Cost-effectiveness of next-generation sequencing for advanced EGFR/ALK-negative non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus sequential single-gene testing (SGT), including the long-term costs and survival outcomes of relevant treatments for advanced EGFR/ALK-negative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and MethodsWe developed a decision tree linked to a partitioned survival model to estimate the clinical outcomes and costs over the five-year analysis period. The decision tree consisted of treatment types based on molecular biomarker (ROS1, BRAF, NTRK, MET, RET, and KRAS alterations) test results. The probability of receiving each targeted therapy was estimated based on 1) the testing rate, 2) the proportion of alterations detected, and 3) the proportion of patients receiving treatment consistent with the testing results. We estimated the long-term overall survival and progression-free survival for each treatment using parametric estimation by reconstructing patient-level data from clinical trials. The costs of testing, drugs, administration, physician visits, monitoring, adverse events, post-progression, and end-of-life care were included. The utility values were obtained from a previous study. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NGS within a threshold of $38,701 (50,000,000 KRW) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). ResultsThe incremental life-years (LYs) and QALYs for the NGS group versus the SGT group were 0.028 and 0.023, respectively. The total medical cost for the NGS group was $8,375 higher than that for the SGT group. The difference in drug costs accounted for most of the differences in total medical costs. NGS was not cost-effective compared to sequential SGT, with an ICER of $300,233/LY and $359,405/QALY, respectively. ConclusionsNGS is not cost-effective for advanced EGFR/ALK-negative NSCLC, but has a survival benefit over sequential SGT. Our findings provide a basis for decision-making regarding the coverage and clinical utilization of NGS in regions where EGFR alterations are prevalent.