Estimated cost of anticancer therapy directed by comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in a single-center study.

Abstract

6605 Background: Accumulating evidence supports the clinical benefit of targeted therapies matched to cancer patients based on genomic alterations. CGP, which detects all classes of alterations (base pair substitutions, copy number, insertions/deletions, and rearrangements), can match more patients with available and investigational therapies. This study estimated anti-cancer drug costs and overall survival (OS) for matched vs. unmatched therapy. Methods: Costs were estimated for patients with complete data (N = 188/500) from a prospective, nonrandomized, phase I oncology center study of patients with diverse refractory cancers who underwent CGP and were treated with matched or unmatched therapy (PMID: 27197177). Average time to treatment failure and average OS were assessed during the observation period. Patient-specific drug and administration costs were imputed for the first regimen after CGP based on drug classes, unit costs, and times to treatment failure. Results: Patients onmatched (N = 122) vs. unmatched (N = 66) therapy had, on average, longer time on treatment (+1.5 mos), longer observed survival (+2.4 mos), and higher anti-cancer drug costs (+$38K) (all p < 0.01); 66% of increased drug costs were attributable to longer time on treatment as opposed to higher monthly drug costs. Combination therapy was used for 71% of matched and 53% of unmatched patients. Those undergoing CGP in earlier-line (1-3; N = 58) vs. later-line (4+; N = 130) therapy had numerically larger incremental increases in average times on treatment (+1.9 vs. +1.2 mos) and survival (+2.5 vs. +2.1 mos), and numerically lower incremental drug costs (+$27K vs. +$43K), with matched vs. unmatched therapy. Conclusions: For patients cared for in a phase I clinic, matched vs. unmatched therapy was associated with longer treatment durations, longer survival times, and manageable incremental costs. Despite frequent use of combination therapy, most of the increased costs of matched therapy were due to longer treatment times rather than higher monthly drug costs. Benefits of matching were numerically greater in earlier- vs. later-lines, consistent with the value of earlier-line use of CGP to guide treatment.