Cost-effectiveness analysis of policy options on first-line treatments for advanced, non-small cell lung cancer in Thailand

Abstract

ObjectivesTyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have shown to be better for progression-free survival than chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), especially in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFR M+). This study evaluates under the Thai health system context, cost-effectiveness of (A) the use of platinum doublets for all without EGFR testing, and (B) an EGFR test followed by TKIs or platinum doublets conditional on test results. Materials and methodsA decision analysis model was constructed to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and total cost for each option. Cancer progression and death were pooled from randomized, controlled trials. Quality of life was obtained from patient interview, using the European Quality-of-Life, 5-Dimension questionnaire. Costs associated with treatment outcomes were derived from patient chart reviews. ResultsCombining the EGFR test with each TKI, gefitinib, erlotinib and afatinib if M+ or otherwise platinum doublets, resulted in higher effectiveness than the use of platinum doublets for all by 0.15, 0.19 and 0.21 QALYs, respectively. Among the three TKIs, gefitinib was dominated economically by erlotinib, which incurred an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $46,783/QALY over the platinum doublets for all. Moving to the next best, afatinib resulted in the ICER of $198,961/QALY over erlotinib. Probabilities for any TKIs being cost-effective when compared with platinum doublets over a wide range of willingness to pay were modest. ConclusionIn Thailand, the first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC with TKIs conditional on EGFR test results was not cost-effective as compared with platinum doublets for all.