Effectiveness of nationwide insurance coverage for next-generation sequencing in advanced non–small cell lung cancer: A real-world data study.

Abstract

9134 Background: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been covered by Korean national health insurance since March 2017 for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We explored the clinical and socioeconomic impact of NGS compared with that of a single gene test (SGT) alone. Methods: From the nationwide database, we identified patients who 1) are diagnosed with advanced NSCLC classified as a distant disease using Summary Stage between March 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018; 2) had NGS or SGT within 2 months after diagnosis of advanced NSCLC. Patients with squamous cell carcinoma were excluded. We conducted multivariate logistic regression to identify factors (e.g., age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, insurance type, year of diagnosis, and region and type of hospital with the initial diagnosis) affecting the performance of NGS. Further, we divided the cohort into subgroups based on whether patients received treatment targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutations (group A) or not (group B). We conducted 1:5 propensity score matching for each group to minimize the impact of confounding factors. The median overall survival and the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for death were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazard model, respectively. We calculated the total medical cost, and per patient per year (PPPY) cost adjusted for the survival period. Results: Among 10,247 patients with advanced NSCLC, 768 patients were identified as group A and 1,596 as group B after matching. Old age, low household income, and rural region were factors negatively impacting on having NGS tests. In Group A, we did not find a significant difference in survival outcome between the NGS cohort and the SGT cohort (median survival 31.6 vs. 27.5 months, P =.331; aHR 0.80, P =.204). In contrast, significantly favorable survival was observed for the NGS group in Group B (median survival 14.1 vs. 9.5 months, P =.023; aHR 0.80, P =.009). Although the total medical cost was higher in the NGS group ($39,145) than the SGT group ($36,207) for Group B, the PPPY cost was lower in the NGS group ($57,502 and $63,293, respectively). Conclusions: Socioeconomic factors hampering the implementation of NGS were identified. Lowering the barrier by covering the NGS cost publicly in a specific clinical setting may have survival and cost-benefit in patients with advanced NSCLC.