Evaluation of Tucatinib in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) patients with brain metastases (BMs) and the subgroup of active BMs from the United States (US) payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 regimens in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs: (1) tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (TTC); (2) placebo, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (PTC). And subgroup analysis of active BMs was also performed. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB) were estimated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $200,000/QALY. The robustness of the model was tested by sensitivity analyses. Additional scenario analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Compared with PTC, the ICER yielded by TTC was $418,007.01/QALY and the INHB was -1.08 QALYs in patients with BMs. In the subgroup of active BMs, the ICER and the INHB were $324,465.03/QALY and -0.71 QALY, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the cost of tucatinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost-effective probability of TTC was low at the current WTP threshold in the patients with BMs and the subgroup of active BMs. CONCLUSION: Tucatinib is unlikely to be cost-effective in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs from the US payer perspective but shows better economics in patients with active BMs. Selecting a favorable population, reducing the price of tucatinib or offering appropriate drug assistance policies might be considerable options to optimize the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as the third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in China. METHODS: A three-state Markov model with monthly cycle was constructed to estimate lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with mCRC from Chinese health care perspective. Survival analysis was applied to calculate transition probabilities using the data from the clinical trials FRESCO and CONCUR, which were also the data sources accessing probabilities of adverse events. Background mortality rate and drug costs were derived from government published data. Costs for medical services were obtained from real-world data and published literatures. Utilities applied to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from literature review. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were adopted to verify the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Fruquintinib provided 0.74 QALYs at a cost of CNY 151,058 (USD 22,888), whereas regorafenib provided 0.79 QALYs at a cost of CNY 226,657 (USD 32,224). Compared to fruquintinib, the ICER of regorafenib was CNY 1,529,197/QALY (USD 231,697/QALY) from Chinese health care perspective, which was above the triple GDP per capita of China in 2019 (CNY 212,676) (USD 32,224) as the threshold to define the cost-effectiveness. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results were generally robust. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the probability that fruquintinib was more cost-effective was 100% when the threshold was the triple GDP per capita of China. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to regorafenib, fruquintinib, which leads to forego about 0.05 QALYs and save about CNY 75,599 (USD 11,454), is a cost-effective choice as the third-line treatment for patients with mCRC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients from a US payer perspective.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of letermovir versus no prophylaxis for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in adult cytomegalovirus-seropositive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) recipients. A decision model for 100 patients was developed to estimate the probabilities of cytomegalovirus infection, cytomegalovirus disease, various other complications, and death in patients receiving letermovir versus no prophylaxis. The probabilities of clinical outcomes were based on the pivotal phase 3 trial of letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis versus placebo in adult cytomegalovirus-seropositive recipients of an allo-HCT. Costs of prophylaxis with letermovir and of each clinical outcome were derived from published sources or the trial clinical study reports. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used in the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainty around the base-case analysis. In this model, the use of letermovir prophylaxis would lead to an increase of QALYs (619) and direct medical cost ($1 733 794) compared with no prophylaxis (578 QALYs; $710 300) in cytomegalovirus-seropositive recipients of an allo-HCT. Letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was a cost-effective option versus no prophylaxis with base-case analysis ICER $25 046/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the most influential parameter was mortality rate. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 92% probability of letermovir producing an ICER below the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY gained. Based on this model, letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was a cost-effective option in adult cytomegalovirus-seropositive recipients of an allo-HCT.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we analyze the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, especially after a recent price drop suggested by the National Healthcare Security Administration. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to placebo among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Chinese healthcare payer's perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical cost (2019 US dollars [USD]). A willing-to-pay threshold was set at USD 27,130/QALY, which is three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Fruquintinib was associated with better health outcomes than placebo (0.640 vs 0.478 QALYs) with a higher cost (USD 20750.9 vs USD 12042.2), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 53508.7 per QALY. This ICER is 25% lower than the one calculated before the price drop (USD 70952.6 per QALY). CONCLUSION: After the price negotiation, the drug becomes cheaper and the ICER is lower, but the drug is still not cost effective under the standard of 3 times GDP willing-to-pay threshold. For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, fruquintinib is not a cost-effective option under the current circumstances in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of addition of fruquintinib to best supportive care (BSC) in third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: To conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov model was established to simulate the course of metastatic CRC. Three health states-progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death-were included. Clinical data were derived from the FRESCO trial and health utility values were extracted from previous literature. The primary outcome of the study was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in US dollars per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from a Chinese societal perspective. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the study. RESULTS: Addition of fruquintinib to BSC gained 0.54 QALY at a cost of $15,404.57 while the BSC group gained 0.38 QALY at a cost of $9603.94. ICER of fruquintinib versus BSC was $36,253.94/QALY. In the 1-way sensitivity analyses, utility for PD in both groups, utility for PFS in both groups, and cost of fruquintinib significantly influenced the results of the analysis. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $28,988.40/QALY, probabilities of addition of fruquintinib to BSC or BSC alone as the cost-effective option were 0% and 100%, indicating addition of fruquintinib is not a dominant option compared with BSC. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of fruquintinib to BSC is not a cost-effective regimen in the third-line setting for patients with metastatic CRC from the Chinese societal perspective.

Potential life years not saved due to lack of access to anti-EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for lung cancer treatment in the Brazilian public healthcare system: Budget impact and strategies to improve access. A pharmacoeconomic study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the fourth most common cancer in Brazil. In the 2000s, better understanding of molecular pathways led to development of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted treatments that have improved outcomes. However, these treatments are unavailable in most Brazilian public healthcare services (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS). OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential number of years of life not saved, the budget impact of the treatment and strategies to improve access. DESIGN AND SETTING: Pharmacoeconomic study assessing the potential societal and economic impact of adopting EGFR-targeted therapy within SUS. METHODS: We estimated the number of cases eligible for treatment, using epidemiological data from the National Cancer Institute. We used data from a single meta-analysis and from the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC) study as the basis for assessing differences in patients' survival between use of targeted therapy and use of chemotherapy. The costs of targeted treatment were based on the national reference and were compared with the amount reimbursed for chemotherapy through SUS. RESULTS: There was no life-year gain with EGFR-targeted therapy in the single meta-analysis (hazard ratio, HR, 1.01). The LCMC showed that 1,556 potential life-years were not saved annually. We estimated that the annual budget impact was 125 million Brazilian reais (BRL) with erlotinib, 48 million BRL with gefitinib and 52 million BRL with afatinib. Their incremental costs over chemotherapy per life-year saved were 80,329 BRL, 31,011 BRL and 33,225 BRL, respectively. A drug acquisition discount may decrease the budget impact by 30% (with a 20% discount). A fixed cost of 1,000 BRL may decrease the budget impact by 95%. CONCLUSION: Reducing drug acquisition costs may improve access to EGFR-targeted therapy for lung cancer.

Cabozantinib and vandetanib for unresectable locally advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer: a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) is a rare form of cancer that affects patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and survival. Cabozantinib (Cometriq®; Ipsen, Paris, France) and vandetanib (Caprelsa®; Sanofi Genzyme, Cambridge, MA, USA) are currently the treatment modality of choice for treating unresectable progressive and symptomatic MTC. OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of cabozantinib and vandetanib. (2) To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib and vandetanib versus each other and best supportive care. (3) To identify key areas for primary research. (4) To estimate the overall cost of these treatments in England. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed publications (searched from inception to November 2016), European Public Assessment Reports and manufacturers' submissions. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review [including a network meta-analysis (NMA)] was conducted to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of cabozantinib and vandetanib. The economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a de novo model. RESULTS: The systematic review identified two placebo-controlled trials. The Efficacy of XL184 (Cabozantinib) in Advanced Medullary Thyroid Cancer (EXAM) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients with unresectable locally advanced, metastatic and progressive MTC. The ZETA trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of vandetanib in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic MTC. Both drugs significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) more than the placebo (p < 0.001). The NMA suggested that, within the symptomatic and progressive MTC population, the effects on PFS were similar (vandetanib vs. cabozantinib: hazard ratio 1.14, 95% credible interval 0.41 to 3.09). Neither trial demonstrated a significant overall survival benefit for cabozantinib or vandetanib versus placebo, although data from ZETA were subject to potential confounding. Both cabozantinib and vandetanib demonstrated significantly better objective response rates and calcitonin (CTN) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) response rates than placebo. Both cabozantinib and vandetanib produced frequent adverse events, often leading to dose interruption or reduction. The assessment group model indicates that, within the EU-label population (symptomatic and progressive MTC), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for cabozantinib and vandetanib are > £138,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Within the restricted EU-label population (symptomatic and progressive MTC with CEA/CTN doubling times of ≤ 24 months), the ICER for vandetanib is expected to be > £66,000 per QALY gained. The maximum annual budget impact within the symptomatic and progressive population is estimated to be ≈£2.35M for cabozantinib and ≈£5.53M for vandetanib. The costs of vandetanib in the restricted EU-label population are expected to be lower. LIMITATIONS: The intention-to-treat populations of the EXAM and ZETA trials are notably different. The analyses of ZETA subgroups may be subject to confounding as a result of differences in baseline characteristics and open-label vandetanib use. Attempts to statistically adjust for treatment switching were unsuccessful. No HRQoL evidence was identified for the MTC population. CONCLUSIONS: The identified trials suggest that cabozantinib and vandetanib improve PFS more than the placebo; however, significant OS benefits were not demonstrated. The economic analyses indicate that within the EU-label population, the ICERs for cabozantinib and vandetanib are > £138,000 per QALY gained. Within the restricted EU-label population, the ICER for vandetanib is expected to be > £66,000 per QALY gained. FUTURE RESEARCH PRIORITIES: (1) Primary research assessing the long-term effectiveness of cabozantinib and vandetanib within relevant subgroups. (2) Reanalyses of the ZETA trial to investigate the impact of adjusting for open-label vandetanib use using appropriate statistical methods. (3) Studies assessing the impact of MTC on HRQoL. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016050403. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) is a rare form of cancer that presents as a mass of tumours in the thyroid gland of the neck. MTC affects both patients' health-related quality of life and survival. Targeted therapies (cabozantinib and vandetanib) are currently used to treat unresectable progressive and symptomatic MTC. The evidence for the use of cabozantinib and vandetanib in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic MTC was reviewed, and two clinical trials were identified. The trials suggest that both drugs improve progression-free survival. Neither trial demonstrated significant survival benefits for cabozantinib or vandetanib. Both drugs produced frequent adverse events, often leading to dose interruption or reduction. Whether or not these therapies represent good value for money for the NHS was also assessed. Analyses indicate that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (a measure of cost-effectiveness) for cabozantinib and vandetanib versus best supportive care (BSC) in patients with symptomatic and progressive MTC are > £138,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Within a subgroup of patients with symptomatic and progressive MTC and carcinoembryonic antigen and/or calcitonin doubling times of ≤ 24 months, the ICER for vandetanib versus BSC remains > £66,000 per QALY gained.

Potential life years not saved due to lack of access to anti-EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for lung cancer treatment in the Brazilian public healthcare system: Budget impact and strategies to improve access. A pharmacoeconomic study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the fourth most common cancer in Brazil. In the 2000s, better understanding of molecular pathways led to development of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted treatments that have improved outcomes. However, these treatments are unavailable in most Brazilian public healthcare services (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS). OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential number of years of life not saved, the budget impact of the treatment and strategies to improve access. DESIGN AND SETTING: Pharmacoeconomic study assessing the potential societal and economic impact of adopting EGFR-targeted therapy within SUS. METHODS: We estimated the number of cases eligible for treatment, using epidemiological data from the National Cancer Institute. We used data from a single meta-analysis and from the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC) study as the basis for assessing differences in patients' survival between use of targeted therapy and use of chemotherapy. The costs of targeted treatment were based on the national reference and were compared with the amount reimbursed for chemotherapy through SUS. RESULTS: There was no life-year gain with EGFR-targeted therapy in the single meta-analysis (hazard ratio, HR, 1.01). The LCMC showed that 1,556 potential life-years were not saved annually. We estimated that the annual budget impact was 125 million Brazilian reais (BRL) with erlotinib, 48 million BRL with gefitinib and 52 million BRL with afatinib. Their incremental costs over chemotherapy per life-year saved were 80,329 BRL, 31,011 BRL and 33,225 BRL, respectively. A drug acquisition discount may decrease the budget impact by 30% (with a 20% discount). A fixed cost of 1,000 BRL may decrease the budget impact by 95%. CONCLUSION: Reducing drug acquisition costs may improve access to EGFR-targeted therapy for lung cancer.

Influence of wellness education on first-line icotinib hydrochloride patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer and their family caregivers.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the effects of wellness education (WE) intervention on the behavioral change, psychological status, performance status on patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing icotinib hydrochloride treatment and their relationships with family caregivers. METHODS: We conducted an intervention study involving 126 individuals with confirmed activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive stage IV NSCLC who received icotinib hydrochloride as first-line therapy between January 2014 and January 2016; their caregivers were also included in the study. For a period of 12 weeks, participants were randomly assigned into WE and control groups. The patients and family members in the WE group were provided with WE information about treatment, diet, social needs, rehabilitation, physical/mental health education, communication strategies, and patient care advice at least 3 times per week during treatment. Qualitative feedback of the participants was recorded during the intervention. Food Composition Database, the Family Environment Scale, patients/caregivers quality-of-life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung/Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer Scale), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were measured at baseline and for 12 weeks. Data were analyzed to compare the different outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 126 caregivers (64 WE and 62 control), 120 completed the study. We observed significant differences between the WE group and control group with respect to low daily calorie intake (31.0% vs 77.4%, p < 0.05), smoking cessationaaa and awareness of cancer (85.48% vs 100%, p < 0.05). The WE group showed high ratings on awareness of cancer risk and benefit, as well as confidence relating to the behaviors of healthful diet and self-motivation to conduct cancer test. Family caregivers had high ratings on 30-minute daily moderate physical activity (p > 0.05). After 12 weeks, WE intervention had improved scores on Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung-EWB and Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer Scale adaptation. In addition, the patients also showed improvements in HADS. CONCLUSION: WE interventions in patients with stage IV NSCLC undergoing icotinib hydrochloride treatment and their family resulted in strong intentions to engage in health-promoting behaviors related to physical activity, smoking cessationaaa, and nutrition at the treatment period. WE intervention is a viable way to improve quality of life and HADS. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Findings from this study suggest that WE interventions in patients' family with stage IV NSCLC undergoing icotinib hydrochloride treatment are significant improvements in both HADS and quality of life. These data also indicate that lung cancer disparities are unlikely to be associated with differential willingness to receive care but that Chinese may perceive financial and insurance ebarriers to treatment.

Budget Impact Analysis of Afatinib for First-Line Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Exon 19 Deletions or Exon 21 Substitution Mutations in a U.S. Health Plan.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib is 1 of 3 tyrosine kinase inhibitors approved in the United States for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors have epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletions (del19) or exon 21 (L858R) substitution mutations. In clinical trials, afatinib has demonstrated improvement in progression-free survival versus standard chemotherapy and gefitinib. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of increases in afatinib treatment share on the cost and health outcomes in a commercial health plan in the United States. METHODS: A decision model was developed to evaluate the budget impact of increases in afatinib share for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC with EGFR del19 or L858R substitution mutations over a 5-year time horizon. The model compared the total annual costs for a health plan with 1 million covered lives in a scenario in which afatinib share increased 5 percentage points annually to one in which all treatment shares remained constant over time. The number of patients eligible for treatment was estimated using published incidence data. Therapies included in the model were afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, and the chemotherapy doublet, pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin. The mean time spent by patients in progression-free and progressive disease states was based on survival data from clinical trials and a network meta-analysis. Therapy-related costs included monthly drug acquisition and administration costs and costs of managing adverse reactions. Disease management costs were also assessed in the model. Scenario analyses were performed to assess alternative scenarios of afatinib treatment share. Additionally, a one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the model, given parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Using the base-case parameter assumptions and a 5-percentage-point annual increase in afatinib treatment share, we estimated the total budget increases in years 1 through 5 to be $1,606, $65,542, $140,564, $209,272, and $303,368, respectively. These budget increases translated to per-member-per-month increases ranging from $0.00 to $0.03 in years 1 to 5. The increase in afatinib use resulted in the proportion of the treated population (134 patients treated over 5 years) remaining in progression-free disease increasing from 23.7% to 26.2% at the end of year 5, versus if afatinib treatment share had stayed constant. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the treatment share of afatinib in a health plan for the first-line treatment of NSCLC with EGFR del19 or L858R mutations was estimated to increase the proportion of treated patients remaining in progression-free disease, while having small budget impact to the health plan. DISCLOSURES: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals funded this study research and was involved in all stages of study conduct, including the analysis of data, and also undertook all costs associated with the development and publication of this manuscript. Graham and Earnshaw are employees of RTI Health Solutions, an independent contract research organization that has received research funding for this and other studies from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Lim and Burslem are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, which developed and produces afatinib, along with other pharmaceutical products.

Treatment decisions, clinical outcomes, and pharmacoeconomics in the treatment of patients with EGFR mutated stage III/IV NSCLC in Germany: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated treatment decisions and outcomes in a cohort of predominately Caucasian patients with EGFR mutation-positive (EGFR Mut+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: REASON (NCT00997230) was a non-interventional study in German patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Secondary endpoints for EGFR Mut + NSCLC included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse event (AE) management, and pharmacoeconomic outcomes. RESULTS: Among 334 patients with EGFR Mut + NSCLC, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were the most common first-line therapy (56.6%, 53.0% gefitinib). Among patients who received TKIs/gefitinib before first disease progression, PFS was longer compared with those who did not receive a TKI (median 10.1/10.0 vs. 7.0 months; HR 0.67/0.69; log-rank p = 0.012/p = 0.022). OS was longer for those patients who ever received a TKI/gefitinib during their complete therapy course compared with those who never received a TKI (median 18.4/18.1 vs. 13.6 months; HR 0.53/0.55; p = 0.003/p = 0.005). Total mean first-line treatment healthcare costs per person were higher for those receiving TKIs (€46,443) compared with those who received chemotherapy (€27,182). Mean outpatient and inpatient costs were highest with chemotherapy. Rash, diarrhea, and dry skin were the most commonly reported AEs for patients receiving gefitinib. CONCLUSIONS: In REASON, TKI therapy was the most common first- and second-line treatment for EGFR Mut + NSCLC, associated with increased drug costs compared with chemotherapy. Patients who received gefitinib or a TKI ever during their complete therapy course had prolonged PFS and OS compared with patients who did not receive a TKI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on October, 2009 with ClinicalTrials.gov : https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00997230?term=NCT00997230&rank=1.

A review of the value of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapies in breast cancer.

The cost of cancer drugs continues to escalate with the rapid development and approval of novel therapies, especially over the course of the last decade. In human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer, the survival benefits gained by new treatments have been undeniably substantial. It is important to assess the financial value of these therapies for decision making at both the societal and individual level. This information is key for managing resources in resource-limited health care systems, while at the same time supporting patient decision-making and conversations between patient and physicians on cost versus benefit. In this article, we perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses that have been completed to date on HER2-targeted agents, focussing on those that correlate with standard of care therapy. Our discussion also highlights potential strategies to overcome several limitations associated with measuring value for anticancer drugs.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Afatinib versus Gefitinib for First-Line Treatment of Advanced EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers.

INTRODUCTION: The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib were compared in the multicenter, international, randomized, head-to-head phase 2b LUX-Lung 7 trial for first-line treatment of advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLCs. Afatinib and gefitinib costs and patients' outcomes in France were assessed. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of afatinib versus gefitinib for EGFR mutation-positive NSCLCs. Outcomes and safety were taken primarily from the LUX-Lung 7 trial. Resource use and utilities were derived from that trial, an expert-panel questionnaire, and published literature, limiting expenditures to direct costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a 10-year time horizon for the entire population, and EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation (L858R) subgroups. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: For all EGFR mutation-positive NSCLCs, the afatinib-versus-gefitinib ICER of was €45,211 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (0.170 QALY gain for an incremental cost of €7697). ICERs for EGFR exon 19 deletion and L858R populations were €38,970 and €52,518, respectively. Afatinib had 100% probability to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €70,000/QALY for patients with common EGFR mutations. CONCLUSION: First-line afatinib appears cost-effective compared with gefitinib for patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLCs.

Prognostic value of early response assessment using (18F)FDG-PET in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors.

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the prognostic value of early response assessment using (18F)fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission thermography (PET) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs). MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched until August 1, 2016 using the keywords non-small cell lung carcinoma, positron-emission tomography, fluorodeoxyglucose, prognosis, disease progression, survival, erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib. Inclusion criteria were studies of patients with stage III or IV NSCLC treated with a TKI and had response assessed by FDG-PET. Outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Of the 167 articles identified, 10 studies including 302 patients were included in the analysis. In 8 studies, patients were treated with erlotinib, and in 2 they were treated with gefitinib. The overall analysis revealed that early metabolic response was statistically associated with improved OS (HR=0.54; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.63; p<0.001), and with longer PFS (HR=0.23; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.33; p<0.001). Early response of patients with NSCLC treated with TKIs identified on FDG-PET is associated with improved OS and PFS.

Patient response to use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in lung cancer: a retrospective audit during funding changes.

BACKGROUND: The New Zealand Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC) approved funding of erlotinib in October 2010 as second line therapy in all non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy with no requirement for epidermal growth factor (EGFR) mutation testing. Funding widened in August 2012 to include gefitinib as first line treatment for patients with a proven EGFR mutation. Then in January 2014, both tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were approved for first line treatment, but only for disease with EGFR mutation. AIM: To report the clinical experience with TKIs in a New Zealand tertiary referral centre over a period of funding change. METHOD: Retrospective audit of all patients commenced on erlotinib from 1st October 2010 until 1st November 2011, and gefitinib from 1st August 2012 until 31st August 2013. Follow-up was two years for both groups. RESULTS: Each group had 42 patients. Median Progression Free Survival was 76 days in the erlotinib group and 255 days in the gefitinib group. Twenty-eight percent of erlotinib patients had grade 3 adverse events with one treatment related death; fourteen percent of gefitinib patients had grade 3 adverse events. Dose reduction or treatment breaks were required in 12% in each group. CONCLUSION: Response rate in these audits appear to reflect the change in funding criteria, with improved response rates likely to be associated with more targeted treatment.

Estimated generic prices of cancer medicines deemed cost-ineffective in England: a cost estimation analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate lowest possible treatment costs for four novel cancer drugs, hypothesising that generic manufacturing could significantly reduce treatment costs. SETTING: This research was carried out in a non-clinical research setting using secondary data. PARTICIPANTS: There were no human participants in the study. Four drugs were selected for the study: bortezomib, dasatinib, everolimus and gefitinib. These medications were selected according to their clinical importance, novel pharmaceutical actions and the availability of generic price data. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Target costs for treatment were to be generated for each indication for each treatment. The primary outcome measure was the target cost according to a production cost calculation algorithm. The secondary outcome measure was the target cost as the lowest available generic price; this was necessary where export data were not available to generate an estimate from our cost calculation algorithm. Other outcomes included patent expiry dates and total eligible treatment populations. RESULTS: Target prices were £411 per cycle for bortezomib, £9 per month for dasatinib, £852 per month for everolimus and £10 per month for gefitinib. Compared with current list prices in England, these target prices would represent reductions of 74-99.6%. Patent expiry dates were bortezomib 2014-22, dasatinib 2020-26, everolimus 2019-25 and gefitinib 2017. The total global eligible treatment population in 1 year is 769 736. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that affordable drug treatment costs are possible for novel cancer drugs, suggesting that new therapeutic options can be made available to patients and doctors worldwide. Assessing treatment cost estimations alongside cost-effectiveness evaluations is an important area of future research.

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

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are becoming the standard treatment option for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an EGFR mutation, but the economic impact of this practice is unclear, especially in a health resource-limited setting. A decision-analytic model was developed to simulate 21-day patient transitions in a 10-year time horizon. The health and economic outcomes of four first-line strategies (pemetrexed plus cisplatin [PC] alone, PC followed by maintenance with pemetrexed, or initial treatment with gefitinib or icotinib) among patients harboring EGFR mutations were estimated and assessed via indirect comparisons. Costs in the Chinese setting were estimated. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were performed. The icotinib strategy resulted in greater health benefits than the other three strategies in NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations. Relative to PC alone, PC followed by pemetrexed maintenance, gefitinib and icotinib resulted in ICERs of $104,657, $28,485 and $19,809 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. The cost of pemetrexed, the EGFR mutation prevalence and the utility of progression-free survival were factors that had a considerable impact on the model outcomes. When the icotinib Patient Assistance Program was available, the economic outcome of icotinib was more favorable. These results indicate that gene-guided therapy with icotinib might be a more cost-effective treatment option than traditional chemotherapy.

The European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) applied to pivotal phase III randomized-controlled trials of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in first-line for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutations.

INTRODUCTION: To examine the magnitude of the clinical benefit from first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutations. Areas covered: The present evaluation was restricted to pivotal phase III RCTs in first-line for advanced NSCLC with activating EGFR-mutations. We have subsequently applied the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) to the above pivotal phase III RCTs, to derive a relative ranking of the magnitude of clinically meaningful benefit. Our study evaluated 8 phase III RCTs (including 1710 patients). The ESMO-MCBS reached high grade (grade 4) for all TKIs treatments with at least one phase III RCT for each TKI. Expert commentary: Combining pharmacological costs of drugs with the measure of efficacy, afatinib has the lowest difference in costs per month-PFS gained and a comparable high grade of magnitude of clinical benefit.