Bevacizumab reduces peritumoral brain edema in lung cancer brain metastases after radiotherapy

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab for cerebral radiation necrosis treatment based on real-world utility value in China

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab shows superior efficacy in cerebral radiation necrosis (CRN) therapy, but its economic burden remains heavy due to the high drug price. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab for CRN treatment from the Chinese payers' perspective.

METHODS

A decision tree model was developed to compare the costs and health outcomes of bevacizumab and corticosteroids for CRN therapy. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the NCT01621880 trial, which compared the effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab monotherapy with corticosteroids for CRN in nasopharyngeal cancer patients, and demonstrated that bevacizumab invoked a significantly higher response than corticosteroids (65.5% vs. 31.5%, P < 0.001) with no significant differences in adverse events between two groups. The utility value of the "non-recurrence" status was derived from real-world data. Costs and other utility values were collected from an authoritative Chinese network database and published literature. The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was evaluated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Bevacizumab treatment added 0.12 (0.48 vs. 0.36) QALYs compared to corticosteroid therapy, along with incremental costs of $ 2010 ($ 4260 vs. $ 2160). The resultant ICER was $ 16,866/QALY, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $ 38,223/QALY in China. The price of bevacizumab, body weight, and the utility value of recurrence status were the key influential parameters for ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of bevacizumab being cost-effectiveness was 84.9%.

CONCLUSION

Compared with corticosteroids, bevacizumab is an economical option for CRN treatment in China.

Effectiveness and safety of the bevacizumab and erlotinib combination versus erlotinib alone in EGFR mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The EGFR gene encodes a protein that stimulates molecular pathways that allow the growth and development of the tumor microenvironment. The current preferred tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for the first-line treatment of EGFRm metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is osimertinib. However, the combination of angiogenesis inhibitors and TKI has produced discordant results. We aimed to assess the effects of the bevacizumab and erlotinib combination in EGFRm metastatic NSCLC.

Methods

Using eligibility criteria focused on patients with EGFRm metastatic NSCLC treated with bevacizumab and erlotinib, we searched databases including clinical trial randomized studies and reviews published until April 15, 2023 in Medline (PubMed), Scopus, and Embase. Eight clinical trials (1,052 patients) were selected from 1,343 articles for quantitative and qualitative assessment. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Data were synthesized through random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

The bevacizumab and erlotinib combination significantly improved the progression-free survival (PFS) (log(HR) = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.54-0.73, p < 0.001) and overall response ratio (ORR) (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97, p = 0.03). However, it did not improve the overall survival (log(HR) = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.10, p = 0.38) and was associated with higher serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR = 3.48; 95% CI, 1.76-6.88, p = 0.005). A subgroup analysis suggested similar benefits in different mutation subtypes and brain metastasis condition. The evidence is limited by a moderate risk of bias across studies and heterogeneity in the reporting of SAEs.

Conclusions

The bevacizumab and erlotinib combination significantly improved PFS and ORR in EGFRm metastatic NSCLC but were also associated with higher-grade (≥3) adverse events. These results suggest that while the combination therapy may enhance progression-free survival and overall response, it does not improve the overall survival and is associated with higher toxicity. Thus, the treatment should be personalized based on individual patient comorbidities. Further prospective trials are needed to validate these results.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced, identifier CDR 42022364692.