Cost Effectiveness of Alectinib vs. Crizotinib in First-Line Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Inhibitors in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND

The anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor treatment landscape is rapidly evolving, providing patients with ALK-positive (+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with multiple therapy options, multiple lines of treatments, and prolonged survival. However, these recent treatment advances have resulted in additional increases in treatment costs. The objective of this article is to review the economic evidence of ALK inhibitors in patients with ALK+ NSCLC.

METHODS

The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) systematic reviews of economic evaluation. The population included adult patients with locally advanced (stage IIIb/c) or metastatic (stage IV) NSCLC cancer with confirmed ALK fusions. The interventions included the ALK inhibitors alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib, ensartinib, or lorlatinib. The comparators included the listed ALK inhibitors, chemotherapy, or best supportive care. The review considered cost-effectiveness analysis studies (CEAs) that reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in quality-adjusted life years and/or in life years gained. Published literature was searched in Medline (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, in Embase (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, in International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, and in Cochrane library (via Wiley) by 11 January 2023. Preliminary screening of titles and abstracts was conducted against the inclusion criteria by two independent researchers followed by a full text of selected citations. Search results are presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. Critical appraisal was conducted using the validated Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS) tool as well as the Phillips et al. 2004 appraisal tool to assess the reporting and quality of the economic evaluations. Data were extracted from the final set of articles and presented in a table of characteristics of included studies, an overview of study methods of included studies, and a summarization of outcomes of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies met all inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies were in the first-line treatment setting (n = 15). Included CEAs varied in the interventions and comparators being evaluated and were conducted from different country perspectives, limiting their comparability. Outcomes from the included CEAs showed that ALK inhibitors may be considered a cost-effective treatment option for patients with ALK+ NSCLC in the first-line and subsequent lines of treatment setting. However, the probability of cost effectiveness of ALK inhibitors ranged from 46 to 100% and were mostly achieved at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000 USD or higher (> $30,000 or higher in China) in the first-line treatment setting and at thresholds of $50,000 USD or higher in subsequent lines of treatment setting. The number of published full-text CEAs is low and the studies represent a handful of country perspectives. The source of survival data was dependent on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Where RCT data were not available, indirect treatment comparisons or matched adjusted indirect comparisons were performed using efficacy data from different clinical studies. Real world evidence was rarely used for efficacy and costing data inputs.

CONCLUSION

The findings summarized available evidence on cost effectiveness of ALK inhibitors for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC across lines of treatment settings and generated a valuable overview of analytical approaches utilized to support future economic analyses. To help further inform treatment and policy decisions, this review emphasizes the need for comparative cost effectiveness of multiple ALK inhibitors simultaneously using real-world data sources with broad representation of settings.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tepotinib Versus Capmatinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Mesenchymal-Epithelial Transition Exon 14 Skipping

OBJECTIVES

From the US Medicare perspective, this study compared the cost-effectiveness of tepotinib and capmatinib for treating metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with tumors harboring mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor gene exon 14 skipping.

METHODS

A 3-state partitioned survival model assessed outcomes over a lifetime horizon. Parametric survival analysis of the phase 2 VISION trial informed clinical inputs for tepotinib. Capmatinib inputs were captured using hazard ratios derived from an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison study and published literature. National cost databases, trial data, and literature furnished drug, treatment monitoring, and disease/adverse event management expenditures (2021 US dollars) and utility inputs. Outcomes were discounted at 3% annually.

RESULTS

In the base case, tepotinib dominated capmatinib in frontline settings (incremental discounted quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and costs of 0.2127 and -$47 756, respectively) while realizing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $274 514/QALY in subsequent lines (incremental QALYs and costs of 0.3330 and $91 401, respectively). In a line agnostic context, tepotinib produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $105 383/QALY (incremental QALYs and costs of 0.2794 and $29 447, respectively). Sensitivity and scenarios analyses for individual lines typically supported the base case, whereas those for the line agnostic setting suggested sensitivity to drug acquisition costs and efficacy inputs.

CONCLUSIONS

Tepotinib could be cost-effective versus capmatinib in frontline and line agnostic contexts, considering the range of willingness-to-pay thresholds recommended by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review ($100 000-$150 000/QALY). Tepotinib could be cost-effective in subsequent lines at higher willingness-to-pay levels. These results are to be interpreted cautiously, considering uncertainty in key model inputs.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of ensartinib for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in China

Background: Crizotinib and ensartinib improved survival in patients with ALK arrangement non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the economic outcomes of using ensartinib versus crizotinib are still unclear. Aim: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ensartinib versus crizotinib for ALK-positive NSCLC patients from the perspective of China's healthcare system. Methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable, progressive and death) was developed. Survival data were obtained from published eXalt3 clinical trials of ensartinib verses crizotinib for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Parametric models were used to extrapolate outcomes beyond the trial period. The drug cost comes from the local drug procurement platform. Other costs and utility values were obtained from published literature, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. Results: In the whole life cycle, the average annual cost of ensatinib was US$77,636.63, and utility value was 5.5 quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Patients receiving crizotinib had 3.315QALYs and US$32,935.88 costs over the same time horizon. The incremental cost utility ratio is US$19,810.55/QALYs. In 2021, the per capita GDP of China is US$12,721.33, and the incremental cost utility is lower than the threshold of willingness to pay US$38,163.99. Conclusion: Compared with crizotinib, ensatinib is economical in the treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC and should be promoted.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

INTRODUCTION

Although tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have improved the efficacy of treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the accessibility of TKIs is limited due to high costs. Despite the critical role of the cost-effectiveness of TKIs on decision-making, no systematic reviews have compared the cost-effectiveness of comparable TKIs. Therefore, we systemically reviewed the economic evaluation studies on various TKIs for NSCLC.

AREAS COVERED

We searched PubMed and the Cochran Library to identify the published economic evaluation studies of TKIs in NSCLC patients that were published by January 2022. All of the included studies (n = 38) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-TKIs (n = 29) or anaplastic lymphocyte kinase (ALK)-TKIs (n = 9). The cost-effectiveness results were reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year, except for three studies.

EXPERT OPINION

We found that the economic evaluation studies of the first and second generation of EGFR-TKIs and ALK-TKIs varied by the country and study settings, such as comparator and input parameters. In 12 studies, osimertinib (EGFR-TKI) was not cost-effective compared to other first/second EGFR-TKIs, regardless of the study settings. More evidence can be provided about cost-effectiveness of the third-generation TKIs in future research.

Modeling the Ex Ante Clinical Real Option Value in an Innovative Therapeutic Area: ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVES

A drug that improves survival and/or disease progression can create real option value (ROV)-the additional health gain from future innovations enabled by a longer survival. ROV can be a relevant consideration for both clinical and payer decision-makers. We aimed to estimate the ex ante ROV for first-line (1L) alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to estimate life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with 1L alectinib versus 1L crizotinib due to potential future second-line (2L) drugs. Transition probabilities were derived from the phase 3 trial of 1L alectinib and phase 2 trial of 2L brigatinib. We identified drugs being studied in phase 2 and 3 trials in ALK-positive NSCLC at the time of alectinib's 1L approval and projected the likelihood and timing of their arrival and their potential efficacy based on publicly available data.

RESULTS

The discounted incremental LYs and QALYs for alectinib increased by 12.9% (95% CR - 2.96%, 34.82%; 1.25 vs. 1.11) and 11.2% (95% CR - 2.14%, 29.29%; 1.03 vs. 0.92), respectively, after accounting for ROV. The incremental ROV of alectinib was sensitive to the projected efficacy of future drugs, uptake level, and the hazard ratio of progression-free survival of alectinib (vs. crizotinib).

CONCLUSIONS

Ex ante ROV can be a significant value consideration in therapeutic areas with high levels of expected innovation. The potential efficacy of future drugs and incremental survival with alectinib at the projected time of arrival are important considerations in assessing ROV.

Clinical and economic impact of 'ROS1-testing' strategy compared to a 'no-ROS1-testing' strategy in advanced NSCLC in Spain

Background

Detection of the ROS1 rearrangement is mandatory in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to allow targeted therapy with specific inhibitors. However, in Spanish clinical practice ROS1 determination is not yet fully widespread. The aim of this study is to determine the clinical and economic impact of sequentially testing ROS1 in addition to EGFR and ALK in Spain.

Methods

A joint model (decision-tree and Markov model) was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of testing ROS1 strategy versus a no-ROS1 testing strategy in Spain. Distribution of ROS1 techniques, rates of testing, positivity, and invalidity of biomarkers included in the analysis (EGFR, ALK, ROS1 and PD-L1) were based on expert opinion and Lungpath real-world database. Treatment allocation depending on the molecular testing results was defined by expert opinion. For each treatment, a 3-states Markov model was developed, where progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) curves were parameterized using exponential extrapolations to model transition of patients among health states. Only medical direct costs were included (€ 2021). A lifetime horizon was considered and a discount rate of 3% was applied for both costs and effects. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty.

Results

A target population of 8755 patients with advanced NSCLC (non-squamous or never smokers squamous) entered the model. Over a lifetime horizon, the ROS1 testing scenario produced additional 157.5 life years and 121.3 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with no-ROS1 testing scenario. Total direct costs were increased up to € 2,244,737 for ROS1 testing scenario. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 18,514 €/QALY. Robustness of the base-case results were confirmed by the sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

Our study shows that ROS1 testing in addition to EGFR and ALK is a cost-effective strategy compared to no-ROS1 testing, and it generates more than 120 QALYs in Spain over a lifetime horizon. Despite the low prevalence of ROS1 rearrangements in NSCLC patients, the clinical and economic consequences of ROS1 testing should encourage centers to test all advanced or metastatic NSCLC (non-squamous and never-smoker squamous) patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09397-4.

Real-world adherence and persistence with anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors in nonsmall cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Several anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of metastatic ALK-positive nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Effective disease management requires an understanding of how these treatments are used in clinical practice, since low treatment adherence and/or early discontinuation have been associated with poor patient outcomes. Owing to the recency of approvals, real-world data on the use of ALK inhibitors in patients with ALKpositive NSCLC are currently limited; this represents a notable gap in our understanding of ALK treatment use. OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world adherence and persistence with ALK inhibitors in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used US commercial claims for patients aged at least 18 years with lung cancer receiving ALK inhibitors (alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib) between July 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Patients' first and any subsequent ALK inhibitor uses were categorized into ALK inhibitor-naive and ALK inhibitor-pretreated cohorts, respectively. Adherence was measured by medication possession ratio and persistence by time from treatment initiation to discontinuation (earliest of a treatment switch or greater than a 60-day gap). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics. Cohort comparisons were made using chi-square tests and t-tests. Persistence and time to next ALK inhibitor were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods and the log-rank test. Poisson and Cox regression models of adherence and persistence, respectively, were applied to compare ALK inhibitors. RESULTS: We identified 1,482 patients treated with alectinib (n = 445) or crizotinib (n = 1,037) in the ALK inhibitor-naive cohort; 604, 142, and 134 patients received alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib in the ALK inhibitor-pretreated cohort. Adherence during the treatment period (95%-97%) and the proportion of patients with a medication possession ratio of at least 0.8 (92%-95%) were similar for all ALK inhibitors. In the ALK inhibitor-naive cohort, median time to treatment discontinuation with alectinib and crizotinib was 27.1 and 8.8 months, respectively; patients receiving alectinib were 46% less likely to discontinue than patients receiving crizotinib (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] [95% CI]: 0.54 [0.44-0.65]; P < 0.0001). In the ALK inhibitor-pretreated cohort, the discontinuation risk for alectinib was 64% lower than for ceritinib (aHR [95% CI]: 0.36 [0.27-0.49]; P < 0.0001) and 34% lower than for brigatinib (aHR [95% CI]: 0.66 [0.42-1.02]; P = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first to address a current research gap by assessing real-world adherence and persistence with ALK inhibitors among patients with ALK-positive NSCLC in real-world clinical practice. Alectinib was associated with longer real-world persistence than other ALK inhibitors, despite similar adherence. Further research with more patients and longer follow-up is needed to link persistence to real-world clinical outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Genentech Inc. Ganti has received research support from Takeda and has provided consulting services to Genentech Inc., AstraZeneca, Flagship Biosciences, Cardinal Health, BioGene, Mirati Therapeutics, Blueprint Medicines, and G1 Therapeutics. Lin, Wong, and Ogale are employees of Genentech Inc. and may own stock in F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Yang was employed by Genentech Inc. at the time of this study. Part of the study findings were presented as a poster at the NCCN 2020 Virtual Annual Conference, April 9, 2020.

Crizotinib Versus Conventional Chemotherapy in First-Line Treatment for ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the most frequently diagnosed type of cancer and the main cause of death from malignant neoplasms worldwide. One of the most recent discoveries in the context of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was the mutation of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase receptor (ALK). This genetic alteration is found in approximately 2-5% of NSCLC patients, and crizotinib was the first targeted therapy discovered for its first-line treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the magnitude of the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from using crizotinib as treatment compared to traditional chemotherapy to guide future decision making.

METHODS

PRISMA and Cochrane recommendations were followed using the findings based on studies published in the main international electronic databases. Selection criteria included the following: randomized clinical trials (RCT) or cohort studies that had assessed the efficacy and effectiveness of crizotinib as monotherapy in patients with NSCLC with ALK fusions.

RESULTS

From 2504 publications identified in the literature, only eight publications referring to seven studies met the selection criteria, with high heterogeneity identified between the studies. Overall, there was a significant gain in PFS (HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.30-0.49; p < 0.00001); however, there was no significant gain in OS (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.43-1.08; p = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

The study highlighted and confirmed that treatment with crizotinib led to clinical improvement in PFS among patients with advanced NSCLC with ALK fusion, as previously reported. However, there was no increase in overall survival in patients with NSCLC with genetic alterations of ALK. This must be considered when reviewing and funding treatments for NSCLC patients with this mutation.

Clinical and economic impact of current ALK rearrangement testing in Spain compared with a hypothetical no-testing scenario

BACKGROUND

Currently biomarkers play an essential role in diagnosis, treatment, and management of cancer. In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) determination of biomarkers such as ALK, EGFR, ROS1 or PD-L1 is mandatory for an adequate treatment decision. The aim of this study is to determine the clinical and economic impact of current anaplastic lymphoma kinase testing scenario in Spain.

METHODS

A joint model, composed by decision-tree and Markov models, was developed to estimate the long-term health outcomes and costs of NSCLC patients, by comparing the current testing scenario for ALK in Spain vs a hypothetical no-testing. The current distribution of testing strategies for ALK determination and their sensitivity and specificity data were obtained from the literature. Treatment allocation based on the molecular testing result were defined by a panel of Spanish experts. To assess long-term effects of each treatment, 3-states Markov models were developed, where progression-free survival and overall survival curves were extrapolated using exponential models. Medical direct costs (expressed in €, 2019) were included. A lifetime horizon was used and a discount rate of 3% was applied for both costs and health effects. Several sensitivity analyses, both deterministic and probabilistic, were performed in order test the robustness of the analysis.

RESULTS

We estimated a target population of 7628 NSCLC patients, including those with non-squamous histology and those with squamous carcinomas who were never smokers. Over the lifetime horizon, the current ALK testing scenario produced additional 5060 and 3906 life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), respectively, compared with the no-testing scenario. Total direct costs were increased up to € 51,319,053 for testing scenario. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 10,142 €/QALY. The sensitivity analyses carried out confirmed the robustness of the base-case results, being the treatment allocation and the test accuracy (sensitivity and specificity data) the key drivers of the model.

CONCLUSIONS

ALK testing in advanced NSCLC patients, non-squamous and never-smoker squamous, provides more than 3000 QALYs in Spain over a lifetime horizon. Comparing this gain in health outcomes with the incremental costs, the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reinforces that testing non-squamous and never-smoker squamous NSCLC is a cost-effective strategy in Spain.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lorlatinib as a First-Line Therapy for Untreated Advanced Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction

Recently, a phase III CROWN trial compared the efficacy of two anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors and demonstrated that lorlatinib displayed clinical improvement over crizotinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lorlatinib as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced ALK-positive (+) NSCLC.

Materials and Methods

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a microsimulation model from the US payer perspective and a lifetime horizon (30 years) in patients with previous untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC. Based on the CROWN trial, patient characteristics were obtained, and the transition probabilities were estimated. All direct costs were derived from official sources and published literature. The main outcomes of the model were total costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and life years (LYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and multiple scenario analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model outcomes.

Results

In the base case analysis, in which 1 million patients were simulated, treatment with lorlatinib or crizotinib as the first-line treatment was related to a mean cost of $909,758 and $616,230 (incremental cost: $293,528) and a mean survival of 4.81 QALYs and 4.09 QALYs (incremental QALY: 0.72) per patient, respectively. The main drivers of cost effectiveness were drug price and subsequent cost. PAS indicated that lorlatinib has 90% cost-effectiveness when compared to crizotinib when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in increased to $448,000/QALY. Scenario analysis demonstrated that lorlatinib has 100% cost-effectiveness at a WTP threshold of 200,000/QALY compared to crizotinib treatment when the price of lorlatinib is decreased to 75% ($424.5) of its original price.

Conclusions

In this study, lorlatinib was unlikely to be cost effective compared with crizotinib for patients with previously untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC at a WTP threshold of 200,000/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted therapy and immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: a systematic review

Introduction: Mutation-targeting and immuno-oncology drugs are revolutionizing the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of these drugs have been conducted using various analytical methods and cost-effectiveness thresholds. This systematic review provides a comprehensive summary of the available evidence.Area covered: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were used to select for CEA of targeted therapies for NSCLC in the United States published between 2008 and 2020. Among the 28 included studies, a majority were published from 2017 to 2020 (n = 18) and more than half targeted non-squamous NSCLC (n = 15). The most frequently evaluated therapy was pembrolizumab (n = 11), followed by bevacizumab (n = 8) and erlotinib (n = 4). After 2009, all included studies applied $100,000 or more thresholds. Thresholds of studies supported by industry (median = $150,000) were more distributed than those of studies supported by nonprofits (median = $100,000).Expert commentary: Medications of interest have changed and are individualized to particular mutations. The cost-effectiveness thresholds varied among sponsors but generally trended to increase over time. This review provides an overview of the available cost-effectiveness findings for stakeholders and contributes to evidence-based practice.

Longitudinal health utilities, symptoms and toxicities in patients with ALK-rearranged lung cancer treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a prospective real-world assessment

Background

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (tkis) have dramatically improved the survival of patients with ALK-rearranged (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc). Clinical trial data can generally compare drugs in a pair-wise fashion. Real-world collection of health utility data, symptoms, and toxicities allows for the direct comparison between multiple tki therapies in the population with ALK+ nsclc.

Methods

In a prospective cohort study, outpatients with ALK+ recruited between 2014 and 2018, treated with a variety of tkis, were assessed every 3 months for clinico-demographic, patient-reported symptom and toxicity data and EQ-5D-derived health utility scores (hus).

Results

In 499 longitudinal encounters of 76 patients with ALK+ nsclc, each tki had stable longitudinal hus when disease was controlled, even after months to years: the mean overall hus for each tki ranged from 0.805 to 0.858, and longitudinally from 0.774 to 0.912, with higher values associated with second- or third-generation tkis of alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib. Disease progression was associated with a mean hus decrease of 0.065 (95% confidence interval: 0.02 to 0.11). Health utility scores were inversely correlated to multiple symptoms or toxicities: rho values ranged from -0.094 to -0.557. Fewer symptoms and toxicities were associated with the second- and third-generation tkis compared with crizotinib. In multivariable analysis, only stable disease state and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status were associated with improved hus.

Conclusions

There was no significant decrease in hus when patients with ALK+ disease were treated longitudinally with each tki, as long as patients were clinically stable. Alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib had the best toxicity profiles and exhibited high mean hus longitudinally in the real-world setting.

Cost Effectiveness of Ceritinib and Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in First-Line Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib improved survival in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) arrangement non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the long-term economic outcomes of using ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib are still unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in the Chinese healthcare setting.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to project the economic and health outcomes for the treatment of advanced NSCLC with ceritinib, alectinib or crizotinib. A network meta-analysis was performed to calculate the hazard ratios of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib by pooling published trials. Cost and utility values were obtained from the literature, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. The primary outputs included total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Treatment with alectinib and ceritinib yielded an additional 1.00 and 1.09 QALYs and incremental costs of $62,232 and $15,165, resulting in an ICER of $62,231 and $13,905 per QALY compared with crizotinib, respectively. Parameters related to drug costs and progression-free survival were the main drivers of the model outcomes. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ceritinib and alectinib had a 99.9% and 0% probability of being cost effective, respectively, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28,410/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that compared with crizotinib and alectinib, ceritinib is a cost-effective option for treatment-naïve patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy for Brain Metastases in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Primer for Radiologists

Treatment options for patients who develop brain metastases secondary to non-small-cell lung cancer have rapidly expanded in recent years. As a key adjunct to surgical and radiation therapy options, systemic therapies are now a critical component of the oncologic management of metastatic CNS disease in many patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. The aim of this review article was to provide a guide for radiologists, outlining the role of systemic therapies in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, with a focus on tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The critical role of the blood-brain barrier in the development of systemic therapies will be described. The final sections of this review will provide an overview of current imaging-based guidelines for therapy response. The utility of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria will be discussed, with a focus on how to use the response criteria in the assessment of patients treated with systemic and traditional therapies.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Upfront SBRT for Oligometastatic Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Based on Mutational Status

OBJECTIVES

Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines support systemic therapy based on mutational status in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) reserved for oligoprogression. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the routine addition of SBRT to upfront therapy in stage IV NSCLC by mutational subgroup.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov state transition model was constructed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SBRT plus maintenance therapy with maintenance therapy alone for oligometastatic NSCLC. Three hypothetical cohorts were analyzed: epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive, programmed death ligand-1 expressing, and mutation-negative group. Clinical parameters were obtained largely from clinical trial data, and cost data were based on 2018 Medicare reimbursement. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and evaluated with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

SBRT plus maintenance therapy was not cost-effective at a $100,000/QALY gained threshold, assuming the same survival for both treatments, resulting in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $564,186 and $299,248 per QALY gained for the epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive and programmed death ligand-1 positive cohorts, respectively. Results were most sensitive to the cost of maintenance therapy. A large overall survival gain with SBRT could potentially result in upfront SBRT becoming cost-effective. For the mutation-negative cohort, upfront SBRT was nearly cost-effective, costing $128,424 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Adding SBRT to maintenance therapy is not a cost-effective strategy for oligometastatic NSCLC compared with maintenance therapy alone for mutation-positive groups. However, this should be validated via randomized trials.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of Ceritinib And Alectinib Versus Crizotinib In The Treatment Of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background

This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib versus ceritinib or alectinib as first-line-targeted drug therapy for anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China.

Methods

The Markov model was used to simulate the medical cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients using crizotinib, ceritinib, or alectinib over a 10-year period by establishing three health states: progression-free, post-progression, and death. Randomized controlled clinical data were collected from the open-label, randomized phase 3 trials ALEX and ASCEND-4. Cost and utility values were derived from local charges and literature. Sensitivity analyses included one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Compared with patients who used crizotinib as first-line treatment, patients in the ceritinib and alectinib groups yielded an additional 1.32 and 3.30 QALYs with an incremental cost of $84,728.20 and $339,114.36, respectively. Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $64,398.83 and $102,675.74 per QALY in the ceritinib and alectinib groups, respectively. Alectinib was estimated to be more effective (4.68 QALY) and more costly ($432,063.06) with an ICER of $128,019.42 per QALY compared with ceritinib (2.69 QALY and $177,676.90). Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

As a first-line treatment regimen, ceritinib and alectinib can extend the survival time of patients compared with crizotinib, but the medical cost also increases accordingly. According to the World Health Organization's three-percent GDP measurement, first-line treatment with Crizotinib is the most cost-effective.

Alectinib in the treatment of ALK-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: clinical trial evidence and experience with a focus on brain metastases

Molecular profiling of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is required to guide the treatment strategy. Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements are found in approximately 5% of lung adenocarcinomas and are associated with specific clinical features including a high risk of brain metastases. Crizotinib was the first ALK inhibitor developed and it demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in comparison with chemotherapy. However, despite an initial response, all ALK-positive NSCLC patients develop acquired resistance to crizotinib. Because the most frequent mechanism of resistance is the development of a secondary ALK mutation, second (ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib) and third-generation (lorlatinib) ALK inhibitors were developed. Alectinib is a second-generation ALK inhibitor and was shown to be effective for a broad spectrum of ALK rearrangements and ALK mutations. It was also shown to have high intracranial efficacy. In this article, we review clinical trial evidence of alectinib efficacy as well as publications reporting the experience of alectinib in daily practice, with a focus on brain metastases.

Cost-Effectiveness of Alectinib for Patients with Untreated ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

INTRODUCTION

To assess the cost-effectiveness of alectinib versus crizotinib as first-line treatments for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients from the perspective of China's healthcare system.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to assess the clinical outcomes and costs of alectinib and crizotinib, which included five health states: progression-free (PF) without central nervous system (CNS) progression, PF with CNS progression, post-progression (PP) without CNS progression, PP with CNS progression, and death. Clinical data for transition probabilities were obtained from the ALEX trial at the updated data cutoff. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were derived from clinical expert opinions and published literature. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the results. Scenario analyses were conducted including using clinical data from the ALESIA trial in Asian patients, using utilities from the ALEX trial, and choosing different parametric survival models.

RESULTS

In base case analysis, alectinib yielded an additional 1.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with incremental costs of $54,827, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $52,869/QALY. In scenario analysis, the ICER was $56,787/QALY using clinical data from the ALESIA trial. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities of alectinib being cost-effective were 0.4% and 43.7% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were $28,109/QALY and $50,000/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Alectinib could prolong the mean time of PF and delay the time to CNS progression. However, because of its high drug cost, alectinib was unlikely to be cost-effective for untreated ALK-positive NSCLC patients in China.

Medical expenditure estimation by Bayesian network for lung cancer patients at different severity stages

Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of mortality, and its medical expenditure has increased dramatically. Estimating the expenditure for this disease has become an urgent concern of the supporting families, medial institutes, and government. In this study, a conditional Gaussian Bayesian network (CGBN) model was developed to incorporate the comprehensive risk factors to estimate the medical expenditure of a lung cancer patient at different stages. A total of 961 patients were surveyed by the four severity stages of lung cancer. The proposed CGBN model identified the correlation and association of 15 risk factors to the medical expenditure of different severity stages of lung cancer patients. The relationships among the demographic, diagnosed-based, and prior-utilization variables are constructed. The model predicted the lung cancer-related medical expenditure with high accuracy of 32.63%, 50.30%, 50.36%, and 66.58%, respectively for stages 1-4, as compared with the reported models. A greedy search was also applied to find the upper threshold of R², while our model also shows that it approached the upper threshold.