RESUMEN
Aim: To explore variations in the cost-effectiveness of entrectinib across different testing strategies and settings. Methods: Four testing strategies where adult cancer patients received entrectinib if they tested positive for NTRK gene fusions compared with 'no testing' and standard of care (SoC) for all patients were evaluated. Results: Immunohistochemistry for all patients followed by RNA-based next-generation sequencing after a positive result was the optimal strategy in all included countries. However, the incremental net monetary benefit compared with SoC was negative in all countries, ranging between international euros (int) -206 and -404. In a subgroup analysis with only NTRK-positive patients, the incremental net monetary benefit was int 8405 in England, int -53,088 in Hungary and int 54,372 in The Netherlands. Conclusion: Using the cost-effectiveness thresholds recommended by national guidelines, none of the testing strategies were cost-effective compared with no testing. The implementation of entrectinib is unlikely to become cost-effective in Hungary, due to the large cost difference between the entrectinib and SoC arms, while there might be more potential in England and The Netherlands.
Histology-independent pharmaceuticals are a new phenomenon in cancer care. Most chemotherapies are prescribed based on the tumor's (primary) location, while histology-independent therapies are prescribed based on genetic markers in the tumor DNA. In this study, the added value of the histology-independent treatment entrectinib, which is aimed at cancer patients with so-called NTRK gene fusions, was investigated. Because these patients must be identified before they can be given entrectinib, various strategies for diagnostic testing were considered. An economic model was programmed to gain insight into the costs and health outcomes associated with the different testing strategies. The same analysis was done for three different countries (England, Hungary and The Netherlands) using local data. In all three countries, the health gains from receiving entrectinib may be large for patients with NTRK gene fusions. However, treatment with entrectinib was also much more expensive than standard-care treatment, especially in Hungary. In each of the three countries, all evaluated testing strategies were found to offer a negative net benefit to society (i.e., a net loss). This may be partially explained by the fact that NTRK gene fusions are rare, meaning that a large group of cancer patients has to receive (costly) testing while, subsequently, only a few patients enjoy the benefit of switching to a treatment that is more effective for them (i.e., entrectinib). Nonetheless, in England and Hungary, even if the most accurate test was provided for free, the net benefit to society of implementing entrectinib remained negative. Further changes, such as a reduction in the price of entrectinib, may therefore be needed.