Testing for targetable alterations in a panel of genes is moderately more cost-effective than testing for single genetic markers in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), finds a retrospective cohort study.
“Targeted therapies are now a therapeutic cornerstone for patients with [advanced NSCLC], but the best diagnostic approach for identifying those who are eligible for treatment remains uncertain,” noted the investigators, led by Lotte Steuten, PhD, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.
Using the Flatiron Health database, the investigators identified 5,688 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who were tested for targetable genetic alterations. Overall, 15.4% of the patients had multigene panel sequencing (MGPS) entailing evaluation of at least 30 genes, while the rest had single-marker genetic testing (SMGT) entailing evaluation of markers for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) or a smaller panel of variants.
Study results, reported in, showed that 22% of the entire study cohort tested positive for EGFR mutations (18.5% with MGPS, 17.3% with SMGT) or ALK mutations (3.59% with MGPS, 3.78% with SMGT). In addition, 8% of those in the MGPS-tested group were found to have BRAF, RET, ROS1, HER2, or MET mutations.
The proportion of patients receiving treatments targeted to the specific mutations was 21% in the MGPS-tested group and 19% in the SMGT-tested group. The patients tested with MGPS had an expected survival that was 0.06 life-years longer (1.20 vs. 1.14) with lifetime total costs that were $8,814 higher per patient ($67,110 vs. $58,297).
Compared with SMGT, MGPS had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $148,478 per life-year gained. This value can be characterized as moderate, given commonly cited threshold values in the United States that range from $50,000 to $200,000 per life-year gained, according to the investigators.
In sensitivity analyses, the expected incremental cost-effectiveness fell (improved) to $110,000 per life-year gained in a scenario in which all patients with an actionable mutation received a targeted treatment.
“Our cost-effectiveness analysis of MGPS versus SMGT provides evidence for health insurers who must consider both value and budget impact when weighing coverage policies for MGPS,” Dr. Steuten and colleagues wrote, noting that such evaluations are limited at present by reliance on retrospective data.
“To reduce decision uncertainty regarding insurance coverage of MGPS, our study highlights the need for prospective studies directly comparing the management of [advanced NSCLC] with MGPS versus SMGT that include both clinical and economic end points,” they concluded. “As this analysis represents a snapshot in time, the model developed should be updated as new clinical or cost information becomes available.”
Dr. Steuten disclosed having a consulting or advisory role with Agendia and Roche (immediate family member), and receiving research funding from Thermo Fisher Scientific, EMD Serono (institutional), Nohla Therapeutics (institutional), and the Personalized Medicine Coalition (institutional), which funded the study.
SOURCE: Steuten L et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 June 3. .