Oscar Arrieta1, Pablo Anaya2, Vicente Morales-Oyarvide3, Laura Alejandra Ramírez-Tirado3, Ana C Polanco4. 1. Unit of Thoracic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología (INCan), San Fernando #22, Col. Sección XVI, Tlalpan, 14080, México City, Mexico. ogarrieta@gmail.com. 2. IMS Health, Mexico City, Mexico. 3. Unit of Thoracic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología (INCan), San Fernando #22, Col. Sección XVI, Tlalpan, 14080, México City, Mexico. 4. AstraZeneca, Mexico City, Mexico.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assess the cost-effectiveness of an EGFR-mutation testing strategy for advanced NSCLC in first-line therapy with either gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in Mexican institutions. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a discrete event simulation (DES) model to simulate two therapeutic strategies in patients with advanced NSCLC. Strategy one included patients tested for EGFR-mutation and therapy given accordingly. Strategy two included chemotherapy for all patients without testing. All results are presented in 2014 US dollars. The analysis was made with data from the Mexican frequency of EGFR-mutation. A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted on EGFR prevalence. Progression-free survival (PFS) transition probabilities were estimated on data from the IPASS and simulated with a Weibull distribution, run with parallel trials to calculate a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: PFS of patients in the testing strategy was 6.76 months (95 % CI 6.10-7.44) vs 5.85 months (95 % CI 5.43-6.29) in the non-testing group. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that PFS has a direct relationship with EGFR-mutation prevalence, while the ICER and testing cost have an inverse relationship with EGFR-mutation prevalence. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that all iterations had incremental costs and incremental PFS for strategy 1 in comparison with strategy 2. CONCLUSION: There is a direct relationship between the ICER and the cost of EGFR testing, with an inverse relationship with the prevalence of EGFR-mutation. When prevalence is >10 % ICER remains constant. This study could impact Mexican and Latin American health policies regarding mutation detection testing and treatment for advanced NSCLC.
OBJECTIVE: Assess the cost-effectiveness of an EGFR-mutation testing strategy for advanced NSCLC in first-line therapy with either gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in Mexican institutions. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a discrete event simulation (DES) model to simulate two therapeutic strategies in patients with advanced NSCLC. Strategy one included patients tested for EGFR-mutation and therapy given accordingly. Strategy two included chemotherapy for all patients without testing. All results are presented in 2014 US dollars. The analysis was made with data from the Mexican frequency of EGFR-mutation. A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted on EGFR prevalence. Progression-free survival (PFS) transition probabilities were estimated on data from the IPASS and simulated with a Weibull distribution, run with parallel trials to calculate a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: PFS of patients in the testing strategy was 6.76 months (95 % CI 6.10-7.44) vs 5.85 months (95 % CI 5.43-6.29) in the non-testing group. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that PFS has a direct relationship with EGFR-mutation prevalence, while the ICER and testing cost have an inverse relationship with EGFR-mutation prevalence. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that all iterations had incremental costs and incremental PFS for strategy 1 in comparison with strategy 2. CONCLUSION: There is a direct relationship between the ICER and the cost of EGFR testing, with an inverse relationship with the prevalence of EGFR-mutation. When prevalence is >10 % ICER remains constant. This study could impact Mexican and Latin American health policies regarding mutation detection testing and treatment for advanced NSCLC.
Authors: Oscar Arrieta; Andrés Felipe Cardona; Guillermo Federico Bramuglia; Aly Gallo; Alma D Campos-Parra; Silvia Serrano; Marcelo Castro; Alejandro Avilés; Edgar Amorin; Ricardo Kirchuk; Mauricio Cuello; José Borbolla; Omar Riemersma; Henry Becerra; Rafael Rosell Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Oscar Arrieta; Andrés F Cardona; Claudio Martín; Luis Más-López; Luis Corrales-Rodríguez; Guillermo Bramuglia; Omar Castillo-Fernandez; Matthew Meyerson; Eduardo Amieva-Rivera; Alma Delia Campos-Parra; Hernán Carranza; Juan Carlos Gómez de la Torre; Yanina Powazniak; Fernando Aldaco-Sarvide; Carlos Vargas; Mariana Trigo; Manuel Magallanes-Maciel; Jorge Otero; Roberto Sánchez-Reyes; Mauricio Cuello Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 15.609
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: Dorothy Romanus; Stephanie Cardarella; David Cutler; Mary Beth Landrum; Neal I Lindeman; G Scott Gazelle Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 15.609
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: Joyce H S You; William C S Cho; Wai-Kit Ming; Yu-Chung Li; Chung-Kong Kwan; Kwok-Hung Au; Joseph Siu-Kie Au Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Oscar Arrieta; Rodrigo Catalán; Silvia Guzmán-Vazquez; Feliciano Barrón; Luis Lara-Mejía; Herman Soto-Molina; Maritza Ramos-Ramírez; Diana Flores-Estrada; Jaime de la Garza Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 4.430