Katharina Schremser1, Wolf H Rogowski2,3, Sigrid Adler-Reichel4, Amanda L H Tufman5, Rudolf M Huber5, Björn Stollenwerk2. 1. Helmholtz Zentrum München (GmbH), German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH), Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Member of the German Center for Lung Research, Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85758, Neuherberg, Germany. katharina.schremser@helmholtz-muenchen.de. 2. Helmholtz Zentrum München (GmbH), German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH), Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Member of the German Center for Lung Research, Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85758, Neuherberg, Germany. 3. Institute and Outpatient Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Clinical Center, University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 4. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Medical Clinic and Policlinic IV, University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 5. Division of Respiratory Medicine and Thoracic Oncology, Medical Clinic and Policlinic V, Thoracic Oncology Centre Munich, University of Munich, Member of the German Center for Lung Research, Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Munich, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is among the top causes of cancer-related deaths. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors can increase progression-free survival compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of EGFR mutation analysis and first-line therapy with erlotinib for mutation-positive patients compared with non-individualized standard chemotherapy from the perspective of German statutory health insurance. METHODS: A state transition model was developed for a time horizon of 10 years (reference year 2014). Data sources were published data from the European Tarceva versus Chemotherapy (EURTAC) randomized trial for drug efficacy and safety and German cost data. We additionally performed deterministic, probabilistic and structural sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The individualized strategy incurred 0.013 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and additional costs of € 200, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 15,577/QALY. Results were most sensitive to uncertainty in survival curves and changes in utility values. Cross-validating health utility estimates with recent German data increased the ICER to about € 58,000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the individualized strategy is cost-effective, with a probability exceeding 50 % for a range of possible willingness-to-pay thresholds. LIMITATIONS: The uncertainty of the predicted survival curves is substantial, particularly for overall survival, which was not a primary endpoint in the EURTAC study. Also, there is limited data on quality of life in metastatic lung cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized therapy based on EGFR mutation status has the potential to provide a cost-effective alternative to non-individualized care for patients with advanced adenocarcinoma. Further clinical research is needed to confirm these results.
BACKGROUND:Lung cancer is among the top causes of cancer-related deaths. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors can increase progression-free survival compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of EGFR mutation analysis and first-line therapy with erlotinib for mutation-positive patients compared with non-individualized standard chemotherapy from the perspective of German statutory health insurance. METHODS: A state transition model was developed for a time horizon of 10 years (reference year 2014). Data sources were published data from the European Tarceva versus Chemotherapy (EURTAC) randomized trial for drug efficacy and safety and German cost data. We additionally performed deterministic, probabilistic and structural sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The individualized strategy incurred 0.013 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and additional costs of € 200, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 15,577/QALY. Results were most sensitive to uncertainty in survival curves and changes in utility values. Cross-validating health utility estimates with recent German data increased the ICER to about € 58,000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the individualized strategy is cost-effective, with a probability exceeding 50 % for a range of possible willingness-to-pay thresholds. LIMITATIONS: The uncertainty of the predicted survival curves is substantial, particularly for overall survival, which was not a primary endpoint in the EURTAC study. Also, there is limited data on quality of life in metastatic lung cancerpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized therapy based on EGFR mutation status has the potential to provide a cost-effective alternative to non-individualized care for patients with advanced adenocarcinoma. Further clinical research is needed to confirm these results.
Authors: I Borget; J Cadranel; J-P Pignon; E Quoix; B Coudert; V Westeel; E Dansin; J Madelaine; A Madroszyk; S Friard; C Daniel; F Morin; C Chouaid Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: T Brown; G Pilkington; A Bagust; A Boland; J Oyee; C Tudur-Smith; M Blundell; M Lai; C Martin Saborido; J Greenhalgh; Y Dundar; R Dickson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Gilberto de Lima Lopes; Joel E Segel; Daniel S W Tan; Young K Do; Tony Mok; Eric A Finkelstein Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Arne Warth; Roland Penzel; Regine Brandt; Christine Sers; Jürgen R Fischer; Michael Thomas; Felix J F Herth; Manfred Dietel; Peter Schirmacher; Hendrik Bläker Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Lecia V Sequist; James Chih-Hsin Yang; Nobuyuki Yamamoto; Kenneth O'Byrne; Vera Hirsh; Tony Mok; Sarayut Lucien Geater; Sergey Orlov; Chun-Ming Tsai; Michael Boyer; Wu-Chou Su; Jaafar Bennouna; Terufumi Kato; Vera Gorbunova; Ki Hyeong Lee; Riyaz Shah; Dan Massey; Victoria Zazulina; Mehdi Shahidi; Martin Schuler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N Facciolongo; M Patelli; S Gasparini; L Lazzari Agli; M Salio; C Simonassi; B Del Prato; P Zanoni Journal: Monaldi Arch Chest Dis Date: 2009-03
Authors: Gursharan K Sohi; Jordan Levy; Victoria Delibasic; Laura E Davis; Alyson L Mahar; Elmira Amirazodi; Craig C Earle; Julie Hallet; Ahmed Hammad; Rajan Shah; Nicole Mittmann; Natalie G Coburn Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2021-03-09
Authors: Kathryn R Tringale; Kate T Carroll; Kaveh Zakeri; Assuntina G Sacco; Linda Barnachea; James D Murphy Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ruxu You; Jinyu Liu; David Bin-Chia Wu; XinYu Qian; Boxiang Lyu; Yu Zhang; Nan Luo Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 3.989