Adjusted Indirect Comparison Using Propensity Score Matching of Osimertinib to Platinum-Based Doublet Chemotherapy in Patients with EGFRm T790M NSCLC Who Have Progressed after EGFR-TKI.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: An adjusted indirect comparison was conducted to assess efficacy outcomes, particularly overall survival (OS), of osimertinib versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated (EGFRm) T790M mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had progressed following an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Analysis of treatment effect from two separate trials had the potential to more accurately estimate the magnitude of OS benefit due to absence of confounding due to treatment switching from the control arm to the osimertinib arm of the ongoing randomized control trial, AURA3. METHODS: Two non-randomized individual datasets were compared: pooled patients from the AURA extension and AURA2 trials (osimertinib 80 mg, n = 405, with a confirmed T790M mutation using tissue samples), and patients from the control arm of the IMPRESS study (platinum-based doublet chemotherapy, n = 61, with a confirmed T790M mutation using plasma circulating tumour DNA [ctDNA]). A propensity score-based approach was used to account for differences in baseline demographics and disease characteristics. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline differences between the two groups, osimertinib demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.278, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.188-0.409, p < 0.0001; median PFS 10.9 vs. 5.3 months). Improvements were also observed for objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) (ORR: 64.3 vs. 33.3%; odds ratio [OR] = 5.31, 95% CI 2.47-11.40, p < 0.001; DCR: 92.1 vs. 75.0%; OR = 4.72, 95% CI 1.92-11.58, p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for patients who received osimertinib as second-line treatment only. A statistically significant improvement in OS was observed for the osimertinib group (HR = 0.412, 95% CI 0.273-0.622, p < 0.0001). Median OS for osimertinib was not reached. CONCLUSIONS: In this indirect comparison, osimertinib showed a statistically significant improvement in efficacy outcomes versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in patients with EGFRm T790M NSCLC who had progressed after EGFR-TKI therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the UK for advanced EGFR-T790M non-small cell lung cancer.

AIM: This study presents the cost-utility analysis that was developed to inform the NICE health technology assessment of osimertinib vs platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PDC) in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) from a UK payer perspective and over lifetime (15 years) was developed. Direct costs included disease management, treatment-related (acquisition, administration, monitoring, adverse events), and T790M testing costs. Efficacy and safety data were taken from clinical trials AURA extension and AURA2 for osimertinib and IMPRESS for PDC. An adjusted indirect treatment comparison was applied to reduce the potential bias in the non-randomized comparison. Parametric functions were utilized to extrapolate survival beyond the observed period. Health state utility values were calculated from EQ-5D data collected in the trials and valued using UK tariffs. Resource use and costs were based on published sources. RESULTS: Osimertinib was associated with a gain of 1.541 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of £64,283 vs PDC (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: £41,705/QALY gained). Scenario analyses showed that none of the plausible scenarios produced an ICER above £44,000 per QALY gained, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated a 63.4% probability that osimertinib will be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000. LIMITATIONS: The analysis is subject to some level of uncertainty inherent to phase 2 single-arm data and the immaturity of the currently available survival data for osimertinib. CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment option compared with PDC in the second-line setting in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive NSCLC from a UK payer perspective. Further data from the ongoing AURA clinical trial program will reduce the inherent uncertainty in the analysis.

Performance Goals for an Adjunct Diagnostic Test to Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies After Screening Mammography: Analysis of Costs, Benefits, and Consequences.

PURPOSE: Because benign biopsies resulting from false-positive mammographic findings are a known harm of breast cancer screening, physicians and test manufacturers are searching for ways to reduce their frequency. The aim of this study was to estimate potential costs and consequences associated with using an adjunct diagnostic test for triaging women with suspicious mammographic findings before biopsy. METHODS: A decision model was developed to compare the use of an adjunct test before biopsy to the current standard of care for suspicious mammographic findings. The decision analysis was performed from the perspective of a national health payer, with a 1-year time horizon among women representative of the US screening population aged 40 to 79 years. Three primary outcomes were assessed: (1) incremental costs, (2) number of benign biopsies avoided, and (3) number of missed opportunities for diagnosing cancer per million women screened. Input parameters were obtained from the medical literature and expert opinion. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effects of uncertainty in parameter estimates. RESULTS: The base-case analysis demonstrated that the use of an adjunct diagnostic test with 95% sensitivity, 75% specificity, and a cost of $1,000 would eliminate 8,127 unnecessary breast biopsies per million women screened. However, this would cost the US health care system an additional $6,462,977 and result in 255 missed opportunities for diagnosing cancer per million women screened. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of an adjunct test for triaging women for breast biopsy after abnormal findings on screening mammography would likely eliminate many unnecessary biopsies but also increase overall health care costs. This exploratory analysis highlights the fact that mammography remains a relatively inexpensive and effective breast cancer screening and diagnostic modality.

Economic evaluation of diagnostic localization following biochemical prostate cancer recurrence.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess potential cost-effectiveness of using a prostate cancer specific functional imaging technology capable of identifying residual localized disease versus small volume metastatic disease for asymptomatic men with low but detectable prostate specific antigen (PSA) elevation following radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Markov modeling was used to estimate the incremental impact on healthcare system costs (2012 USD) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of two alternative strategies: (i) using the new diagnostic to guide therapy versus (ii) current usual care-using a combination of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and bone scan to guide therapy. Costs were based on estimates from literature and Medicare reimbursement. Prostate cancer progression, survival, utilities, and background risk of all-cause mortality were obtained from literature. Base-case diagnostic sensitivity (75 percent), specificity (90 percent), and cost (USD 2,500) were provided by our industry partner GE Healthcare. RESULTS: The new diagnostic strategy provided an average gain of 1.83 (95 percent uncertainty interval [UI]: 1.24-2.64) QALYs with added costs of USD 15,595 (95 percent UI: USD -6,330-44,402) over 35 years. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD 8,516/QALY (95 percent UI: USD -2,947-22,372). RESULTS were most influenced by the utility discounting rate and test performance characteristics; however, the new diagnostic provided clinical benefits over a wide range of sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests a diagnostic technology capable of identifying whether men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy have localized versus metastatic disease would be a cost-effective alternative to current standard work-up. The results support additional investment in development and validation of such a diagnostic.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Mammostrat® compared with Oncotype DX® to inform the treatment of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of the tumor subtyping assays Mammostrat® and Oncotype DX® for assessing risk of recurrence in early-stage breast cancer and the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a US third-party payer perspective. A 10 year Markov model was developed to estimate costs and effects of using each method of risk assessment. The percentages of patients assessed as high, moderate, or low risk were obtained from multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trials. The analysis simulated the experience of women progressing through various model states representing clinical treatments and subsequent disease. Published recurrence data for Mammostrat® were adjusted appropriately to account for differences between definitions and samples of Oncotype DX® and Mammostrat® in the original clinical trials. Cost and utility data were obtained from previously published studies. Sensitivity analyses examined how base-case results might differ when input values and assumptions varied. RESULTS: Base-case costs for women assessed using Mammostrat® were $15,782, compared with $18,051 for women assessed with Oncotype DX®. Thus, cost savings of $2,268 resulted from using Mammostrat®. Both Mammostrat® and Oncotype DX® resulted in similar life years (9.880 and 9.882) and quality-adjusted life years (7.935 and 7.940), respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the assumptions made about recurrence are the key drivers of model results. DISCUSSION: Cost savings associated with the use of Mammostrat® instead of Oncotype DX® are largely due to the difference in cost between the two tests. Since survival and quality-adjusted life years were similar using either assay, Mammostrat® has economic advantages for women with early-stage breast cancer.

Performance goals for an adjunct diagnostic test to reduce unnecessary biopsies after screening mammography: analysis of costs, benefits, and consequences.

PURPOSE: Because benign biopsies resulting from false-positive mammographic findings are a known harm of breast cancer screening, physicians and test manufacturers are searching for ways to reduce their frequency. The aim of this study was to estimate potential costs and consequences associated with using an adjunct diagnostic test for triaging women with suspicious mammographic findings before biopsy. METHODS: A decision model was developed to compare the use of an adjunct test before biopsy to the current standard of care for suspicious mammographic findings. The decision analysis was performed from the perspective of a national health payer, with a 1-year time horizon among women representative of the US screening population aged 40 to 79 years. Three primary outcomes were assessed: (1) incremental costs, (2) number of benign biopsies avoided, and (3) number of missed opportunities for diagnosing cancer per million women screened. Input parameters were obtained from the medical literature and expert opinion. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effects of uncertainty in parameter estimates. RESULTS: The base-case analysis demonstrated that the use of an adjunct diagnostic test with 95% sensitivity, 75% specificity, and a cost of $1,000 would eliminate 8,127 unnecessary breast biopsies per million women screened. However, this would cost the US health care system an additional $6,462,977 and result in 255 missed opportunities for diagnosing cancer per million women screened. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of an adjunct test for triaging women for breast biopsy after abnormal findings on screening mammography would likely eliminate many unnecessary biopsies but also increase overall health care costs. This exploratory analysis highlights the fact that mammography remains a relatively inexpensive and effective breast cancer screening and diagnostic modality.