Cost effectiveness of personalized therapy for first-line treatment of stage IV and recurrent incurable adenocarcinoma of the lung

Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature

Objective

Due to extended application of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic screening (PGx) tests it is important to assess whether they provide good value for money. This review provides an update of the literature.

Methods

A literature search was performed in PubMed and papers published between August 2010 and September 2014, investigating the cost-effectiveness of PGx screening tests, were included. Papers from 2000 until July 2010 were included via two previous systematic reviews. Studies’ overall quality was assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

Results

We found 38 studies, which combined with the previous 42 studies resulted in a total of 80 included studies. An average QHES score of 76 was found. Since 2010, more studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most recent studies performed cost-utility analysis, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and discussed limitations of their economic evaluations. Most studies indicated favorable cost-effectiveness. Majority of evaluations did not provide information regarding the intrinsic value of the PGx test. There were considerable differences in the costs for PGx testing. Reporting of the direction and magnitude of bias on the cost-effectiveness estimates as well as motivation for the chosen economic model and perspective were frequently missing.

Conclusions

Application of PGx tests was mostly found to be a cost-effective or cost-saving strategy. We found that only the minority of recent pharmacoeconomic evaluations assessed the intrinsic value of the PGx tests. There was an increase in the number of studies and in the reporting of quality associated characteristics. To improve future evaluations, scenario analysis including a broad range of PGx tests costs and equal costs of comparator drugs to assess the intrinsic value of the PGx tests, are recommended. In addition, robust clinical evidence regarding PGx tests’ efficacy remains of utmost importance.

Assessing cost-utility of predictive biomarkers in oncology: a streamlined approach

Evaluation of cost-utility is critical in assessing the medical utility of predictive or prognostic biomarkers. Current methods involve complex state-transition models, requiring comprehensive data inputs. We propose a simplified decision-analytic tool to explore the relative effect of factors contributing to the cost-utility of a biomarker. We derived a cost-utility metric, the "test incremental cost-effectiveness ratio" (TICER) for biomarker-guided treatment compared to no biomarker use. This method uses data inputs readily accessible through clinical literature. We compared our results with traditional cost-effectiveness analysis of predictive biomarkers for established (HER2-guided trastuzumab, ALK-guided crizotinib, OncotypeDX-guided adjuvant chemotherapy) and emerging (ROS1-guided crizotinib) targeted treatments. We conducted sensitivity analysis to determine which factors had the greatest impact on TICER estimates. Base case TICER for HER2 was $149,600/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), for ALK was $22,200/QALY, and for OncotypeDX was $11,600/QALY, consistent with literature-reported estimates ($180,000/QALY, $202,800/QALY, $8900/QALY, respectively). Base case TICER for ROS1-guided crizotinib was $205,900/QALY. Generally, when treatment cost is considerably greater than biomarker testing costs, TICER is driven by clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life, while biomarker prevalence and treatment cost have a lesser effect. Our simplified decision-analytic approach produces values consistent with existing cost-effectiveness analyses. Our results suggest that biomarker value is mostly driven by the clinical efficacy of the targeted agent. A user-friendly web tool for complete TICER analysis has been made available for open use at http://medicine.yale.edu/lab/pusztai/ticer/ .

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone vs. bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone in transplant-ineligible U.S. patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a cost-effectiveness assessment of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd) vs bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) as initial treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), from a U.S. payer perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), direct costs and incremental costs per QALY and LY gained associated with use of Rd vs VMP over a patient's lifetime. Information on the efficacy and safety of Rd and VMP was based on data from multinational phase III clinical trials and a network meta-analysis. Pre-progression direct costs included the costs of Rd and VMP, treatment of adverse events (including prophylaxis) and routine care and monitoring associated with MM. Post-progression direct costs included costs of subsequent treatment(s) and routine care and monitoring for progressive disease, all obtained from published literature and estimated from a U.S. payer perspective. Utilities were obtained from the aforementioned trials. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually.

RESULTS

Relative to VMP, use of Rd was expected to result in an additional 2.22 LYs and 1.47 QALYs (discounted). Patients initiated with Rd were expected to incur an additional $78,977 in mean lifetime direct costs (discounted) vs those initiated with VMP. The incremental costs per QALY and per LY gained with Rd vs VMP were $53,826 and $35,552, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, results were found to be most sensitive to differences in survival associated with Rd vs VMP, the cost of lenalidomide and the discount rate applied to effectiveness outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Rd was expected to result in greater LYs and QALYs compared with VMP, with similar overall costs per LY for each regimen. Results of this analysis indicated that Rd may be a cost-effective alternative to VMP as initial treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with MM, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well within the levels for recent advancements in oncology.

Cost-Effectiveness of an Individualized First-Line Treatment Strategy Offering Erlotinib Based on EGFR Mutation Testing in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients in Germany

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is among the top causes of cancer-related deaths. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors can increase progression-free survival compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of EGFR mutation analysis and first-line therapy with erlotinib for mutation-positive patients compared with non-individualized standard chemotherapy from the perspective of German statutory health insurance.

METHODS

A state transition model was developed for a time horizon of 10 years (reference year 2014). Data sources were published data from the European Tarceva versus Chemotherapy (EURTAC) randomized trial for drug efficacy and safety and German cost data. We additionally performed deterministic, probabilistic and structural sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The individualized strategy incurred 0.013 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and additional costs of € 200, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 15,577/QALY. Results were most sensitive to uncertainty in survival curves and changes in utility values. Cross-validating health utility estimates with recent German data increased the ICER to about € 58,000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the individualized strategy is cost-effective, with a probability exceeding 50 % for a range of possible willingness-to-pay thresholds.

LIMITATIONS

The uncertainty of the predicted survival curves is substantial, particularly for overall survival, which was not a primary endpoint in the EURTAC study. Also, there is limited data on quality of life in metastatic lung cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Individualized therapy based on EGFR mutation status has the potential to provide a cost-effective alternative to non-individualized care for patients with advanced adenocarcinoma. Further clinical research is needed to confirm these results.

Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. At diagnosis, half of the patients are over 70 years of age, and most present with advanced disease, for which chemotherapy is recommended as first-line treatment. However, the benefit from such therapy is modest and it is at times poorly tolerated. The discovery of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) has significantly impacted the treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. These novel agents demonstrate efficacy and a favorably mild toxicity profile. Despite limited data in elderly patients, the largest subpopulation in NSCLC, EGFR-TKIs are considered the standard of care therapy for advanced EGFR-positive disease in the elderly. In this review, we seek to compile the available data about the EGFR-TKIs use in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC, with the hope to better understand its role in this major yet, underrepresented, group of patients.

Cost-effectiveness of multiplexed predictive biomarker screening in non-small-cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Population-wide screening for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements to inform cancer therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is recommended by guidelines. We estimated cost-effectiveness of multiplexed predictive biomarker screening in metastatic NSCLC from a societal perspective in the United States.

METHODS

We constructed a microsimulation model to compare the life expectancy and costs of multiplexed testing and molecularly guided therapy versus treatment with cisplatin-pemetrexed (CisPem). All testing interventions included a two-step algorithm of concurrent EGFR mutation and ALK overexpression testing with immunohistochemistry followed by ALK rearrangement confirmation with a fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for immunohistochemistry-positive results. Three strategies were included: "Test-treat" approach, where molecularly guided therapy was initiated after obtainment of test results; "Empiric switch therapy," with concurrent initiation of CisPem and testing and immediate switch to test-result conditional treatment after one cycle of CisPem; and "Empiric therapy" approach in which CisPem was continued for four cycles before start of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for "Test-treat" compared with treatment with CisPem was $136,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Both empiric treatment approaches had less favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. "Test-treat" and "Empiric switch therapy" yielded higher expected outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years and life-years than "Empiric therapy." These results were robust across plausible ranges of model inputs.

CONCLUSION

From a societal perspective, our cost-effectiveness results support the value of multiplexed genetic screening and molecularly guided therapy in metastatic NSCLC.

Role of rebiopsy in relapsed non-small cell lung cancer for directing oncology treatments

Background. Currently, few rebiopsies are performed in relapses of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. They are not customary in clinical practice of lung cancer. However, it is not possible to properly target treatments in cases of relapse without knowing the nature of new lesions. Design. This paper comprehensively summarizes the available literature about rebiopsy and broadly discusses the importance of rebiopsy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Results. Altogether 560 abstracts were used as material for further analysis. 19 articles were about clinical rebiopsy in lung cancer and were reviewed in detailed manner. Conclusions. This review shows that rebiopsy is feasible in non-small cell lung cancer, and success rates can be high if rebiopsy is accompanied by adequate evaluation before biopsy. Its use may resolve the difficulties in sampling bias and detecting changes in cancer characteristics. In cases where treatment was selected based on tissue characteristics that then change, the treatment selection process must be repeated while considering new characteristics of the tumor. Rebiopsy may be used to predict therapeutic resistance and consequently redirect targeted therapies. Such knowledge may resolve the difficulties in sampling bias and also in selecting preexisting clones or formulating drug-resistant ones. Rebiopsy should be performed more often in non-small cell lung cancer.

Economic evaluation of first-line and maintenance treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

During these last years, there have been an increased number of new drugs for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with a growing financial effect on patients and society. The purpose of this article was to review the economics of first-line and maintenance NSCLC treatments. We reviewed economic analyses of NSCLC therapies published between 2004 and 2014. In first-line settings, in unselected patients with advanced NSCLC, the cisplatin gemcitabine doublet appears to be cost-saving compared with other platinum doublets. In patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-year gained (LYG) were $83,537, $178,613, and more than $300,000 for cisplatin-pemetrexed compared with, respectively, cisplatin-gemcitabine, cisplatin-carboplatin-paclitaxel, and carboplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab. For all primary chemotherapy agents, use of carboplatin is associated with slightly higher costs than cisplatin. In all the analysis, bevacizumab had an ICER greater than $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In epidermal growth factor receptor mutated advanced NSCLC, compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel doublet, targeted therapy based on testing available tissue yielded an ICER of $110,644 per QALY, and the rebiopsy strategy yielded an ICER of $122,219 per QALY. Compared with the triplet carboplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab, testing and rebiopsy strategies had ICERs of $25,547 and $44,036 per QALY, respectively. In an indirect comparison, ICERs per LYG and QALY of erlotinib versus gefitinib were $39,431 and $62,419, respectively. In anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive nonsquamous advanced NSCLC, the ICER of first-line crizotinib compared with that of chemotherapy was $255,970 per QALY. For maintenance therapy, gefitinib had an ICER of $19,214 per QALY, erlotinib had an ICER of $127,343 per LYG, and pemetrexed had an ICER varying between $183,589 and $205,597 per LYG. Most recent NSCLC strategies are based on apparently no cost-effective strategies if we consider an ICER below $50,000 per QALY an acceptable threshold. We need, probably on a countrywide level, to have a debate involving public health organizations and pharmaceutical companies, as well as clinicians and patients, to challenge the rising costs of managing lung cancer.

Targeted therapy for lung cancer: reviewing the cost and its effect on treatment decisions

SUMMARY 

Novel targeted therapies that improve outcome in advanced lung cancer should be adopted. However, given the high costs of targeted therapies and companion molecular testing, the affordability and cost–effectiveness of novel agents are of growing relevance in policy decisions. Incremental cost–effectiveness ratios in excess of US$200,000 per quality-adjusted life year have been described in published literature evaluating currently approved agents. Differing willingness to pay thresholds in different countries determine which therapies will be funded in a given healthcare system. Cost-containment strategies to address costs of molecular testing and drug acquisition need to be implemented. Drug manufacturers, healthcare payers and oncologists have a shared responsibility to ensure that novel therapies are affordable and accessible to patients in need.

Development in the diagnostic lung cancer pathway: implication for treatment

SUMMARY 

The diagnostic pathway of lung cancer is a multidisciplinary process that has rapidly changed in the last few years. Most advances relate to lung adenocarcinoma, which needs to be differentiated from squamous cell carcinoma and other histological subtypes, since most targetable mutations occur in adenocarcinomas. Tumor heterogeneity can influence sampling and diagnosis, particularly relevant when using small biopsies or cytology samples. Re-biopsy at progression should become part of the diagnostic process, since it can alter the clinical management, explain mechanisms of resistance to targeted therapy and lead to biomarker development. Innovation in plasma-circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA, and functional imaging are expected to contribute significantly to the noninvasive lung cancer diagnostic pathway.

Economic Impact of Tissue Testing and Treatments of Metastatic NSCLC in the Era of Personalized Medicine

A paradigm-shift in the management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has resulted in many new therapies becoming available for patients with advanced disease. Stratification of treatment by histologic and molecular subtype is recommended to obtain the greatest clinical benefit for patients while minimizing adverse effects of treatment. However, these advances in diagnosis and treatment of NSCLC have come at a financial cost. This review highlights the economic impact of screening for molecular abnormalities and targeted treatment for advanced NSCLC. Major determinants of cost are drug acquisition and molecular testing. As technologies advance, molecular testing costs may reduce. However, we must collaborate with payers and manufacturers to ensure that high drug costs do not limit patient accessibility to potentially beneficial treatment.