INTRODUCTION: Economic analyses of upcoming treatments for lung cancer benefit from real-world health utility scores (HUSs) in an era of targeted therapy. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre evaluated 1571 EQ5D-3L-derived HUSs in 475 outpatients with metastatic lung cancer across various disease states. Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (n = 183) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) (n = 38) driver alterations were enriched through targeted enrolment; patients with wild-type non-small-cell lung cancer (WT NSCLC) (n = 224) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) (n = 30) were sampled randomly. RESULTS: For patients stable on most appropriate treatment, the mean HUSs were 0.81 and 0.82 in patients receiving EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) respectively (with similar HUSs across agents), which were higher than patients with WT NSCLC (0.78; P = .04) and SCLC receiving chemotherapy (0.72; P = .06). In mutation-specific comparisons, disease stability on appropriate therapy resulted in significantly higher mean HUSs (P < .002-.02) than when disease was progressing (mean HUS: EGFR, 0.70; ALK, 0.69; WT NSCLC, 0.66; SCLC, 0.52). When evaluating treatment-related toxicities, significant inverse relationships were observed between HUS and the severity of fatigue and decreased appetite in the EGFR group. There was also a significant inverse relationship between the total number of clinically significant symptoms and HUS, both in patients who were EGFR-mutated and patients with WT NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: In a North American setting, HUSs generated from patients with metastatic lung cancer are higher in treated, stable patients carrying driver mutations. This is partially explainable by treatment toxicity and patient symptom differences. Such differences in scores should be considered in economic analyses.
INTRODUCTION: Economic analyses of upcoming treatments for lung cancer benefit from real-world health utility scores (HUSs) in an era of targeted therapy. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre evaluated 1571 EQ5D-3L-derived HUSs in 475 outpatients with metastatic lung cancer across various disease states. Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (n = 183) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) (n = 38) driver alterations were enriched through targeted enrolment; patients with wild-type non-small-cell lung cancer (WT NSCLC) (n = 224) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) (n = 30) were sampled randomly. RESULTS: For patients stable on most appropriate treatment, the mean HUSs were 0.81 and 0.82 in patients receiving EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) respectively (with similar HUSs across agents), which were higher than patients with WT NSCLC (0.78; P = .04) and SCLC receiving chemotherapy (0.72; P = .06). In mutation-specific comparisons, disease stability on appropriate therapy resulted in significantly higher mean HUSs (P < .002-.02) than when disease was progressing (mean HUS: EGFR, 0.70; ALK, 0.69; WT NSCLC, 0.66; SCLC, 0.52). When evaluating treatment-related toxicities, significant inverse relationships were observed between HUS and the severity of fatigue and decreased appetite in the EGFR group. There was also a significant inverse relationship between the total number of clinically significant symptoms and HUS, both in patients who were EGFR-mutated and patients with WT NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: In a North American setting, HUSs generated from patients with metastatic lung cancer are higher in treated, stable patients carrying driver mutations. This is partially explainable by treatment toxicity and patient symptom differences. Such differences in scores should be considered in economic analyses.
Authors: Yong-Jin Kim; Mark Oremus; Helen H Chen; Thomas McFarlane; Danielle Fearon; Susan Horton Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Grainne M O'Kane; Jie Su; Brandon C Tse; Vivian Tam; Tiffany Tse; Lin Lu; Michael Borean; Emily Tam; Catherine Labbé; Hiten Naik; Nicole Mittmann; Mark K Doherty; Penelope A Bradbury; Natasha B Leighl; Frances A Shepherd; Nadine M Richard; Kim Edelstein; David Shultz; M Catherine Brown; Wei Xu; Doris Howell; Geoffrey Liu Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-04-05
Authors: Olivia M Dong; Pradeep J Poonnen; David Winski; Shelby D Reed; Vishal Vashistha; Jill Bates; Michael J Kelley; Deepak Voora Journal: Value Health Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: M Moskovitz; K Jao; J Su; M C Brown; H Naik; L Eng; T Wang; J Kuo; Y Leung; W Xu; N Mittmann; L Moody; L Barbera; G Devins; M Li; D Howell; G Liu Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Andrew J Schoenfeld; Caleb M Yeung; Daniel G Tobert; Lananh Nguyen; Peter G Passias; John H Shin; James D Kang; Marco L Ferrone Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Geoffrey Liu; Grainne M O'Kane; Ali Vedadi; Sharara Shakik; M Catherine Brown; Benjamin H Lok; Frances A Shepherd; Natasha B Leighl; Adrian Sacher; Penelope A Bradbury; Wei Xu Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 3.440