100P Characteristics and outcomes of patients (pts) with NTRK fusion-positive (NTRK+) metastatic / locally advanced (LA) solid tumours receiving non-TRK inhibitor (TRKi) standard of care (SoC), and prognostic value of NTRK fusions in clinical practice

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treating Patients With NTRK-Positive Cancer With the Histology-Independent Therapy Entrectinib

OBJECTIVES

This study tackles several challenges of evaluating histology-independent treatments using entrectinib as an example. Histology-independent treatments are provided based on genetic marker(s) of tumors, regardless of the tumor type. We evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of testing all patients for NTRK fusions and treating the positive cases with entrectinib compared with no testing and standard of care (SoC) for all patients.

METHODS

The health economic model consisted of a decision tree reflecting the NTRK testing phase followed by a microsimulation model reflecting treatment with either entrectinib or SoC. Efficacy of entrectinib was based on data from basket trials, whereas historical data from NTRK-negative patients were corrected for the prognostic value of NTRK fusions to model SoC.

RESULTS

"Testing" (testing for NTRK fusions, with subsequent entrectinib treatment in NTRK-positive patients and SoC in NTRK-negative patients) had higher per-patient quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs than "No testing" (SoC for all patients), with a difference of 0.0043 and €732, respectively. This corresponded to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €169 957/QALY and, using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €80 000/QALY, an incremental net monetary benefit of -€388. When excluding the costs of genetic testing for NTRK fusions, the ICER was reduced to €36 290/QALY and the incremental net monetary benefit increased to €188.

CONCLUSIONS

When treatment requires the identification of a genetic marker, the associated costs and effects need to be accounted for. Because of the low prevalence of NTRK fusions, the number needed-to-test to identify patients eligible for entrectinib is large. Excluding the testing phase reduces the ICER substantially.

Survival Outcomes of Patients With Tropomyosin Receptor Kinase Fusion-Positive Cancer Receiving Larotrectinib Versus Standard of Care: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Using Real-World Data

PURPOSE

Larotrectinib, a highly specific tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor, previously demonstrated high response rates in single-arm trials of patients with TRK fusion-positive cancer, but there are limited data on comparative effectiveness against standard-of-care (SoC) regimens used in routine health care practice, before widespread adoption of TRK inhibitors as SoC for TRK fusion-positive cancers. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison, a validated methodology that balances population characteristics to facilitate cross-trial comparisons, was used to compare the overall survival (OS) of larotrectinib versus non-TRK-inhibitor SoC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Individual patient data from three larotrectinib trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02122913, NCT02637687, and NCT02576431) were compared with published aggregate real-world data from patients with locally advanced/metastatic TRK fusion-positive cancer identified in the Flatiron Health/Foundation Medicine database. OS was defined as the time from advanced/metastatic disease diagnosis to death. After matching population characteristics, the analyses included (1) a log-rank test of equality to test whether the two groups were similar before larotrectinib initiation; and (2) estimation of treatment effect of larotrectinib versus non-TRK-inhibitor SoC. These analyses are limited to prognostic variables available in real-world data.

RESULTS

Eighty-five larotrectinib patients and 28 non-TRK-inhibitor SoC patients were included in the analyses. After matching, log-rank testing showed no difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups (P = .31). After matching, larotrectinib was associated with a 78% lower risk of death, compared with non-TRK-inhibitor SoC (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.52]; P = .001); median OS was 39.7 months (95% CI: 16.4, NE [not estimable]) for larotrectinib and 10.2 months (95% CI: 7.2, 14.1) for SoC.

CONCLUSION

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses suggest longer OS with larotrectinib, compared with non-TRK-inhibitor SoC, in adult patients with TRK fusion-positive cancer.

Economic Evaluation of a Tumour-Agnostic Therapy: Dutch Economic Value of Larotrectinib in TRK Fusion-Positive Cancers

BACKGROUND

Larotrectinib is the first tumour-agnostic therapy that has been approved by the European Medicines Agency. Tumour-agnostic therapies are indicated for a multitude of tumour types. The economic models supporting reimbursement submissions of tumour-agnostic therapies are complex because of the multitude of indications per model.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of larotrectinib compared with standard of care in patients with cancer with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive tumour types in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A previously constructed cost-effectiveness model with a partitioned survival approach was adapted to the Dutch setting, simulating costs and effects of treatment in patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive cancer. The cost-effectiveness model conducts a naïve comparison of larotrectinib to a weighted comparator standard-of-care arm. Dutch specific resource use and costs were implemented and inflated to reflect 2019 euros. The analysis includes a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective.

RESULTS

Larotrectinib versus Dutch standard of care resulted in 5.61 incremental (QALYs) and €232,260 incremental costs, leading to an incremental cost-effectivenes ratio of €41,424/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis reveals a 88% chance of larotrectinib being cost effective compared with the pooled comparator standard-of-care arm at the applicable €80,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold in the Netherlands.

CONCLUSIONS

The incremental cost-effectivenes ratio was well below the applicable threshold for diseases with a high burden of disease in the Netherlands (€80,000). At this threshold, larotrectinib was estimated to be a cost-effective treatment for patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive cancer compared with current standard of care in the Netherlands.