Real-world treatment costs of first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a survey of the JCOG colorectal cancer study group.

BACKGROUND: Although treatment outcomes for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have dramatically improved over the past few decades, drug costs have also significantly increased. This study aimed to investigate which first-line treatment regimens for mCRC are actually used (frequency) in Japanese practice and at what cost. METHODS: We collected data on patients with mCRC who received first-line treatment at 37 institutions of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group Colorectal Cancer Study Group from July 2021 to June 2022, and calculated the cost of regimens. The cost per month of each regimen was estimated based on standard usage, assuming a patient with a weight of 70 kg and a body surface area of 1.8 m2. We categorized the regimens into very high-cost (≥1 000 000 Japanese yen [JPY]/month), high-cost (≥500 000 JPY/month), and others (<500 000 JPY/month). RESULTS: The study included 1880 participants, 24% of whom were ≥ 75 years. Molecular targeted containing regimens were received by 78% of the patients. The most frequently used regimen was the doublet regimen (fluoropyrimidine with either oxaliplatin or irinotecan) plus bevacizumab (43%), followed by doublet plus cetuximab or panitumumab (21%). The cost of molecular targeted drugs-containing regimens (ranging from 85 406 to 843 602 JPY/month) is much higher than that of only cytotoxic drug regimens (ranging from 17 672 to 51 004 JPY/month). About 16% received high-cost treatments that included panitumumab-containing regimens and pembrolizumab (17% of patients aged ≤74 years and 11% of patients aged ≥75 years). CONCLUSION: About 16% of mCRC patients received first-line treatment with regimens costing >500 000JPY/month, and molecular targeted drugs being the main drivers of cost.

How are we evaluating the cost-effectiveness of companion biomarkers for targeted cancer therapies? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing economic assessment of biomarker-guided therapies, no clear agreement exists whether existing methods are sufficient or whether different methods might produce different cost-effectiveness results. This study aims to examine current practices of modeling companion biomarkers when assessing the cost-effectiveness of targeted cancer therapies. It investigates the current methods in modeling the characteristics of companion diagnostics based on existing economic evaluations of biomarker-guided therapies in cancer. METHODS: A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, EconLit, Cochrane library for economic evaluations of biomarker-guided therapies with companion diagnostics in cancer. Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Studies were selected using pre-specified eligibility criteria based on the PICO framework. To make the included studies more comparable, we qualitatively synthesized the data under nine domains of methods where consensus was deemed lacking. RESULTS: Only four of the twenty-two studies included in this review were found to be of good quality with respect to incorporating the characteristics of companion biomarkers in economic evaluations. However, many evaluations focused on a pre-selected patient group rather than including all patients regardless of their biomarker status. Companion biomarker characteristics captured in evaluations were often limited to the cost or the accuracy of the test. Often, only the costs of biomarker testing were modelled. Clinical outcomes and health state utilities were often not included due to the limited data generated by clinical trials. Methods of economic evaluation were not applied consistently in assessments of companion cancer biomarkers for targeted therapies. It was also shown that conflicting cost-effectiveness results were likely depending on what comparator arm was chosen and what comparison structure was designed in the model. CONCLUSION: We found no consistent approach applied in assessing the value of companion biomarker tests and including the characteristics of biomarkers in an economic evaluation of targeted oncology therapies. Currently, many economic evaluations fail to capture the full value of companion biomarkers beyond sensitivity/specificity and cost related to biomarker testing.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatment with crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: While no direct comparative data exist for crizotinib in ROS1+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), studies have suggested clinical benefit with this targeted agent. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib compared to standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of the Canadian publicly-funded health care system. Health states included progression-free survival (PFS), up to two further lines of therapy post-progression, palliation and death. Given a lack of comparative data and small study samples, crizotinib or chemotherapy studies with advanced ROS1+ NSCLC patients were identified and time-to-event data from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves were collected to pool PFS data. Costs of drugs, treatment administration, monitoring, adverse events and palliative care were included in 2018 Canadian dollars, with 1.5% discounting. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated probabilistically using 5000 simulations. RESULTS: In the base-case probabilistic analysis, crizotinib produced additional 0.885 life-years and 0.772 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $238,077, producing an ICER of $273,286/QALY gained. No simulations were found to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. A scenario analysis assuming efficacy equivalent to the ALK+ NSCLC population showed a slightly more favorable cost-effectiveness profile for crizotinib. CONCLUSIONS: Available data appear to support superior activity of crizotinib compared to chemotherapy in ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. At the list price, crizotinib was not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds across a wide range of sensitivity analyses.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Baseline Testing for Resistance-Associated Polymorphisms to Optimize Treatment Outcome in Genotype 1 Noncirrhotic Treatment-Naïve Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus.

OBJECTIVES: Direct-acting antivirals containing nonstructural protein 5A (NS5A) inhibitors administered over 8 to 12 weeks are effective in ∼95% of patients with hepatitis C virus. Nevertheless, patients resistant to NS5A inhibitors have lower cure rates over 8 weeks (<85%); for these patients, 12 weeks of treatment produces cure rates greater than 95%. We evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of testing for NS5A resistance at baseline and optimizing treatment duration accordingly in genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naïve patients from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. METHODS: A decision-analytic model compared (1) standard 12-week treatment (no testing), (2) shortened 8-week treatment (no testing), and (3) baseline testing with 12-/8-week treatment for those with/without NS5A polymorphisms. Patients who failed first-line therapy were retreated for 12 weeks. Model inputs were derived from published studies. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and the probability of cost-effectiveness were calculated. RESULTS: Baseline testing had an incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of £11 838 versus standard 12 weeks of therapy (no testing) and low probability (31%) of being the most cost-effective, assuming £30 000 willingness to pay. Shortened 8 weeks of treatment (no testing) had an INMB of £12 294 and the highest probability (69%) of being most cost-effective. Scenario analyses showed baseline testing generally had the highest INMB and probability of being most cost-effective if first- and second-line drug prices were low (<£20k). CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing treatment duration based on NS5A polymorphisms for genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients in the United Kingdom is not cost-effective if the drug costs are high; the strategy is generally most cost-effective when drug prices are low (<£20k).

Economic Evaluation of Systemic Treatments for Advanced Melanoma: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Many high cost treatments for advanced melanoma have become available in recent years. National health technology assessment agencies have raised concerns regarding uncertainty in their clinical and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to identify economic evaluations of treatments for advanced melanoma and review model assumptions, outcomes, and quality as preparation for a health technology assessment. METHODS: A search of Embase, MEDLINE, EconLit, and the Cochrane Database was conducted. Only studies using decision-analytic models were included. Two authors independently completed full-text review and data extraction. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified. There were major differences in the structural assumptions underpinning the models. There was general agreement in study conclusions, although the predicted costs and quality-adjusted life years for each treatment varied. BRAF monotherapy (vemurafenib, dabrafenib) or BRAF/MEK combination therapy (BRAF monotherapy with cobimetinib or trametinib) has not been shown to be cost-effective in any jurisdiction. PD-1 inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) are consistently found to be cost-effective compared with ipilimumab, although their cost-effectiveness compared with chemotherapy is not established. Combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab is unlikely to be cost-effective in any setting. One study including all agents found that none of the new treatments were cost-effective relative to chemotherapy. Publication of the study in a health economics journal is associated with better reporting of and higher-quality assessment than those published in clinical journals. CONCLUSION: Despite differences in model structures and assumptions, the conclusions of most included studies were consistent. Health technology assessment has a key role in maximizing value from high-cost innovative treatments. Consideration should be given to divestment from BRAF/MEK inhibitors and ipilimumab in favor of reimbursement of PD-1 inhibitors.

Spending on Targeted Therapies for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.

This study estimates public and private spending on genetically targeted treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy during years in which the drugs were marketed without completed confirmatory studies.

Which Should Be Used First for ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Chemotherapy or Targeted Therapy? A Meta-Analysis of Five Randomized Trials.

Background and objectives: Targeted therapy is widely used in the era of precision medicine. Whether the sequence in which targeted therapy and chemotherapy are performed matters, is however not known. We examined the impact of the sequential treatment of targeted therapy and chemotherapy among advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Materials and Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing the use of ALK inhibitors with chemotherapy were included in this meta-analysis. We estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from a random effects model. Two-sided statistical tests were used to determine the significance of these estimates. Results: In five eligible studies (1404 patients), ALK targeted therapy, in comparison with chemotherapy, had a significantly higher PFS (HR = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.42⁻0.55), but not significantly higher OS (HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72⁻1.07). Crossover from chemotherapy to ALK inhibitors was allowed after progression in all trials. The sensitivity analysis of the use of ALK inhibitors as either the first- or second-line treatment, showed improvements in PFS but not in OS. Conclusions: Our results indicate that using targeted therapy first improved PFS, but that the sequence in which the treatments were performed did not cause a significant difference in overall survival.

Reviewing the quality, health benefit and value for money of chemotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To provide an overview of model characteristics and outcomes of model-based economic evaluations concerning chemotherapy and targeted therapy (TT) for metastatic breast cancer (MBC); to assess the quality of the studies; to analyse the association between model characteristics and study quality and outcomes. METHODS: PubMED and NHS EED were systematically searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: English or Dutch language, model-based economic evaluation, chemotherapy or TT as intervention, population diagnosed with MBC, published between 2000 and 2014, reporting life years (LY) or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. General characteristics, model characteristics and outcomes of the studies were extracted. Quality of the studies was assessed through a checklist. RESULTS: 24 studies were included, considering 50 comparisons (20 concerning chemotherapy and 30 TT). Seven comparisons were represented in multiple studies. A health state-transition model including the following health states: stable/progression-free disease, progression and death was used in 18 studies. Studies fulfilled on average 14 out of the 26 items of the quality checklist, mostly due to a lack of transparency in reporting. Thirty-one per cent of the incremental net monetary benefit was positive. TT led to higher iQALY gained, and industry-sponsored studies reported more favourable cost-effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The development of a disease-specific reference model would improve the transparency and quality of model-based cost-effectiveness assessments for MBC treatments. Incremental health benefits increased over time, but were outweighed by the increased treatment costs. Consequently, increased health benefits led to lower value for money.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 1st through 3rd line sequential targeted therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: Based on available phase III trial data, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different treatment strategies that can be used in patients with newly diagnosed HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of four different HER2 targeted treatment sequences in patients with HER2-positive mBC treated in the U.S. The model followed patients weekly over their remaining life expectancies. Health states considered were progression-free survival (PFS) 1st to 3rd lines, and death. Transitional probabilities were based on published phase III trials. Cost data (2015 US dollars) were captured from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) drug payment table and physician fee schedule. Health utility data were extracted from published studies. The outcomes considered were PFS, OS, costs, QALYs, the incremental cost per QALY gained ratio, and the net monetary benefit. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the uncertainty around key model parameters and their joint impact on the base-case results. RESULTS: The combination of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and docetaxel (THP) as first-line therapy, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) as second-line therapy, and lapatinib/capecitabine third-line resulted in 1.81 QALYs, at a cost of $335,231.35. The combination of trastuzumab/docetaxel as first line without subsequent T-DM1 or pertuzumab yielded 1.41 QALYs, at a cost of $175,240.69. The least clinically effective sequence (1.27 QALYs), but most cost-effective at a total cost of $149,250.19, was trastuzumab/docetaxel as first-line therapy, T-DM1 as second-line therapy, and trastuzumab/lapatinib as third-line therapy. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that THP as first-line therapy, followed by T-DM1 as second-line therapy, would require at least a 50 % reduction in the total drug acquisition cost for it to be considered a cost-effective strategy.

The European Hematology Association Roadmap for European Hematology Research: a consensus document.

The European Hematology Association (EHA) Roadmap for European Hematology Research highlights major achievements in diagnosis and treatment of blood disorders and identifies the greatest unmet clinical and scientific needs in those areas to enable better funded, more focused European hematology research. Initiated by the EHA, around 300 experts contributed to the consensus document, which will help European policy makers, research funders, research organizations, researchers, and patient groups make better informed decisions on hematology research. It also aims to raise public awareness of the burden of blood disorders on European society, which purely in economic terms is estimated at €23 billion per year, a level of cost that is not matched in current European hematology research funding. In recent decades, hematology research has improved our fundamental understanding of the biology of blood disorders, and has improved diagnostics and treatments, sometimes in revolutionary ways. This progress highlights the potential of focused basic research programs such as this EHA Roadmap.The EHA Roadmap identifies nine 'sections' in hematology: normal hematopoiesis, malignant lymphoid and myeloid diseases, anemias and related diseases, platelet disorders, blood coagulation and hemostatic disorders, transfusion medicine, infections in hematology, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. These sections span 60 smaller groups of diseases or disorders.The EHA Roadmap identifies priorities and needs across the field of hematology, including those to develop targeted therapies based on genomic profiling and chemical biology, to eradicate minimal residual malignant disease, and to develop cellular immunotherapies, combination treatments, gene therapies, hematopoietic stem cell treatments, and treatments that are better tolerated by elderly patients.

A personalized paradigm in the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer - A cost utility analysis of genomic-based versus cytotoxic therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a strategy employing genomic-based tumor testing to guide therapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. METHODS: A decision model was created to compare standard of care (SOC) cytotoxic chemotherapy to a genomic-based treatment strategy. The genomic arm included tumor testing with treatment directed at targets identified. Overall survival was assumed to be similar between strategies; quality of life (QOL) was assumed superior during targeted therapy compared to chemotherapy. Pertinent uncertainties (cost of targeted therapy and genomic testing, response to targeted therapy, probability of a tumor having a targetable alteration, and impact on QOL) were evaluated in a series of one-and two-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The genomic testing strategy was more expensive ($90,271 vs. $74,926) per patient than SOC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the genomic strategy was $479,303 per quality-adjusted life year saved (QALY). Model results were insensitive to the cost of genomic testing, differences in QOL, and the probability of identifying a targetable alteration. However, the model was sensitive to the cost of targeted therapy. For example, when the cost of targeted therapy was reduced to 56% of its current cost (or $6400/cycle), the genomic strategy became more cost-effective with an ICER of $96,612/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Genomic-based tumor testing and targeted therapy in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is not cost-effective compared with SOC. However, reducing the cost of targeted therapy (independently, or in combination with reducing the cost of the genomic test) provides opportunities for improved value in cancer care.

Pharmacotherapies for renal cell carcinoma in Japan.

The standard treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma has changed dramatically in the past decade, from cytokine therapy to targeted therapy. Since sorafenib was approved in April 2008, four tyrosine kinase inhibitors and two mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors have become available in Japan. Most Japanese renal cell carcinoma patients are treated by urologists who are involved in not only kidney surgeries, but also targeted therapy using tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors. Optimal treatment methods are selected from theoretically-based global recommendations, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines; however, real-world clinical practice might be different from that in non-Asian countries. This might be because of different practical conditions; for example, different adverse events and efficacy profiles, different healthcare system, and so on. In the present review, we examine current pharmacotherapy for renal cell carcinoma from evidence-based global data, and compare the reality of Japanese clinical practice to explore the importance of individualized patient therapy.

New Paradigm in Treating Cancer: Right on Target.

Cancer prevalence is increasing every year and now cancer is the third highest cause of death in developing countries. Effective anticancer treatment can prolong life and improve the patient's quality of life. Targeted therapy is a new therapeutic modality which targets specific molecules in the cancer cell and disrupts dysregulated signaling pathways involved in carcinogenesis. Since targeted therapy does not attack normal cells, its side effects are considered low compared to chemotherapy. More than 15 drugs have been approved for treatment in various human cancers. These drugs can largely be grouped into tyrosine kinase inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. This review will focus on the most common agents within both groups.

[Economic Loss of Remaining Contents in Molecular Target Drug Preparation and the Simulation for Cost Saving].

While preparing an anticancer drug, even if it is an expensive molecular target drug, the remainder is not divided and saved for use in other patients; instead, it is discarded, resulting in waste of medical resources. In this study, we examined the economic loss in terms of medical costs by calculating the discarded amounts of 12 commonly used molecular target drugs at Ogaki Municipal Hospital, Japan between January 2012 and December 2014. We found, on average, that drugs valued at ¥ 52,593,182 were discarded annually. In particular, the discarded amounts of relatively expensive drugs, such as bevacizumab, bortezomib, and rituximab, were valued at ¥ 16,646,300, ¥ 15,866,289, and ¥ 8,401,324, respectively. Among these, the average amount of waste per administration of bortezomib was particularly expensive, at a cost of ¥ 67,325. Bortezomib is a commonly used treatment, resulting in excessive cumulative discarded cost. In an effort to save cost, we should consider using small capacity standard injections. Development of a simulation that used the remaining drug contents from only 1 day showed that bevacizumab alone accounts for an average cost saving of ¥1 2,542,191(75.3%) per year. This study suggests that effectively utilizing the remaining drug contents would ensure efficient use of medical resources, thereby reducing economic losses.

A review of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a global health concern. In fact, breast cancer is the primary cause of death among women worldwide and constitutes the most expensive malignancy to treat. As health care resources are finite, decisions regarding the adoption and coverage of breast cancer treatments are increasingly being based on "value for money," i.e., cost-effectiveness. As the evidence about the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments is abundant, therefore difficult to navigate, systematic reviews of published systematic reviews offer the advantage of bringing together the results of separate systematic reviews in a single report. As a consequence, this paper presents an overview of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer to inform policy and reimbursement decision-making. A systematic review was conducted of published systematic reviews documenting cost-effectiveness analyses of breast cancer treatments from 2000 to 2014. Systematic reviews identified through a literature search of health and economic databases were independently assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Systematic reviews of original evaluations were included only if they targeted breast cancer patients and specific breast cancer treatments (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy only), documented incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and were reported in the English language. The search strategy used a combination of these key words: "breast cancer," "systematic review/meta-analysis," and "cost-effectiveness/economics." Data were extracted using predefined extraction forms and qualitatively appraised using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool. The literature search resulted in 511 bibliographic records, of which ten met our inclusion criteria. Five reviews were conducted in the early-stage breast cancer setting and five reviews in the metastatic setting. In early-stage breast cancer, evidence about trastuzumab value differed by age. Trastuzumab was cost-effective only in women with HER2-positive breast cancer younger than 65 years and over a life-time horizon. The cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer yielded conflicting results. The same conclusions were reached in comparisons between vinorelbine and taxanes. In both early stage and advanced/metastatic breast cancer, newer aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have proved cost-effective compared to older treatments. This overview of systematic reviews shows that there is heterogeneity in the evidence concerning the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer. The cost-effectiveness of these treatments depends not only on the comparators but the context, i.e., adjuvant or metastatic setting, subtype of patient population, and perspective adopted. Decisions involving the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments could be made easier and more transparent by better harmonizing the reporting of economic evaluations assessing the value of these treatments.

Management of elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the era of targeted therapies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is frequently diagnosed after 71 years, though median age in published clinical trials with standard chemoimmunotherapy regimens in frontline or relapse setting is mostly below 70 years (58-71 years). Development of oral, less toxic and thus more affordable targeted therapies offers new therapeutic options in those patients deemed unfit for chemotherapy. RECENT FINDINGS: This review will discuss results of these new agents in the therapy of elderly patients. Apart from discussing the impact of chronological age, creatinine clearance and cumulative illness rating scale scores in the clinical outcomes, we will also discuss how individualized treatment decision-making should include more precise geriatric assessment tools to thoroughly assess life expectancy, anticipate tolerability, to avoid deleterious stress precipitating prefrail patients into definitive loss of capacity, with dramatic social and economic costs. SUMMARY: In the era of new targeted agents to fight cancers, we propose concepts to help us understand how elderly dedicated trial designs and geriatric assessment tools (apart from the evaluation of CLL biological risk factors) will undoubtedly revolutionize therapeutic approaches in everyday practice CLL patients.

Changing the cost of care for chronic myeloid leukemia: the availability of generic imatinib in the USA and the EU.

Imatinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor and considered to be the most successful targeted anti-cancer agent yet developed given its substantial efficacy in treating chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and other malignant diseases. In the USA and the European Union (EU), Novartis' composition of matter patent on imatinib will expire in 2016. The potential impact on health system spending levels for CML after generic imatinib becomes available is the subject of significant interest among stakeholders. The extent of the potential savings largely depends on whether and to what extent prices decline and use stays the same or even increases. These are also empirical questions since the likely spending implications following generic imatinib's availability are predicated on multiple factors: physicians' willingness to prescribe generic imatinib, molecule characteristics, and health system priorities. This article discusses each of these issues in turn. We then review their implications for the development of country-specific cost-effectiveness models to predict the implications for cost and quality of care from generic imatinib.

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.