M and the osimertinib first-line strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for first-line osimertinib versus GE-T790M was estimated to be $83,766.61. The results were found to be robust for univariate and multivariable sensitivity analyses. IMPLICATIONS: Gefitinib or erlotinib first-line and chemotherapy second-line strategies were the most cost-effective first-line treatments for EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC. Gefitinib or erlotinib first-line and gene-guided osimertinib second-line strategies were more cost-effective than osimertinib first-line treatment for patients who preferred osimertinib administration in China.

Retrospective Assessment of a Serum Proteomic Test in a Phase III Study Comparing Erlotinib plus Placebo with Erlotinib plus Tivantinib (MARQUEE) in Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The VeriStrat test provides accurate predictions of outcomes in all lines of therapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated the predictive and prognostic role of VeriStrat in patients enrolled on the MARQUEE phase III trial of tivantinib plus erlotinib (T+E) versus placebo plus erlotinib (P+E) in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Pretreatment plasma samples were available for 996 patients and were analyzed by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry to generate VeriStrat labels (good, VS-G, or poor, VS-P). RESULTS: Overall, no significant benefit in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were observed for the addition of tivantinib to erlotinib. Regardless of treatment arm, patients who were classified as VS-G had significantly longer PFS (3.8 mo for T+E arm, 2.0 mo for P+E arm) and OS (11.6 mo for T+E, 10.2 mo for P+E arm) than patients classified as VS-P (PFS: 1.9 mo for both arms, hazard ratio [HR], 0.584; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.468-0.733; p < .0001 for T+E, HR, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.546-0.870; p = .0015 for P+E; OS: 4.0 mo for both arms, HR, 0.333; 95% CI, 0.264-0.422; p < .0001 for T+E; HR, 0.449; 95% CI, 0.353-0.576; p < .0001 for P+E). The VS-G population had higher OS than the VS-P population within Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score (PS) categories. VS-G patients on the T+E arm had longer PFS, but not OS, than VS-G patients on the P+E arm (p = .0108). Among EGFR mutation-positive patients, those with VS-G status had a median OS more than twice that of any other group (OS: 31.6 mo for T+E and 22.8 mo for P+E), whereas VS-P patients had similar survival rates as VS-G, EGFR-wild type patients (OS: 13.7 mo for T+E and 6.5 mo for P+E). CONCLUSION: In these analyses, VeriStrat showed a prognostic role within EGOC PS categories and regardless of treatment arm and EGFR status, suggesting that VeriStrat could be used to identify EGFR mutation-positive patients who will have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study suggests that VeriStrat testing could enhance the prognostic role of performance status and smoking status and replicates findings from other trials that showed that the VeriStrat test identifies EGFR mutation-positive patients likely to have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Although these findings should be confirmed in other populations, VeriStrat use could be considered in EGFR mutation-positive patients as an additional prognostic tool, and these results suggest that EGFR mutation-positive patients with VeriStrat "poor" classification could benefit from other therapeutic agents given in conjunction with TKI monotherapy.