Cost-effectiveness of first-line induction and maintenance treatment sequences in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the U.S

Impact of Targeted Therapy on the Survival of Patients With Advanced-Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Oncosalud - AUNA

Background

Lung cancer is still a prevalent and fatal neoplasm in developing countries. In the last decades, chemotherapy (CHT) maintenance occupied an important role in the treatment, as well as targeted therapies. We aimed to evaluate the survival impact of targeted therapy in advanced lung cancer at a private Peruvian institution (Oncosalud - AUNA).

Methods

We reviewed retrospectively medical records of patients with advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLS) (clinical stage III-IV) who received CHT and maintenance treatment with target therapy (TT) or CHT. The impact was assessed by progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using the Kaplan–Meier method, and comparisons of survival curves were performed using log-rank or Breslow test and Cox model.

Results

The median age of the patients was 65 years. Clinical characteristics, as well as the treatment type, showed no significant difference between the two groups. The maintenance schedule in those receiving CHT was generally pemetrexed (70%) and in those receiving TT was erlotinib (60.7%). In patients receiving TT, the median PFS was 13 months compared to 7 months in those receiving CHT; likewise, the median OS was 45 and 17 months, respectively. The PFS and OS curves showed significant differences (P < .05), achieving a better survival in subjects treated with TT.

Conclusion

Progression-Free Survival and OS were superior in patients who received targeted therapy than those treated only with CHT, the 2 years rate of PFS and OS was nearly double to those who received only CHT-based treatments.

The cost of chemotherapy administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cancer treatment is a significant driver of healthcare costs worldwide, however, the economic impact of treating patients with anti-neoplastic agents is poorly elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the direct costs associated with administering intravenous chemotherapy in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

We systematically searched four databases from 2010 to present and extracted hourly administration costs and the respective components of each estimate. Separate analyses were conducted of Canadian and United States (US) studies, respectively, to address a priori hypotheses regarding heterogeneity amongst estimates. The Drummond checklist was used to assess risk-of-bias. Data were summarized using medians with interquartile ranges and five outliers were identified; costs were presented in 2019 USD.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were analyzed, including sub-analyses of 19 US and seven Canadian studies. 26/44 studies were of moderate-high quality. When components of administration cost were evaluated, physician costs were reported most frequently (24 studies), followed by lab tests (13) and overhead costs (9). The median estimate (excluding outliers) was $142/hour (IQR = $103-166). The median administration cost in the US was $149/hour (IQR = $118-158), and was $128/hour (IQR = $102-137) in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a paucity of literature addressing the costs of chemotherapy administration, and existing studies utilize a patchwork of reporting methodologies which renders direct comparison challenging. Our results demonstrate that the cost of administering chemotherapy is approximately $125-150/hour, globally. This value is dependent upon the region of analysis, inclusiveness of cost subcomponents as well as the methodology used to estimate unit prices, as described here.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Dacomitinib versus Gefitinib in the First-Line Treatment of EGFR-Positive Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background

The objective of the study was to evaluate the economics of dacomitinib and gefitinib in the first-line treatments for EGFR-positive advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US payer perspective.

Methods

We developed the partition survival model to compare the lifetime cost and health outcomes of dacomitinib versus gefitinib. Transition probabilities were collected from the ARCHER 1050 trial. The model only considered the direct medical costs. Utility values were taken from published research.

Results

Compared to gefitinib, dacomitinib increased 0.706 QALY and the cost increased $232,359.32. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $329,120.85 per QALY in the base case. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of drugs and the utility had more influence on the results than other parameters. Probability sensitivity analysis reflected that the parameters had little effect on the results.

Conclusion

Dacomitinib could improve the health benefits and increase the overall costs. In this simulation, dacomitinib is not likely to be economical for first-line therapy of EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribociclib plus fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Materials & methods: A three-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness over 10 years. Direct costs and utility values were obtained from previously published studies. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to evaluate the cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,073,526 per quality-adjusted life year of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant. Conclusions: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant is not cost-effective versus fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer. When ribociclib is at 10% of the full price, ribociclib plus fulvestrant could be cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of osimertinib administration for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer

Osimertinib is a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that is clinically effective in patients with EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the use of this treatment is limited by its high cost. A cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of osimertinib administration in China and the United States was conducted in the present study. Markov models were established based on data from the FLAURA and AURA3 trials. First-line osimertinib was compared with both first-generation EGFR-TKIs and second-line osimertinib after the failure of first-generation EGFR-TKIs. The analysis also considered different payment modalities available in China. Additionally, one-way and probability sensitivity analyses, with a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of three times the per capita gross domestic product [$27,783/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for China and $100,000/QALY for the United States], were performed. The first-line osimertinib group displayed higher QALYs and costs than those of the first-generation EGFR-TKI group. The first generation EGFR-TKI group displayed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $212,252/QALY in China and $151,922/QALY in the United States. In addition, the ICERs were negative in the second-line osimertinib group, with higher QALYs and lower costs compared with those in the first-line osimertinib group. Furthermore, osimertinib company donation was of benefit in China, with an average cost-effectiveness of $836/QALY. The one-way sensitivity analysis highlighted the influence of utilities in different states. First-line osimertinib could be cost-effective either with higher WTP or a price reduction of 68% in China and 9% in the United States. Although first-line osimertinib therapy could have health benefits, it was not cost-effective compared with first-line first-generation EGFR-TKIs and second-line osimertinib therapy. However, paying via company donation may be a good choice in China.

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.

Value of clinical trial narrative data to estimate the costs of adverse event management: a feasibility study

Aims: The objective of this feasibility study was to determine the extent to which data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may serve as a useful source for collecting health care resource use (HCRU) for the purposes of estimating costs of managing adverse events (AEs), specifically, grade 3-4 nausea and thrombocytopenia, which may be experienced during chemotherapy treatment.Materials and Methods: The feasibility study was conducted in four steps: (1) HCRU data were extracted from patient narratives in four phase 3 RCTs in non-small cell lung cancer; (2) missing HCRU data were imputed; (3) unit costs were applied to the resulting HCRU data set and costs of managing AEs were estimated; and (4) the overall utility of using RCT data as a source for estimating costs of AEs was evaluated.Results: 33 nausea and 68 thrombocytopenia AEs met eligibility criteria and were evaluated in this study. Medication usage was recorded as a treatment in 76% of nausea AEs, although only 14% of the instances of medication usage included the minimum data elements required for costing. Platelet transfusions were provided in 24% of thrombocytopenia AEs; however, in only one instance were the minimum data elements recorded. Of nausea and thrombocytopenia AEs, 18% and 72%, respectively, required no missing data assumptions or imputation.Limitations: Only two AEs were considered, and they may not be representative of all AEs in terms of suitability for use in estimating HCRU and costs of managing AEs. Not all grade 3-4 AEs met the criteria for requiring a patient narrative. HCRU data in the narratives were incomplete.Conclusions: The usefulness of RCTs for estimating the costs of AEs may be improved by using a standardized form to collect HCRU data for key AEs, including an appropriate level of detail required to estimate costs of managing the AEs.

Antiangiogeneic Strategies in Mesothelioma

There is a strong rationale for inhibiting angiogenesis in mesothelioma. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is an autocrine growth factor in mesothelioma and a potent mitogen for mesothelial cells. Further, the abnormal tumor vasculature promotes raised interstitial pressure and hypoxia, which may be detrimental to both penetration and efficacy of anticancer agents. Antiangiogenic agents have been trialed in mesothelioma for close to two decades, with early phase clinical trials testing vascular targeting agents, the VEGF-A targeting monoclonal antibody bevacizumab, and numerous tyrosine kinase inhibitors, many with multiple targets. None of these have shown efficacy which has warranted further development as single agents in any line of therapy. Whilst a randomized phase II trial combining the multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor nintedanib with platinum/pemetrexed chemotherapy was positive, these results were not confirmed in a subsequent phase III study. The combination of cisplatin and pemetrexed with bevacizumab, in appropriately selected patients, remains the only anti-angiogenic combination showing efficacy in mesothelioma. Extensive efforts to identify biomarkers of response have not yet been successful.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of EGFR Mutation Testing And Afatinib Versus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin As First-Line Therapy For Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer In China

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the combined use of afatinib and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) testing versus gemcitabine-cisplatin as the first-line treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China.

Methods

A decision-analytic model, based on clinical phase III trials, was developed to simulate patient transitions. Direct costs were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 5-year lifetime horizon. Model robustness was conducted in sensitivity analyses.

Results

For the base case, EGFR mutation testing followed by afatinib treatment for advanced NSCLC increased 0.15 QALYs compared with standard chemotherapy at an additional cost of $5069.12. The ICER for afatinib maintenance was $33,416.39 per QALY gained. The utility of PFS and the cost of afatinib had the most important impact on the ICER. Scenario analyses suggested that when a patient assistance program (PAP) was available, ICER decreased to $22,972.52/QALY lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($26,508/QALY).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that gene-guided maintenance therapy with afatinib with the PAP might be a cost-effective treatment option compared with gemcitabine – cisplatin in China.

Cost-Effectiveness of Osimertinib in Treating Newly Diagnosed, Advanced EGFR-Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess cost and effectiveness of osimertinib in treating newly diagnosed advanced non-small cell lung cancer with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation from a public payer's perspective in the U.S. and China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Markov models were developed to compare three treatment strategies: first-line use of osimertinib, first-line use of the standard first-generation EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) followed by the second-line use of osimertinib, and the standard first-generation EGFR-TKI therapy (standard care [SOC]). Clinical data, cost, and utility data were mainly derived from published literatures. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) between the treatments.

RESULTS

The resultant incremental cost per QALY gained for the first-line osimertinib versus SOC was $312,903 in the U.S. and $41,512 in China. The incremental cost per QALY for the second-line osimertinib versus SOC was $284,532 in the U.S. and $38,860 in China. The probability of the SOC strategy being cost-effective is 1.0 if the willingness to pay threshold is below $150,000/QALY in the U.S. and below $30,000/QALY in China.

CONCLUSION

Osimertinib as first-line treatment could gain more health benefits in comparison with standard EGFR-TKIs or second-line use of osimertinib. However, because of the high cost of treatment, the cost-effectiveness analyses were not in favor of the first-line use of osimertinib from a public payer's perspective in the U.S. and China.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Osimertinib as first-line treatment yielded the greatest health outcomes but is not a cost-effective strategy for lung cancer in the U.S. and China. The price of osimertinib has a substantial impact on economic outcomes.

Pathways and cost-effectiveness of routine lung cancer inpatient care in rural Anhui, China: a retrospective cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Routine inpatient care (RIC) for patients with cancer forms various pathways of clinical procedures. Although most individual procedures comprising the pathways have been tested via clinical trials, little is known about the collective cost and effectiveness of the pathways as a whole. This study aims at exploring RIC pathways for patients with lung cancer from rural Anhui, China, and their determinants and economic impacts.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study adopts a retrospective cohort design and proceeds in five steps. Step 1 defines the four main categories of study variables, including clinical procedures, direct cost and effectiveness of procedures, and factors affecting use of these procedures and their cost and effectiveness. Step 2 selects a cohort of 5000 patients with lung cancer diagnosed between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2016 from rural Anhui by clustered random sampling. Step 3 retrieves the records of all the inpatient care episodes due to lung cancer and extracts data about RIC procedures, proximate variables (eg, Karnofsky Performance Status, Lung Function Score) of patient outcomes and related factors (eg, stage of cancer, age, gender), by two independent clinician researchers using a web-based form. Step 4 estimates the direct cost of each of the RIC procedures using micro-costing and collects data about ultimate patient outcomes (survival and progression-free survival) through a follow-up survey of patients and/or their close relatives. Step 5 analyses the data collected and explores pathways of RIC procedures and their relations with patient outcomes, costs, cost:effect ratios, and a whole range of clinical and sociodemographic factors using multivariate regression and path models.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol has been approved by an authorised ethics committee of Anhui Medical University (reference number: 20170312). Findings from the study will be disseminated through conventional academic routes such as peer-reviewed publications and presentations at regional, national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN25595562.

Cost-Effectiveness of Osimertinib for EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer after Progression following First-Line EGFR TKI Therapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the treatment of advanced NSCLC with an EGFR T790M mutation after the failure of first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy.

METHODS

A mathematical model was established by combining a decision tree and the Markov approach to project the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard chemotherapy for the treatment of patients who harbor an EGFR T790M mutation and have disease progression after first-line EGFR TKI therapy with or without metastases to the central nervous system. The clinical and outcome data were derived from randomized clinical trials and published reports. The health outcome data included quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). The cost data were estimated from the perspectives of the payer in the United States and the health care system in the People's Republic of China. All costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were presented in 2017 U.S. dollars. Sensitivity and scenario analyses with three different settings of T790M mutation testing were performed.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy, molecular testing in plasma and tissue followed by osimertinib treatment yielded an additional 0.359 and 0.313 QALYs in the entire U.S. population and the population of those with central nervous system metastases and an EGFR T790M mutation. For these populations, the incremental costs were $83,515 and $74,924 per patient, respectively, and the ICERs were $232,895 and $239,274 per QALY, respectively. For the entire Chinese population and the Chinese population with central nervous system metastases, the ICERs were $48,081 and $53,244 per QALY, respectively. For those with a known T790M mutation, the ICERs of osimertinib over chemotherapy also exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold. The most influential parameter was the price of osimertinib.

CONCLUSION

Osimertinib treatment for T790M mutation NSCLC is unlikely to be cost-effective from the perspectives of the United States and the People's Republic of China. If the price of osimertinib could be decreased, the economic outcome might become favorable.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line induction and maintenance treatment sequences in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in France

Background

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data for induction–maintenance (I–M) sequences for the treatment of patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (nsqNSCLC) are limited because of a lack of direct evidence. This analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of I–M pemetrexed with those of other I–M regimens used for the treatment of patients with advanced nsqNSCLC in the French health-care setting.

Materials and methods

A previously developed global partitioned survival model was adapted to the France-only setting by restricting treatment sequences to include 12 I–M regimens most relevant to France, and incorporating French costs and resource-use data. Following a systematic literature review, network meta-analyses were performed to obtain hazard ratios for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) relative to gemcitabine + cisplatin (induction sequences) or best supportive care (BSC) (maintenance sequences). Modeled health-care benefits were expressed as life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) (estimated using French EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire tariffs). The study was conducted from the payer perspective (National Health Insurance). Cost- and benefit-model inputs were discounted at an annual rate of 4%.

Results

Base-case results showed pemetrexed + cisplatin induction followed by (→) pemetrexed maintenance had the longest mean OS and PFS and highest LYs and QALYs. Costs ranged from €12,762 for paclitaxel + carboplatin → BSC to €35,617 for pemetrexed + cisplatin → pemetrexed (2015 values). Gemcitabine + cisplatin → BSC, pemetrexed + cisplatin → BSC, and pemetrexed + cisplatin → pemetrexed were associated with fully incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of €16,593, €80,656, and €102,179, respectively, per QALY gained versus paclitaxel + carboplatin → BSC. All other treatment sequences were either dominated (ie, another sequence had lower costs and better/equivalent outcomes) or extendedly dominated (ie, the comparator had a higher ICER than a more effective comparator) in the model. Sensitivity analyses showed the model to be relatively insensitive to plausible changes in the main assumptions, with none increasing or decreasing the ICER by more than ~€20,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusion

In the absence of direct comparative trial evidence, this cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that of a large number of I–M sequences used for the treatment of patients with nsqNSCLC in France, pemetrexed + cisplatin → pemetrexed achieved the best clinical outcomes (0.28 incremental QALYs gained) versus paclitaxel + carboplatin → BSC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy as induction and maintenance therapy for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The BEYOND trial found that the addition of bevacizumab (B) to paclitaxel-carboplatin (PC) chemotherapy provided a significant clinical benefit to Chinese patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding B to first-line PC induction and continuation maintenance therapy from a Chinese perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost and effectiveness of B + PC in the induction and maintenance therapy of patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC. Costs were calculated in the Chinese setting, and health outcomes derived from the BEYOND trial were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the impact of various parameters in the study.

RESULTS

The B + PC treatment was more costly ($112,943.40 versus $32,171.43) and more effective (1.07 QALYs versus 0.80 QALYs) compared with the PC treatment. Adding B to the PC regimen for non-squamous NSCLC results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $299,155.44 per QALY, which exceeded the accepted societal willingness-to-pay threshold ($23,970.00) for China. In the sensitivity analysis, the duration of progression-free survival (PFS) for the B + PC group, the cost of the PFS state for B + PC group and the price of B were considered the most sensitive factors in the model.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of B to first-line PC induction and maintenance therapy was not determined to be a cost-effective strategy for metastatic non-squamous NSCLC in China, even when an assistance program was provided.

Current and projected patient and insurer costs for the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States through 2040

AIMS

The objective of this study was to quantify the current and to project future patient and insurer costs for the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the US.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analysis of administrative claims data among patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer from 2007-2015 was conducted. Future costs were projected through 2040 based on these data using autoregressive models.

RESULTS

Analysis of claims data found the average total cost of care during first- and second-line therapy was $1,161.70 and $561.80 for patients, and $45,175.70 and $26,201.40 for insurers, respectively. By 2040, the average total patient out-of-pocket costs are projected to reach $3,047.67 for first-line and $2,211.33 for second-line therapy, and insurance will pay an average of $131,262.39 for first-line and $75,062.23 for second-line therapy.

LIMITATIONS

Claims data are not collected for research purposes; therefore, there may be errors in entry and coding. Additionally, claims data do not contain important clinical factors, such as stage of disease at diagnosis, tumor histology, or data on disease progression, which may have important implications on the cost of care.

CONCLUSIONS

The trajectory of the cost of lung cancer care is growing. This study estimates that the cost of care may double by 2040, with the greatest proportion of increase in patient out-of-pocket costs. Despite the average cost projections, these results suggest that a small sub-set of patients with very high costs could be at even greater risk in the future.

Best Practices in Treatment Selection for Patients With Advanced NSCLC

Worldwide, lung cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer, and its non-small-cell subtype constitutes up to 85% of cases. Overall, lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States for both sexes, and its 5-year survival rate is 17%. It is a heterogeneous disease characterized by a variety of biomarkers and differing histologies. Non-small-cell lung cancer may be squamous or nonsquamous in nature and fueled by a number of oncodrivers. Obtaining sufficient tissue during biopsy to perform thorough biomarker testing is a challenge but essential for the modern, targeted therapeutic environment. Although platinum-based doublets still play a major role in first-line treatment, novel therapeutic agent targeting BRAF, EGFR, ALK, and ROS1, as well as agents targeting the T790M mutation, may offer options for patients whose disease fails to respond to initial therapy or relapses following an initial response. The emergence of immunotherapy as second-line standard therapy has changed the treatment paradigm. Some patients will have more favorable outcomes in the first-line setting with immunotherapy. However, managing lung cancer has become more complex than it was 15 years ago when the challenge of treatment was seen as being only binary, ie, small-cell vs non-small-cell disease.

Pemetrexed for advanced stage nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer: latest evidence about its extended use and outcomes

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still the leading cause of cancer-related death, and the treatment of advanced NSCLC relies on systemic treatments. During the last decade, pemetrexed, an antifolate agent, gradually became a key component of the treatment for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. It has indeed been shown to be efficient for first-line, maintenance and second- or third-line treatment in this subgroup of NSCLC. Moreover, it is usually well tolerated, with few grade 3 and 4 toxicities. Several studies have tried to identify predictive biomarkers of pemetrexed efficacy. Due to pemetrexed's mechanism of action, thymidilate synthase expression predictive value was investigated but could not be demonstrated. Currently, more than 400 trials of pemetrexed for the treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC are ongoing.