Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of First-Line Therapies for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

VBCC - November 2012, Volume 3, No 8 - ESMO 2012 Conference
Caroline Helwick

Vienna, Austria—Costs associated with first-line pemetrexed/cisplatin are significantly lower than those of carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to an anal­ysis presented at the 2012 Euro­pean Society for Medical Oncol­ogy Congress.

“This is the first known study that used real-world, nontrial data to eval­uate the outpatient care cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed/cisplatin relative to 2 other first-line regimens for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC,” said Katherine B. Winfree, PhD, MPH, Research Scientist, Global Outcomes, Oncol­ogy, Eli Lilly and Company.

The study compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of outpatient management with these regimens in patients with advanced NSCLC. The data came from the International Oncology Network database, which documents care by 20 large US community oncology practices. The index date was the initiation of first-line therapy.

Of approximately 5000 patients, 234 (78 matched pairs per treatment type) were selected for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Costs included charges for chemotherapy, supportive care, and physician and nursing services.

Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Less Costly, More Effective than Triplet
Incremental costs were measured as differences in costs during the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) periods for each matched pair.

Median PFS was 128 days in patients receiving pemetrexed/cisplatin versus 112 for patients receiving carboplatin/ paclitaxel/bevacizumab (P = .007) and 105 days in patients receiving carboplatin/paclitaxel (P = .004).

The median OS was 327 days in patients treated with pemetrexed/cisplatin, 279 days in patients treated with carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, and 234 in patients treated with car­boplatin/paclitaxel, a nonsignificant difference.

Considering the treatment costs, as well as the improvement in PFS, the costs associated with first-line therapy were significantly lower with pemetrexed/cisplatin than with carboplatin/ paclitaxel/bevacizumab; however, as expected, the costs were significantly higher with pemetrexed/cisplatin treatment than with carboplatin/paclitaxel—primarily a result of the underlying difference in the drug costs, Dr Winfree noted.

Mean PFS costs were approximately $43,000 for pemetrexed/cisplatin, $61,000 for carboplatin/paclitaxel/ bevacizumab, and $18,000 for carboplatin/paclitaxel. The overall costs of treatment were approximately $40,000, $58,000, and $14,000, respectively.

“Costs associated with first-line therapy with pemetrexed/cisplatin were significantly lower than those of carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab. Further evaluation is warranted to identify possible drivers of this difference, such as bevacizumab utilization (including maintenance), differences in number of cycles, and so forth,” Dr Winfree said.

“But patients treated with pemetrexed/cisplatin experienced a significant PFS benefit and trended toward being more effective and less costly com­pared with carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab for both PFS and OS,” she said.

More Costly, but Improved PFS, versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel
The analysis also showed that pemetrexed/cisplatin was more costly than carboplatin/paclitaxel, but with a potential incremental clinical benefit, Dr Winfree emphasized. Patients treated with pemetrexed/cisplatin had a significant PFS benefit compared with carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab. The doublet was more effective and less costly than carboplatin/paclitaxel/ bevacizumab for PFS and OS (although the differences were not significant).

“Therefore, depending on society’s or payers’ willingness to pay threshold, pemetrexed/cisplatin may be seen as cost-effective compared to carboplat­in/paclitaxel, because it demonstrated greater effectiveness at a higher cost,” Dr Winfree concluded.

Related Items
Can Some Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Stop Treatment?
Caroline Helwick
Web Exclusives published on August 30, 2017 in Multiple Sclerosis
Oral Ozanimod: A Safer Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulator?
Caroline Helwick
Web Exclusives published on June 26, 2017 in Multiple Sclerosis
Vitamin D Supplementation Shows Benefits in Multiple Sclerosis, but Questions Remain
Caroline Helwick
Web Exclusives published on March 31, 2017 in Multiple Sclerosis
Ocrelizumab Receives Breakthrough Therapy for Progressive Multiple Sclerosis
Caroline Helwick
VBCN - April 2016 Volume 3, No 1 published on May 3, 2016 in Multiple Sclerosis
Ozanimod Achieves Very Low Relapse Rate in MS
Caroline Helwick
VBCN - April 2016 Volume 3, No 1 published on May 3, 2016 in Multiple Sclerosis
Stem-Cell Transplantation Shows Promise in Multiple Sclerosis, but Major Concerns Remain
Caroline Helwick
VBCN - April 2016 Volume 3, No 1 published on May 3, 2016 in Multiple Sclerosis
Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis Explored by Cost-Effectiveness
Caroline Helwick
VBCR - June 2015, Volume 4, No 3 published on June 29, 2015 in Psoriatic Arthritis
Treatment Outcomes and Cost Assessed for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Caroline Helwick
VBCR - June 2015, Volume 4, No 3 published on June 29, 2015 in Lupus
Ankylosing Spondylitis Treatment Costs Assessed
Caroline Helwick
VBCR - June 2015, Volume 4, No 3 published on June 29, 2015 in Ankylosing Spondylitis
Patients with Myeloma Satisfied with Their Care but Feel Unprepared to Discuss Treatment Choices
Caroline Helwick
Value-Based Care in Myeloma published on February 26, 2015 in Multiple Myeloma
Last modified: May 28, 2014
  • Rheumatology Practice Management
  • Lynx CME
  • American Health & Drug Benefits
  • Value-Based Cancer Care
  • Value-Based Care in Myeloma
  • Value-Based Care in Neurology