Treatment strategy optimization for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harboring EGFR mutation: a Delphi consensus

Economic evaluation of adjuvant therapy with osimertinib in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer and mutated EGFR

PURPOSE

The ADAURA trial demonstrated the superiority of osimertinib over a placebo with regard to disease-free survival, showing it to be indicated as an adjuvant therapy for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer with mutated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The aim of the present study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis and an analysis of the budgetary impact of adjuvant therapy with osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR who had undergone resection surgery with curative intent.

METHODS

Analyses were based on the outcomes of the ADAURA clinical trial and were conducted through a Spanish National Health Service perspective. The outcome measures used were quality-adjusted life years (QALY).

RESULTS

The average overall cost of adjuvant treatment with osimertinib over a period of 100 months in the overall sample of trial patients (stages IB-IIIA) was 220,961 €, compared with 197,849 € in the placebo group. Effectiveness, estimated according to QALY, was 6.26 years in the osimertinib group and 5.96 years in the placebo group, with the incremental cost-utility ratio being 77,040 €/QALY. With regard to the budgetary impact, it was estimated that, in 2021, approximately 1130 patients would be subsidiaries to receive osimertinib. This pertains to a difference of 17,375,330 € over 100 months to fund this treatment relative to no treatment.

CONCLUSION

Taking into account a Spanish threshold of 24,000 €/QALY, the reduction in the acquisition cost of osimertinib will have to be greater than 10%, to obtain a cost-effective alternative.

[Use of genome-wide testing in oncology: French expert opinion based on the Delphi methodology]

In oncology, genome-wide testing is a major element in facilitating the implementation of precision medicine. However, current recommendations do not always specify the indication and utility of these tests according to the type of cancer. A national consensus approach based on a modified Delphi methodology was set up to provide expert opinion on the use of genome-wide testing in clinical practice in France. Four groups of experts - 4 each representing the following topics of interest - were defined: non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast cancer, melanoma, and cancer of unknown primary (CUP). In each group, assertions were formulated by a lead expert (8, 5, 7 and 6, respectively) and rated by five panellists involved in the management of these cancers, on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Consensus was reached when 75% of the scores were above 7. In case of disagreement, the panellists were asked to justify their rate. In total, 24 statements reached consensus after two to four rounds of rating, depending on the group. While the experts advocated the routine use of genome-wide testing in the diagnostic management of NSCLC and CUP, they did not recommend the systematisation of these tests for breast cancer and melanoma. Nevertheless, access to innovation in France could soon remove certain barriers and allow greater standardisation of broad molecular screening in oncology.

A Delphi consensus panel about clinical management of early-stage EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Spain: a Delphi consensus panel study

PURPOSE

This Delphi panel study assessed the level of consensus between medical oncologists on the clinical management of patients with early-stage EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

A modified two-round Delphi approach was used. A scientific committee comprised of medical oncologists developed an online questionnaire. Delphi panel experts rated their level of agreement with each questionnaire statement on a 9-point Likert scale. The questionnaire included 36 statements from 3 domains (clinical management of early-stage NSCLC: 15 statements; role of adjuvant therapy in early-stage NSCLC: 9 statements; and role of adjuvant therapy in early-stage NSCLC with sensitizing EGFR mutation: 12 statements).

RESULTS

In round 1, consensus was reached for 24/36 statements (66.7%). Nine statements that did not achieve consensus after the first round were evaluated in round 2, and none of them reached consensus. Overall, 84.4% of the panelists agreed that EGFR mutation testing should be done after surgery. Consensus was not achieved on whether the implementation of EGFR mutation testing in resected early-stage NSCLC could limit the use of adjuvant osimertinib. The panelists recognized the rationale for the use of osimertinib in the adjuvant scenario (88%) and 72% agreed that it may change the treatment paradigm in stage IB-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Consensus was not reached on the inconvenience of prolonged duration of osimertinib.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi study provides valuable insights into relevant questions in the management of early-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC. However, specific issues remain unresolved. The expert consensus emphasizes the role of adjuvant treatment with osimertinib in this scenario.