A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of targeted therapies for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

BMC Pulmonary Medicine

J-Matthias von der Schulenburg¹  Tobias Welte²  Heiko Golpon²  Martin Frank¹  Anne Prenzler¹  Ansgar Lange¹ 

[1] Leibniz University Hannover, Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Otto-Brenner-Str. 1, D-30159 Hannover, Germany;Hannover Medical School, Clinic for Pneumology, Hannover, Germany

关键词: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors;    Cost-utility analysis;    Cost-effectiveness analysis;    Health economics;    Targeted therapy;    Afatinib;    Crizotinib;    Gefitinib;    Erlotinib;    Bevacizumab;    Monoclonal antibody;    Non-small cell lung cancer;   

Others  :  1091030
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2466-14-192

 received in 2013-07-25, accepted in 2014-11-20,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) imposes a substantial burden on patients, health care systems and society due to increasing incidence and poor survival rates. In recent years, advances in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC have resulted from the introduction of targeted therapies. However, the application of these new agents increases treatment costs considerably. The objective of this article is to review the economic evidence of targeted therapies in metastatic NSCLC.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify cost-effectiveness (CE) as well as cost-utility studies. Medline, Embase, SciSearch, Cochrane, and 9 other databases were searched from 2000 through April 2013 (including update) for full-text publications. The quality of the studies was assessed via the validated Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

Results

Nineteen studies (including update) involving the MoAb bevacizumab and the Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors erlotinib and gefitinib met all inclusion criteria. The majority of studies analyzed the CE of first-line maintenance and second-line treatment with erlotinib. Five studies dealt with bevacizumab in first-line regimes. Gefitinib and pharmacogenomic profiling were each covered by only two studies. Furthermore, the available evidence was of only fair quality.

Conclusion

First-line maintenance treatment with erlotinib compared to Best Supportive Care (BSC) can be considered cost-effective. In comparison to docetaxel, erlotinib is likely to be cost-effective in subsequent treatment regimens as well. The insights for bevacizumab are miscellaneous. There are findings that gefitinib is cost-effective in first- and second-line treatment, however, based on only two studies. The role of pharmacogenomic testing needs to be evaluated. Therefore, future research should improve the available evidence and consider pharmacogenomic profiling as specified by the European Medicines Agency. Upcoming agents like crizotinib and afatinib need to be analyzed as well.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Lange et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]World Health Organisation: Globocan. 2008. http://globocan.iarc.fr webcite
• [2]Bray F, Jemal A, Grey N, Ferlay J, Forman D: Global cancer transitions according to the Human Development Index (2008–2030): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2012, 13:790-801.
• [3]American Cancer Society: Lung Cancer (Non-Small Cell). http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/003115-pdf.pdf webcite
• [4]Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Ruhl J, Howlader N, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis Cronin K, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2007, National Cancer Institute. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/ webcite
• [5]Spiro SG, Gould MK, Colice GL: Initial evaluation of the patient with lung cancer: symptoms, signs, laboratory tests, and paraneoplastic syndromes: ACCP evidenced-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). Chest 2007, 132:149S-160S.
• [6]Schultheis A, Wolf J, Büttner R: Lungenkarzinom. Internist 2013, 54:179-187.
• [7]European Medicines Agency (EMA): Merck KGaA Withdraws its Application for an Extension of the Indication for Erbitux (cetuximab). http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2012/09/news_detail_001608.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1 webcite
• [8]Fojo T, Grady C: How much is life worth: cetuximab, non-small cell lung cancer, and the $440 billion question. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101:1044-1048.
• [9]Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD): StatExtracts: PPPs and Exchange Rates. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=SNA_TABLE4 webcite
• [10]Ofman JJ, Sullivan SD, Neumann PJ, Chiou C, Henning JM, Wade SW, Hay JW: Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Manag Care Pharm 2003, 9:53-61.
• [11]Spiegel BMR, Targownik LE, Kanwal F, Derosa V, Dulai GS, Gralnek IM, Chiou C: The quality of published health economic analyses in digestive diseases: a systematic review and quantitative appraisal. Gastroenterology 2004, 127:403-411.
• [12]Carlson JJ, Reyes C, Oestreicher N, Lubeck D, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL: Comparative clinical and economic outcomes of treatments for refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer 2008, 61:405-415.
• [13]Vergnenegre A, Ray JA, Chouaid C, Grossi F, Bischoff HG, Heigener DF, Walzer S: Cross-market cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with stable non-small cell lung cancer. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2012, 4:31-37.
• [14]Walleser S, Ray J, Bischoff H, Vergnenegre A, Rosery H, Chouaid C, Heigener D, J DCC, Tiseo M, Walzer S: Maintenance erlotinib in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: cost-effectiveness in EGFR wild-type across Europe. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2012, 4:269-275.
• [15]Klein R, Wielage R, Muehlenbein C, Liepa AM, Babineaux S, Lawson A, Schwartzberg L: Cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed as first-line maintenance therapy for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2010, 5:1263-1272.
• [16]Wang S, Peng L, Li J, Zeng X, Ouyang L, Tan C, Lu Q, Minna JD: A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib alone versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line therapy for Eastern Asian nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer. PLoS One 2013, 8:e55917.
• [17]Araújo A, Parente B, Sotto-Mayor R, Teixeira E, Almodovar T, Barata F, Queiroga H, Pereira C, Pereira H, Negreiro F, Silva C: An economic analysis of erlotinib, docetaxel, pemetrexed and best supportive care as second or third line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Rev Port Pneumol 2008, 14:803-827.
• [18]Lewis G, Peake M, Aultman R, Gyldmark M, Morlotti L, Creeden J, De LOM: Cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus docetaxel for second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the United Kingdom. J Int Med Res 2010, 38:9-21.
• [19]Thongprasert S, Tinmanee S, Permsuwan U: Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of gefitinib in second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer from Thai payer perspective. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2012, 8:53-61.
• [20]Cromwell I, van der Hoek K, Melosky B, Peacock S: Erlotinib or docetaxel for second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis. J Thorac Oncol 2011, 6:2097-2103.
• [21]Cromwell I, van der Hoek K, Malfair Taylor SC, Melosky B, Peacock S: Erlotinib or best supportive care for third-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis. Lung Cancer 2012, 76:472-477.
• [22]Bradbury PA, Tu D, Seymour L, Isogai PK, Zhu L, Ng R, Mittmann N, Tsao M, Evans WK, Shepherd FA, Leighl NB: Economic analysis: randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial of erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010, 102:298-306.
• [23]Zhu J, Li T, Wang X, Ye M, Cai J, Xu Y, Wu B: Gene-guided gefitinib switch maintenance therapy for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer: an economic analysis. BMC Cancer 2013, 13:39. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Chouaid C, Le Caer H, Locher C, Dujon C, Thomas P, Auliac JB, Monnet I, Vergnenegre A: Cost effectivenes of erlotinib versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in fit elderly patients participating in a prospective phase 2 study (GFPC 0504). BMC Cancer 2012, 12:301. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Chouaid C, Le Caer H, Corre R, Crequit J, Locher C, Falchero L, Dujon C, Berard H, Monnet I, Vergnenegre A: Cost analysis of erlotinib versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer in frail elderly patients participating in a prospective phase 2 study (GFPC 0505). Clin Lung Cancer 2013, 14:103-107.
• [26]Carlson JJ, Garrison LP, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL: The potential clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacogenomic approaches to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer. Value Health 2009, 12:20-27.
• [27]Giuliani G, Grossi F, de Marinis F, Walzer S: Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab versus pemetrexed for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in Italy. Lung Cancer 2010, 69(Suppl 1):S11-7.
• [28]Ahn M, Tsai C, Hsia T, Wright E, Chang JW, Kim HT, Kim J, Kang JH, Kim S, Bae E, Kang M, Lister J, Walzer S: Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab-based therapy versus cisplatin plus pemetrexed for the first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC in Korea and Taiwan. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2011, 7(Suppl 2):22-33.
• [29]Goulart B, Ramsey S: A trial-based assessment of the cost-utility of bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Value Health 2011, 14:836-845.
• [30]Klein R, Muehlenbein C, Liepa AM, Babineaux S, Wielage R, Schwartzberg L: Cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed plus cisplatin as first-line therapy for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2009, 4:1404-1414.
• [31]Bongers ML, Coupe VMH, Jansma EP, Smit EF, Uyl-de Groot CA: Cost effectiveness of treatment with new agents in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics 2012, 30:17-34.
• [32]Jakel A, Plested M, Dharamshi K, Modha R, Bridge S, Johns A: A systematic review of economic evaluations in second and later lines of therapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2013, 11:27-43.
• [33]Lange A, Prenzler A, Frank M, Kirstein M, Vogel A, von der Schulenburg JM: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer. European journal of cancer 2014, 50:40-49.
• [34]European Medicines Agency (EMA): Iressa (gefitinib). http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/001016/human_med_000857.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124 webcite
• [35]Frank M, Mittendorf T: Influence of pharmacogenomic profiling prior to pharmaceutical treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer on cost effectiveness. A systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics 2013, 31:215-228.
• [36]Badger D, Nursten J, Williams P, Woodward M: Should all literature reviews be systematic? Eval Res Educ 2000, 14:220-230.
• [37]Evers S, Goossens M, De VH, Van Tulder M, Ament A: Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005, 21:240-245.