Cost-benefit analysis of ALK diagnosis vs. non-diagnosis in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer in Spain.

Introduction: In recent years, target therapies to specific molecular alterations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been identified and have shown superior efficacy compared to non-targeted treatments. Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) is one of the therapeutic targets; nevertheless, ALK diagnosis is not performed in all NSCLC patients in Spain. The objective of this study is to estimate in monetary terms the benefit for the Spanish society of ALK diagnosis in advanced NSCLC patients. Methods: A cost-benefit analysis of ALK diagnosis vs. non-diagnosis in advanced NSCLC patients was carried out from the Spanish social perspective, with a time horizon of 5 years. Costs, benefits and the cost-benefit ratio were measured. The analysis has considered the overall survival in advanced NSCLC patients treated with the ALK-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) alectinib. The natural history of NSCLC was simulated using a Markov model. A 3% discount rate was applied to both costs and benefits. The result was tested using a deterministic sensitivity analysis. Results: The cost of ALK diagnosis vs. non-diagnosis in the base case would be €10.19 million, generating benefits of €11.71 million. The cost-benefit ratio would be €1.15. In the sensitivity analysis, the cost-benefit ratio could range from €0.89 to €2.10. Conclusions: The results justify the universal application of ALK diagnosis in advanced NSCLC, which generates a benefit for Spanish society that outweighs its costs and allows optimal treatment with targeted therapies for these patients.

Alectinib after failure to crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer: results from the Spanish early access program.

This retrospective observational study analyzed the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes of 120 patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ALK+ NSCLC) according to data collected between November 2019 and October 2020 in 38 Spanish hospitals. Patients had progressed after 1-5 prior treatment lines (which included crizotinib in any prior line) and received subsequent therapy with alectinib in a local expanded access program. Median age was 58.7 years, 50% of patients were female, 64.1% had ECOG PS of 0-1, 85% presented stage IV, 95% had adenocarcinoma histology and 20.8% had brain metastases. After a median 9.6 months of alectinib treatment, objective response rate (ORR) was 54.5%, disease control rate (DCR) was 80%, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months and median overall survival (OS) was 24.1 months. Patients with brain metastases achieved an intracranial DCR of 71.4%. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 35.8% of patients (14.2% of AEs were grade ≥3). Over 40% of patients received some treatment after alectinib, most frequently lorlatinib (65.2%) and brigatinib (32.6%). This study provides information on real-world treatment patterns and confirms the tolerability and prolonged PFS and OS observed with alectinib in clinical trials, in unselected pretreated patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC.

Cost analysis of the management of brain metastases in patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC: alectinib versus crizotinib.

AIM: To estimate management cost of NSCLC ALK+ patients with and without brain metastasis (BM), and to compare annual costs in patients treated with alectinib or crizotinib. METHODS: Management cost/year (€ 2018) in patients with and without BM was estimated with disaggregated resource consumption provided by local oncologists, including medical visits, hospitalizations, diagnostic/laboratory tests, imaging techniques and surgical procedures. The comparison of costs/year with alectinib and crizotinib, considered the cumulative 12-month incidence of BM in ALEX trial (9.4 and 41.4%, respectively). RESULTS: Management cost was €6173.42/patient-year without BM and €21,637.50/patient-year with BM. With alectinib, average cost/patient was lower than crizotinib (€4948.51/patient-year). CONCLUSION: Prevention of BM with alectinib may result in reductions of cost/year in the management of advanced ALK+ NSCLC.

Patterns of Progression and Feasibility of Re-biopsy After First-line Erlotinib for Advanced EGFR Mutation-positive Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.

AIM: To assess the patterns of disease progression in advanced/metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) on first-line treatment with erlotinib and identify potential prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC receiving first-line erlotinib were followed-up until 24 months after the last patient was enrolled or until premature withdrawal for any cause. RESULTS: A total of 127 evaluable patients were enrolled. The median PFS and overall survival were 8.8 and 19.1 months, respectively. Disease progression was asymptomatic in 57.6% of patients and 53.3% developed new sites of metastasis. The presence of liver metastasis was identified as an independent prognostic factor for poor PFS. CONCLUSION: Metastatic progression with asymptomatic disease seems to be the predominant pattern of disease progression on first-line erlotinib in real-life practice in patients with advanced/metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Additionally, the presence of liver metastases may negatively affect PFS in these patients.

Costs of adverse events associated with erlotinib or afatinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are an established treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation. According to published meta-analyses, no significant efficacy differences have been demonstrated between erlotinib and afatinib. However, the incidence of EGFR-TKI-related adverse events (AEs) was lower with erlotinib. This study compares the cost of management of the AEs associated with these two drugs from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS). METHODS: The frequency of AEs was established from a recently published meta-analysis. In Spain, the daily cost of both drugs can be considered similar; as a result, only the costs of management of the AEs were considered. Costs and resource utilization in the management of the AEs were estimated by a panel of Spanish oncologists and from studies previously carried out in Spain. A probabilistic analysis was performed based on a Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: The model generated 1,000 simulations. The total cost per patient treated with erlotinib and afatinib was €657.44 and €1,272.15, respectively. With erlotinib, the cost per patient and per AE of grades ≤2 and ≥3 was €550.86 and €106.58, respectively, whereas the cost with afatinib was €980.63 and €291.52, respectively. The reduction in the number of AEs with erlotinib could avoid a mean cost for the NHS of €614.71 (95% CI: €342.57-881.29) per patient. CONCLUSION: In advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients, first-line treatment with erlotinib could reduce health care costs for the NHS, due to a decrease in the AE rate compared with afatinib. In long-term treatments, the avoidance of complications and the lowering of costs associated with the management of AEs are relevant factors that contribute to the sustainability of the health system.