Gefitinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of gefitinib for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is evolving. We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the available evidence from all randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of gefitinib as first-line, second-line or maintenance treatment for advanced NSCLC.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 17 February 2017. We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, clinical trial registries and references lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials assessing gefitinib, alone or in combination with other treatment, compared to placebo or other treatments in the first- or successive-line treatment of patients with NSCLC, excluding compassionate use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed the search results to select those with sound methodological quality. We carried out all analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. We recorded the following outcome data: overall survival, progression-free survival, toxicity, tumour response and quality of life. We also collected data for the following subgroups: Asian ethnicity and positive epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which examined 12,089 patients.General populationGefitinib did not statistically improve overall survival when compared with placebo or chemotherapy in either first- or second-line settings. Second-line gefitinib prolonged time to treatment failure (TTF) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.90, P < 0.0001) when compared with placebo. Maintenance gefitinib improved progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.91, P = 0.007) after first-line therapy.Studies in patients of Asian ethnicity or that conducted subgroup analysesSecond-line gefitinib prolonged overall survival over placebo (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91, P = 0.01). In the first-line setting, progression-free survival was improved with gefitinib over chemotherapy alone (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.98, P = 0.04, moderate quality of evidence). Gefitinib given in combination with a chemotherapy regimen improved progression-free survival versus either gefitinib alone or chemotherapy alone (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.96, P = 0.03; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77, P < 0.00001, respectively). In the second-line setting, progression-free survival was superior in patients given gefitinib over placebo or chemotherapy (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91, P = 0.009; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88, P = 0.002; moderate quality of evidence, respectively). Combining gefitinib with chemotherapy in the second-line setting was superior to gefitinib alone (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97, P = 0.04). As maintenance therapy, gefitinib improved progression-free survival when compared with placebo (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.54, P < 0.00001).Patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumoursStudies in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumours showed an improvement in progression-free survival in favour of gefitinib over first-line and second-line chemotherapy (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.61, P < 0.00001; HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.47, P < 0.0001, respectively). Gefitinib as maintenance therapy following chemotherapy improved overall and progression-free survival (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.98, P = 0.05; HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41, P < 0.0001, respectively) in one phase III study when compared to placebo.Toxicities from gefitinib included skin rash, diarrhoea and liver transaminase derangements. Toxicities from chemotherapy included anaemia, neutropenia and neurotoxicity.In terms of quality of life, gefitinib improved Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) (standardised mean difference (SMD) 10.50, 95% CI 9.55 to 11.45, P < 0.000001), lung cancer subscale (SMD 3.63, 95% CI 3.08 to 4.19, P < 0.00001) and Trial Outcome Index (SMD 9.87, 95% CI 1.26 to 18.48, P < 0.00001) scores when compared with chemotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review shows that gefitinib, when compared with standard first- or second-line chemotherapy or maintenance therapy, probably has a beneficial effect on progression-free survival and quality of life in selected patient populations, particularly those with tumours bearing sensitising EGFR mutations.Patients with EGFR mutations lived longer when given maintenance gefitinib than those given placebo.One study conducted subgroup analysis and showed that gefitinib improved overall survival over placebo in the second-line setting in patients of Asian ethnicity. All other studies did not detect any benefit on overall survival. The data analysed in this review were very heterogenous. We were limited in the amount of data that could be pooled, largely due to variations in study design. The risk of bias in most studies was moderate, with some studies not adequately addressing potential selection, attrition and reporting bias. This heterogeneity may have an impact on the applicability of the resultsCombining gefitinib with chemotherapy appears to be superior in improving progression-free survival to either gefitinib or chemotherapy alone, however further data and phase III studies in these settings are required.Gefitinib has a favourable toxicity profile when compared with current chemotherapy regimens. Although there is no improvement in overall survival, gefitinib compares favourably with cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutations with a prolongation of progression-free survival and a lesser side effect profile.

Economic Considerations in the Use of Novel Targeted Therapies for Lung Cancer: Review of Current Literature

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death and economic burden worldwide. Despite the heavy toll of lung cancer, multiple new advances have improved patient outcomes, largely through precision medicine and targeted therapy. The associated rising economic burden however may impact the uptake of novel therapeutic agents in lung cancer, thereby limiting patient access. This article identifies and reviews economic evaluations of targeted agents in lung cancer in the era of precision medicine. Articles evaluating biomarker-directed test-and-treat strategies are also reviewed to evaluate the cost impact of novel therapeutic agents at a population level. The Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument is applied to assess the quality of included studies. Forty-six studies are reviewed and encompass studies of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies, anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors, vascular endothelial growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors and immunotherapy (programmed death-1 inhibitors). Key factors influencing results of economic analyses include comparators chosen, perspective used, magnitude of clinical benefit, utility weighting of outcomes and drug acquisition costs. Biomarker-driven decision making should be integrated into cost evaluations given the important role of molecular testing for individualising treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer. We conclude that despite major clinical advances in lung cancer therapeutics, cost remains an important consideration in the adoption of novel therapies.

On Enrichment Strategies for Biomarker Stratified Clinical Trials

In the era of precision medicine, drugs are increasingly developed to target subgroups of patients with certain biomarkers. In large all-comer trials using a biomarker stratified design, the cost of treating and following patients for clinical outcomes may be prohibitive. With a fixed number of randomized patients, the efficiency of testing certain treatments parameters, including the treatment effect among biomarker-positive patients and the interaction between treatment and biomarker, can be improved by increasing the proportion of biomarker positives on study, especially when the prevalence rate of biomarker positives is low in the underlying patient population. When the cost of assessing the true biomarker is prohibitive, one can further improve the study efficiency by oversampling biomarker positives with a cheaper auxiliary variable or a surrogate biomarker that correlates with the true biomarker. To improve efficiency and reduce cost, we can adopt an enrichment strategy for both scenarios by concentrating on testing and treating patient subgroups that contain more information about specific treatment parameters of primary interest to the investigators. In the first scenario, an enriched biomarker stratified design enriches the cohort of randomized patients by directly oversampling the relevant patients with the true biomarker, while in the second scenario, an auxiliary-variable-enriched biomarker stratified design enriches the randomized cohort based on an inexpensive auxiliary variable, thereby avoiding testing the true biomarker on all screened patients and reducing treatment waiting time. For both designs, we discuss how to choose the optimal enrichment proportion when testing a single hypothesis or two hypotheses simultaneously. At a requisite power, we compare the two new designs with the BSD design in terms of the number of randomized patients and the cost of trial under scenarios mimicking real biomarker stratified trials. The new designs are illustrated with hypothetical examples for designing biomarker-driven cancer trials.

Utility values associated with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: data needs for economic modeling

INTRODUCTION

Cost-effectiveness analyses often inform healthcare reimbursement decisions. The preferred measure of effectiveness is the quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, where the quality of life adjustment is measured in terms of utility. Areas covered: We assessed the availability and variation of utility values for health states associated with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to identify values appropriate for cost-effectiveness models assessing alternative treatments. Our systematic search of six electronic databases (January 2000 to August 2015) found the current literature to be sparse in terms of utility values associated with NSCLC, identifying 27 studies. Utility values were most frequently reported over time and by treatment type, and less frequently by disease response, stage of disease, adverse events or disease comorbidities. Expert commentary: In response to rising healthcare costs, payers increasingly consider the cost-effectiveness of novel treatments in reimbursement decisions, especially in oncology. As the number of therapies available to treat NSCLC increases, cost-effectiveness analyses will play a key role in reimbursement decisions in this area. Quantifying the relationship between health and quality of life for NSCLC patients via utility values is an important component of assessing the cost effectiveness of novel treatments.

Challenges in Facing the Lung Cancer Epidemic and Treating Advanced Disease in Latin America

Lung cancer, the deadliest cancer worldwide, is of particular concern in Latin America. The rising incidence poses a myriad of challenges for the region, which struggles with limited resources to meet the health care needs of its low- and middle-income populations. In this environment, we are concerned that governments are relatively unaware of the pressing need to implement effective strategies for screening, diagnosis, and treatment of lung cancer. The region has also been slow in adopting molecularly-based therapies in the treatment of advanced disease: testing for epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangements are not routine, and access to targeted agents such as monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors is problematic. In this paper, we review the current situation in the management of lung cancer in Latin America, hoping that this initiative will help physicians, patient associations, industry, governments, and other stakeholders better face this epidemic in the near future.

Erlotinib and gefitinib for treating non-small cell lung cancer that has progressed following prior chemotherapy (review of NICE technology appraisals 162 and 175): a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer in the UK. Over 70% of lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC may be offered treatment to improve survival, disease control and quality of life. One-third of these patients receive further treatment following disease progression; these treatments are the focus of this systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib [Tarceva(®), Roche (UK) Ltd] and gefitinib (IRESSA(®), AstraZeneca) compared with each other, docetaxel or best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of NSCLC after disease progression following prior chemotherapy. The effectiveness of treatment with gefitinib was considered only for patients with epidermal growth factor mutation-positive (EGFR M+) disease.

DATA SOURCES

Four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations. Manufacturers' evidence submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were also considered.

REVIEW METHODS

Outcomes for three distinct patient groups based on EGFR mutation status [EGFR M+, epidermal growth factor mutation negative (EGFR M-) and epidermal growth factor mutation status unknown (EGFR unknown)] were considered. Heterogeneity of the data precluded statistical analysis. A de novo economic model was developed to compare treatments (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained).

RESULTS

Twelve trials were included in the review. The use of gefitinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 6) or BSC (n = 1), and the use of erlotinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 3) or BSC (n = 1). One trial compared the use of gefitinib with the use of erlotinib. No trials included solely EGFR M+ patients; all data were derived from retrospective subgroup analyses from six RCTs [Kim ST, Uhm JE, Lee J, Sun JM, Sohn I, Kim SW, et al. Randomized phase II study of gefitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who failed previous chemotherapy. Lung Cancer 2012;75:82-8, V-15-32, Tarceva In Treatment of Advanced NSCLC (TITAN), BR.21, IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung cancer (ISEL) and IRESSA NSCLC Trial Evaluating REsponse and Survival versus Taxotere (INTEREST)]. These limited data precluded conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of any treatment for EGFR M+ patients. For EGFR M- patients, data were derived from the TArceva Italian Lung Optimization tRial (TAILOR) trial and Docetaxel and Erlotinib Lung Cancer Trial (DELTA). Retrospective data were also derived from subgroup analyses of BR.21, Kim et al., TITAN, INTEREST and ISEL. The only statistically significant reported results were for progression-free survival (PFS) for TAILOR and DELTA, and favoured docetaxel over erlotinib [TAILOR hazard ratio (HR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.82; DELTA HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.92]. In EGFR unknown patients, nine trials (INTEREST, IRESSA as Second-line Therapy in Advanced NSCLC - KoreA, Li, Second-line Indication of Gefitinib in NSCLC, V-15-32, ISEL, DELTA, TITAN and BR.21) reported overall survival data and only one (BR.21) reported a statistically significant result favouring the use of erlotinib over BSC (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85). For PFS, BR.21 favoured the use of erlotinib when compared with BSC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.74) and the use of gefitinib was favoured when compared with BSC (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92) in ISEL. Limitations in the clinical data precluded assessment of cost-effectiveness of treatments for an EGFR M+ population by the Assessment Group (AG). The AG's economic model suggested that for the EGFR M- population, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective compared with the use of docetaxel and compared with BSC. For EGFR unknown patients, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective when compared with BSC.

CONCLUSIONS/FUTURE WORK

The lack of clinical data available for distinct patient populations limited the conclusions of the assessment. Future trials should distinguish between patients with EGFR M+ and EGFR M- disease.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Economic Analysis of First-Line Treatment with Erlotinib in an EGFR-Mutated Population with Advanced NSCLC

INTRODUCTION

The cost-effectiveness of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR)-mutated advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poorly documented. We therefore conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatment with erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy in European patients with advanced-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC who were enrolled in the European Erlotinib versus Chemotherapy trial.

METHODS

The European Erlotinib versus Chemotherapy study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial performed mainly in Spain, France, and Italy. We based our economic analysis on clinical data and data on resource consumption (drugs, drug administration, adverse events, and second-line treatments) collected during this trial. Utility values were derived from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for the first-line treatment phase and for the overall strategy from the perspective of the three participating countries. Sensitivity analyses were performed by selecting the main cost drivers.

RESULTS

Compared with standard first-line chemotherapy, the first-line treatment with erlotinib was cost saving (€7807, €17,311, and €19,364 for Spain, Italy and France, respectively) and yielded a gain of 0.117 quality-adjusted life-years. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that, given a willingness to pay at least €90,000 for 1 quality-adjusted life-year, the probability that a strategy of first-line erlotinib would be cost-effective was 100% in France, 100% in Italy, and 99.8% in Spain.

CONCLUSION

This economic analysis shows that first-line treatment with erlotinib, versus standard chemotherapy, is a dominant strategy for EGFR-mutated advanced-stage NSCLC in three European countries.

The importance of test accuracy in economic evaluations of companion diagnostics

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations of companion diagnostics often fail to include the impact that tests have on the overall economic value of test-drug combinations. 

METHODS

To illustrate the importance of test accuracy on the cost-effectiveness of companion diagnostics by means of examples. Data were extracted from the literature.

RESULTS

The accuracy of a test and in particularly its specificity, is often more influential on the overall cost-effectiveness results than the price of the test. Specificity becomes more crucial when prevalence of the biomarker is low. Multiple, simultaneous testing faces specific challenges regarding its overall specificity.

CONCLUSION

This article opens a discussion on some fundamental points linked to economic evaluations of test-therapy combinations.

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.

The Impact of Molecularly Targeted Treatment on Direct Medical Costs in Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose

To investigate the impact of targeted treatment on direct medical costs of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Materials and Methods

Medical records of 108 stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients treated in Seoul National University Hospital between 2003 and 2009, were reviewed to collect medical resources utilization data from the diagnosis of stage IIIB/IV NSCLC to the end of active anti-cancer treatment. The direct medical costs were calculated by multiplying the number of medical resources used by the unit price. All costs were expressed in US dollars for each patient.

Results

The mean total direct medical costs were $34,732 (standard deviation, 21,168) in the study cohort. The mean total direct medical costs were higher in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation (EGFR MT)–positive patients than EGFR wild-type (EGFR WT) patients ($41,403 vs. $30,146, p=0.005). However, the mean monthly direct medical costs did not differ significantly between EGFR MT–positive patients and EGFR WT patients ($2,120 vs. $2,702, p=0.119) because of the longer duration of active anti-cancer treatment in EGFR MT–positive patients. This discrepancy was mainly attributable to EGFR MT–positive patients’ lower non-chemotherapy costs ($948 vs. $1,522, p=0.007). The total and monthly direct medical costs of ALK fusion–positive patients who did not receive ALK inhibitors did not differ from WT/WT patients.

Conclusion

This study suggests that the availability of targeted agents for EGFR MT–positive patients lowers the mean monthly medical costs by prolonging survival and diminishing the use of other medical resources, despite the considerable drug costs.

Role of the pulmonologist in ordering post-procedure molecular markers in non-small-cell lung cancer: implications for personalized medicine

In the growing era of personalized medicine for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), it is becoming increasingly important that sufficient quality and quantity of tumor tissue are available for morphologic diagnosis and molecular analysis. As new treatment options emerge that might require more frequent and possibly higher volume biopsies, the role of the pulmonologist will expand, and it will be important for pulmonologists to work within a multidisciplinary team to provide optimal therapeutic management for patients with NSCLC. In this review, we discuss the rationale for individualized treatment decisions for patients with NSCLC, molecular pathways and specific molecular predictors relevant to personalized NSCLC therapy, assay technologies for molecular marker analysis, and specifics regarding tumor specimen selection, acquisition, and handling. Moreover, we briefly address issues regarding racial and socioeconomic disparities as they relate to molecular testing and treatment decisions, and cost considerations for molecular testing and targeted therapies in NSCLC. We also propose a model for an institution-based multidisciplinary team, including oncologists, pathologists, pulmonologists, interventional radiologists, and thoracic surgeons, to ensure adequate material is available for cytological and histological studies and to standardize methods of tumor specimen handling and processing in an effort to provide beneficial, individualized therapy for patients with NSCLC.

Real-world healthcare resource utilization in a European non-small cell lung cancer population: the EPICLIN-Lung study

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of data on health resource assessment in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to inform clinical decision-making. The Epidemiological Study to Describe NSCLC Clinical Management Pattern in Europe-Lung (EPICLIN-Lung) study provides information on healthcare resource utilization associated with different NSCLC treatment strategies in real-life clinical settings.

METHODS

This multinational, multicenter, non-interventional study (NCT00831909) was conducted in eight European countries in 2009-2010. Patients with confirmed NSCLC were enrolled and followed for 12 months or until death. Information was collected on patient and disease characteristics, diagnosis and treatment patterns. Healthcare resource utilization was described in relation to diagnostic patterns and treatment received.

RESULTS

Data were available for 3508 patients (median age=65.0 years, male=77.6%, Caucasian=98.4%, adenocarcinoma=43.8%, stage IV=48.6%, 10.8% never smoked). The overall mean number of hospitalization days was 16.4 (standard deviation (SD)=18.42). Patients were followed up for a mean of 245.8 (131.4) days. Most patients (96.0%) underwent imaging procedures, most commonly scanning (93.9%). Surgery was associated with a mean of 12.5 (9.33) hospitalization days, with lobectomy and extended procedures (20.3%) being the most common surgery types. Radiotherapy resulted in a mean of 11.6 (14.12) hospitalization days. The majority of radiotherapy was palliative (56.0%), which resulted in fewer (mean 9.5 [11.12]) hospitalization days. Administration of systemic treatment resulted in a mean of 6.5 (8.04) hospitalization days, 1.7 (3.59) visits for disease-related events, 2.3 (1.83) adverse events and 5.4 (5.86) blood-specific resources. The key limitations of this study are those inherent to its non-interventional nature and wide regional focus, and the lack of cost-effectiveness data.

CONCLUSIONS

EPICLIN-Lung provides important, Europe-wide information on drivers of healthcare resource use in different treatment strategies for NSCLC.

A generalized health economic and outcomes research model for the evaluation of companion diagnostics and targeted therapies

AIMS

To present a generalized model to evaluate health and economic outcomes of targeted drug therapies and associated companion diagnostic tests with two applications.

METHOD

An analytical model and derivatives applied to a nonlinear equation representing the costs and benefits of targeted therapy and associated companion diagnostics is developed. Economic analysis is then applied to a breast and colorectal cancer application with a multiparameter sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The generalized model readily facilitates trade-off analysis between, for example, alternative diagnostic test strategy cost and performance, and accounts for alternative therapy costs and benefits. Example applications demonstrate test performance and therapy costs and benefits are generally more critical parameters relative to diagnostic test cost.

CONCLUSION

While obtaining accurate data on therapy cost and benefits, test performance remains a key challenge in these analyses, the model presents key trade-offs and priorities for research to obtain more accurate clinical and economic information.

A review of economic impact of targeted oral anticancer medications

There has been a rapid increase in the use of targeted oral anticancer medications (OAMs) in the past decade. As OAMs are often expensive, economic consideration play a significant role in the decision to prescribe, receive or cover them. This paper performs a systematic review of costs or budgetary impact of targeted OAMs to better understand their economic impact on the healthcare system, patients as well as payers. We present our review in a summary table that describes the method and main findings, take into account multiple factors, such as country, analytical approach, cost type, study perspective, timeframe, data sources, study population and care setting when we interpret the results from different papers, and discuss the policy and clinical implications. Our review raises a concern regarding the role of sponsorship on findings of economic analyses as the vast majority of pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies reported cost advantages toward the sponsor's drugs.

Gefitinib: re-emerging from the shadows

SUMMARY In the past decade, the identification of mutations in the EGFR gene and the sensitivity of activating mutations to EGF receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitors has improved survival in a subset of non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Over 70% of patients with EGFR mutations have a response to gefitinib therapy. Gefitinib, a first-generation EGF receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is well tolerated and continues to be widely used. However, eventually most patients develop resistance to gefitinib. This article reviews the pharmacology of gefitinib and summarizes the clinical trials that have resulted in its current day indications.

Update on the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: focus on the cost-effectiveness of new agents

Background

The incidence of lung cancer and the cost of drug treatment have increased dramatically in the last decade. This article examines the costs of new target agents, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and anti-angiogenic drugs.

Methods

This study uses PubMed research to focus on the topics of lung cancer, economics, and new targeted therapies.

Results

The published papers only addressed TKIs and anti-angiogenic antibodies. For gefitinib, the results favored a clinical-based selection, despite the low number of studies. Erlotinib was studied in second line and as a maintenance treatment (with the studies reaching opposite conclusions in terms of cost-effectiveness). Economic analyses were not in favor of bevacizumab, but the studies on this topic were very heterogeneous.

Conclusion

The economic impact of a drug depends on the health care system organization. Future clinical trials must include economic analyses, particularly with TKIs in the first line.

A systematic review of economic evaluations in second and later lines of therapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Surgery is generally accepted as the first-line treatment in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy as second-line treatments. Docetaxel or erlotinib are generally recommended as the first-line chemotherapy option. The objective of this review was to identify previously published economic evaluations in NSCLC for second- and later-line treatments in order to (i) determine common modelling approaches and (ii) establish the relative cost effectiveness of these treatments. An overview of model critique was also produced to identify common criticisms from health technology assessment (HTA) bodies on the models submitted.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, MEDLINE in Process(®) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED) were searched (database start-October 2011), along with proceedings from eight major conferences (2007-2011). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) websites and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) database were also searched for appraisals in second- or later-line NSCLC. All published studies and HTA appraisals that reported economic evaluations of interventions used in current clinical practice as second- or later-line treatment in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC were included. Only studies in English were considered for inclusion. Studies which met the eligibility criteria after the screening of full-text articles were extracted by a reviewer and checked by a second party. Where multiple publications were identified describing a single study, the extracted data were compiled into one entry.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies were included which clearly evaluated second-line or later-line regimens. Most studies were either cost-effectiveness or cost-utility evaluations. Three-state transition Markov models were frequently used in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility evaluations. The model inputs were well reported and commonly consisted of data from pivotal trials. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in the majority of studies and covered variables such as cost, effectiveness, hospitalization and treatment duration. Therapies (docetaxel, pemetrexed and erlotinib) are for the most part cost-effective/cost-saving second-line therapies compared with best supportive care (BSC). Six erlotinib HTAs, across NICE, SMC, and PBAC, and four pemetrexed HTAs, one by NICE and three by SMC, were identified. The CADTH website did not provide sufficient detail on the appraisals and was excluded. Certain aspects of the models and model assumptions, e.g. efficacy inputs, were criticized or determined unjustifiable by the NICE, SMC and PBAC appraisal committees. Erlotinib and pemetrexed were considered to be cost effective versus docetaxel by NICE and SMC in the final submissions. PBAC considered erlotinib to be cost effective versus BSC following a price reduction in 2008.

CONCLUSION

Three-state Markov models are often used to conduct economic analysis in NSCLC and are regarded as appropriate to HTA agencies. Docetaxel, erlotinib and BSC are suitable comparators that should be considered for use in the model in the UK and Australia. Further, manufacturers should carefully select underlying assumptions used in the model, for both costs and clinical inputs, where the latter is derived from direct head-to-head trial data.

How affordable are targeted therapies in non-small cell lung cancer?

As the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) evolves to include more targeted therapies, costs of treatment have increased significantly. Advances in NSCLC treatment include longer survival duration, and in some cases, better progression-free survival and quality of life, and the potential for decreased toxicity. Through pharmacoeconomic analyses, payors seek to value the improvements in outcomes from novel therapies, and relate these improvements to their costs. In NSCLC, three categories of novel agents have been introduced into clinical practice: (1) agents targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR); (2) agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and (3) novel chemotherapy agents, specifically pemetrexed. Here we review published economic analyses for these agents in lung cancer, and their potential impact on treatment decisions.

Oncogenic targets, magnitude of benefit, and market pricing of antineoplastic drugs

PURPOSE

The relationship between market pricing of new anticancer drugs and the magnitude of clinical benefit caused by them has not been reported.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated approved new agents for solid tumors by the U.S. Food and Drug administration since the year 2000 were assessed. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were extracted for time-to-event end points described for each RCT. HRs were pooled for three groups: agents directed against a specific molecular target, for which the target population is selected by a biomarker (group A); less specific biologic targeted agents (group B); and chemotherapeutic agents (group C). Monthly market prices of these different drugs were compared.

RESULTS

For overall survival (OS), the pooled HR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.81) for group A (six drugs, six trials); it was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.83) for group B (seven drugs, 14 trials); and it was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.90) for group C (eight drugs, 12 trials). For progression-free survival (PFS), the pooled HR was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.49) for group A (six drugs, seven trials); it was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.64) for group B (seven drugs, 14 trials); and it was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.85) for group C (six drugs, 10 trials). Tests for heterogeneity between subgroups were highly significant for PFS (P < .001) and OS (P = .02). The median monthly prices for standard doses of drugs were $5375 for group A, $5644 for group B, and $6584 for group C (P = .87).

CONCLUSION

New agents with specific molecular targets are clinically the most beneficial, but their monthly market prices are not significantly different from those of other anticancer agents.