Dataset Information

Comprehensive Comparison Between Adjuvant Targeted Therapy and Chemotherapy for EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Patients: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chemotherapy has been the current standard adjuvant treatment for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, while recent studies showed benefits of epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to comprehensively evaluate the benefit of EGFR-TKI compared with chemotherapy for early-stage EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients after resection from the perspective of the Chinese health care system.

Method

A Markov model was established. Clinical data were based on the phase 3, ADJUVANT trial, where stage II-IIIA, EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients were randomized into gefitinib group or chemotherapy group after resection. Cost parameters mainly included costs of drugs, examinations, and adverse events (AEs). Effect parameters were evaluated by quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Outcomes contained incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER), average cost-effective ratio (ACER), and net benefit. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set as 3 times per capita gross domestic product ($30,828/QALY). Sensitivity analyses were also conducted to verify the stability of the model.

Results

Patients who received gefitinib had both a higher cost ($12,057.98 vs. $11,883.73) and a higher QALY (1.55 vs. 1.42) than patients who received chemotherapy. With an ICER of $1,345.62/QALY, adjuvant gefitinib was of economic benefit compared with chemotherapy. The ACER and net benefit were also consistent (gefitinib vs. chemotherapy, ACER: $7,802.30/QALY vs. $8,392.77/QALY; net benefit: $35,584.85 vs. $31,767.17). Sensitivity analyses indicated the stability of the model and the impact of utility.

Conclusion

Adjuvant EGFR-TKI application for early-stage EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients was cost-effective compared with chemotherapy, which might provide a reference for clinical decision-making and medical insurance policy formulation in China.

SUBMITTER: Li W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8027108 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAtezolizumab was first shown to significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) after platinum-based chemotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the IMpower010 Phase 3 trial. However, the cost-effectiveness and potential economic impact of atezolizumab treatment in Chinese patients are unknown.MethodsMarkov models were constructed based on follow-up data from the IMpower010 trial and assessed separately in the programmed cell death receptor ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor cells (TC) ≥ 1% stage II - IIIA group, all stage II - IIIA groups, and the intention-to-treat (ITT) group (stage IB-IIIA). Efficacy and safety data were obtained from the IMpower010 trial, and costs and utility values were derived from the literature and local surveys to estimate their incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) compared with willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds in scenarios implementing patient assistance programs (PAP) or drug price negotiations. Univariate sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to investigate the stability of the model results.ResultsCompared with best supportive care (BSC), atezolizumab produced an additional 0.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), 0.04 QALYs, and -0.0028 QALYs in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II - IIIA group, all stage II - IIIA groups, and the ITT group, and the ICERs were 108,825.37/QALY, 1,028,538.22/QALY, and -14,381,171.55/QALY, respectively. The ICERs all exceeded the WTP threshold of $27,354 per QALY (three times the per capita gross domestic product of China in 2022), and univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the price of atezolizumab played a crucial role in the model results. PSA showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II - IIIA group, all stage II - IIIA groups, and the ITT group increased with the increasing WTP threshold.ConclusionFrom the perspective of China's health care system, in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II - IIIA group, all stage II - IIIA groups, and the ITT group, the use of atezolizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage NSCLC after platinum-based chemotherapy is unlikely to be cost-effective. The implementation of PAP or price reduction negotiations for atezolizumab might be among the most effective measures to improve its cost-effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted treatments have improved the health outcomes of patients with advanced melanoma. However, due to the high cost of novel therapies, it is crucial to evaluate their value by considering both effectiveness and cost. To compare the cost-effectiveness of these novel agents (atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib, vemurafenib-plus-cobimetinib, dabrafenib-plus-trametinib, and encorafenib-plus-binimetinib) for first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma with the BRAFV600 mutation.MethodsA patient-level model was developed to project the health outcomes of 4 strategies for patients with advanced melanoma. We estimated transition probabilities from the IMspire150 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672), COMBI-AD (NCT01682083), and COLUMBUS (NCT01909453) trials using a parametric survival model. All health outcomes, including direct cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), were estimated from the US payer perspective. Lifetime cost, QALYs, life-years (LYs), and ICERs were calculated. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness, along with multiple scenario analyses.ResultsOf the 4 competing strategies, atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib produced the best health outcomes, and the vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategy was the least expensive option. Atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib, dabrafenib-plus-trametinib, and vemurafenib-cobimetinib formed the cost-effective frontier, indicating that the ordered ICERs were $325,113/QALYs for dabrafenib-plus-trametinib vs. vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategies and $2,247,500/QALYs for atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib vs. dabrafenib-plus-trametinib strategies. Encorafenib-plus-binimetinib was dominated by the other 3 competing strategies. The drug price and first-line utility significantly influenced the model utcomes.ConclusionsFor BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma, the vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategy could be considered the most cost-effective treatment at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral randomized controlled trials have suggested that adjuvant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were associated with prolonged disease-free survival (DFS) in EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients after radical resection, comparing with chemotherapy or placebo. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of different first-generation EGFR-TKIs as adjuvant treatment in real-world setting.MethodsEarly-stage EGFR mutated NSCLC patients who underwent radical resection and treated with first-generation EGFR-TKIs (gefitinib, erlotinib, icotinib) as adjuvant therapy between Feb 2010 and Jan 2019 were retrieved from a prospectively-maintained database in our center. The primary endpoint was DFS in stage II/III (TNM 8th) patients with exploratory endpoint regarding DFS in stage I patients. Sensitivity analyses were based on propensity score matched (PSM) cohorts. Treatment failure patterns among different TKIs were also compared.ResultsOf 588 eligible patients, 198 patients (33.7%) received gefitinib, 106 patients (17.9%) received erlotinib, and 284 patients (48.2%) received icotinib. The median DFS of stage II/III patients in the gefitinib, erlotinib and icotinib group were 36.1 months (95% CI, 23.9-49.4), 42.8 months (95% CI, 29.6-97.8), and 32.5 months (95% CI, 23.9-49.4), respectively, with no significant difference (log-rank test P=0.22). There was also no significant difference in DFS among stage I patients receiving different TKIs (P=0.12). PSM adjustments and multivariate analyses adjusting for other confounders revealed similar results. In addition, there were no significant differences in treatment failure pattens in different EGFR-TKI arms, especially in terms of brain metastases (6.1% in gefitinb, 7.5% in erlotinib, 3.9% in icotinib) and bone metastases (8.6% in gefitinb, 9.4% in erlotinib, 7.0% in icotinib).ConclusionsThis first and largest real-world study showed that gefitinib, erlotinib, and icotinib demonstrated comparable clinical effectiveness as adjuvant therapy for patients with early-stage EGFR mutated NSCLC.