Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Lorlatinib Versus Chemotherapy for Patients With Second-Line or Later Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase–Positive Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare the relative efficacy of lorlatinib, an anaplastic lymphoma kinase–tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with chemotherapy, for patients with second-line or later advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive non–small cell lung cancer. The endpoints of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).MethodsEvidence for lorlatinib was informed by the single-arm phase I/II trial B7461001. A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify OS and PFS data for chemotherapy. Unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) between lorlatinib and chemotherapy (pemetrexed/docetaxel, platinum-based, or systemic therapy) were performed.ResultsThe SLR identified 3 relevant studies reporting PFS. Lorlatinib was associated with a significant decrease in the hazard of progression versus the 2 types of chemotherapy assessed. For PFS, the MAIC of lorlatinib versus the combined treatment arm of docetaxel or pemetrexed resulted in an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.22 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.31). When lorlatinib was compared with platinum-based chemotherapy through an MAIC, the adjusted HR for PFS was 0.40 (95% CI 0.29-0.55). An exploratory comparison was performed for OS with evidence for systemic therapy (assumed equivalent to chemotherapy) not identified in the SLR. Lorlatinib provided a significant decrease in hazard of death (OS) versus systemic therapy, with HRs ranging from 0.12 (95% CI 0.05-0.27) to 0.43 (95% CI 0.27-0.60).ConclusionsLorlatinib demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS compared with chemotherapy, although limitations in the analyses were identified. The evidence informing OS comparisons was highly limited but suggested benefit of lorlatinib compared with systemic therapy.     

The Economic Potential of Smoking Cessation Interventions at the Point of Diagnosis of Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

ObjectivesStopping smoking has proven benefits in nearly all illnesses but the impact and health economic benefits of stopping smoking after a diagnosis of lung cancer are less well defined. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation (SC) services for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer against current usual care, where patients are unlikely to receive SC service referral.MethodsA health economic model was constructed in Excel. The modelled population comprised of patients with a new diagnosis of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data from the LungCast data set (Clinical Trials Identifier NCT01192256) were used to estimate model inputs. A structured search of published literature identified inputs not represented in LungCast, including healthcare resource use and costs. Costs were estimated from a 2020/2021 UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. The model estimated the incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC receiving targeted SC intervention than those receiving no intervention. Extensive one-way sensitivity analyses explored input and data set uncertainty.ResultsIn the 5-year base case, the model estimated an incremental cost of £14 904 per QALY gained through SC intervention. Sensitivity analysis estimated an outcome range of between £9935 and £32 246 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to the estimates of relative quit rates and expected healthcare resource use.ConclusionThis exploratory analysis indicates that SC intervention for smokers with patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC should be a cost-effective use of UK National Health Service resources. Additional research with focused costing is needed to confirm this positioning.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Tepotinib Versus Capmatinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Mesenchymal–Epithelial Transition Exon 14 Skipping

ObjectivesFrom the US Medicare perspective, this study compared the cost-effectiveness of tepotinib and capmatinib for treating metastatic non–small cell lung cancer with tumors harboring mesenchymal–epithelial transition factor gene exon 14 skipping.MethodsA 3-state partitioned survival model assessed outcomes over a lifetime horizon. Parametric survival analysis of the phase 2 VISION trial informed clinical inputs for tepotinib. Capmatinib inputs were captured using hazard ratios derived from an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison study and published literature. National cost databases, trial data, and literature furnished drug, treatment monitoring, and disease/adverse event management expenditures (2021 US dollars) and utility inputs. Outcomes were discounted at 3% annually.ResultsIn the base case, tepotinib dominated capmatinib in frontline settings (incremental discounted quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and costs of 0.2127 and −$47 756, respectively) while realizing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $274 514/QALY in subsequent lines (incremental QALYs and costs of 0.3330 and $91 401, respectively). In a line agnostic context, tepotinib produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $105 383/QALY (incremental QALYs and costs of 0.2794 and $29 447, respectively). Sensitivity and scenarios analyses for individual lines typically supported the base case, whereas those for the line agnostic setting suggested sensitivity to drug acquisition costs and efficacy inputs.ConclusionsTepotinib could be cost-effective versus capmatinib in frontline and line agnostic contexts, considering the range of willingness-to-pay thresholds recommended by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review ($100 000-$150 000/QALY). Tepotinib could be cost-effective in subsequent lines at higher willingness-to-pay levels. These results are to be interpreted cautiously, considering uncertainty in key model inputs.     

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Pembrolizumab Monotherapy Versus Chemotherapy in High Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Irish Healthcare Setting

ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults whose tumors expressed programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) with a tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50% in the Irish healthcare setting.MethodsEffectiveness inputs were derived from the 5-year analysis of KEYNOTE-024 phase III clinical trial. The intervention was pembrolizumab monotherapy; the comparator was a weighted average of the 5 chemotherapy regimens from the trial. The population included those with previously untreated advanced PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% NSCLC. A de novo partitioned survival model was developed. Survival modeling was done using Bayesian model averaging on fitted parametric functions. Costs included drug acquisition, treatment initiation, administration and monitoring, adverse events, subsequent treatments, and terminal care. Costs and health state utilities were sourced from the literature and Irish sources. The model had a 20-year time horizon. The perspective taken was the Health Service Executive. A 4% discount rate was applied. Outcomes were expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured in terms of incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 1-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsThe model estimated a base case ICER of €54 237 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated an average ICER of €54 568 per QALY and a 11% probability of cost-effectiveness at the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold of €45 000 per QALY.ConclusionAt the current list price, first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy is not considered cost-effective for the treatment of advanced PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% NSCLC in the Irish healthcare setting.     

Do Surrogate Endpoints Better Correlate with Overall Survival in Studies That Did Not Allow for Crossover or Reported Balanced Postprogression Treatments? An Application in Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background

In previous studies, correlation between overall survival (OS) and surrogate endpoints like objective response rate (ORR) or progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was poor. This can be biased by crossover and postprogression treatments.

The APE1 Asp/Asp Genotype and the Combination of APE1 Asp/Asp and hOGG1-Cys Variants Are Associated With Increased p53 Mutation in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background

The hOGG1 Ser326Cys polymorphism is associated with lung cancer risk, but there are limited data regarding an association between the APE1 Asp148Glu polymorphism and lung cancer. Biological evidence shows that the hOGG1-Cys allele results in less DNA repair activity; however, this is not associated with p53 mutation in lung cancer. Therefore, we investigated whether an interaction between hOGG1 and APE1 is associated with the frequency of p53 mutation in lung cancer.

Methods

We studied 217 Taiwanese adults with primary lung cancer. DNA polymorphisms of hOGG1 and APE1 were determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based restriction fragment length polymorphism. Mutations in p53 exons 5–8 were detected by direct sequencing. Multiple logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for the risk of p53 mutation associated with polymorphisms of hOGG1 and APE1 in lung cancer.

Results

As expected, no association between hOGG1 polymorphism and p53 mutation was observed in this population. However, a higher risk of p53 mutation was found in participants with the APE1 Asp/Asp genotype than in those with the APE1-Glu allele (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.19–3.87; P = 0.011). The risk of p53 mutation was also higher in participants with APE1 Asp/Asp plus hOGG1-Cys than in those with APE1-Glu plus hOGG1 Ser/Ser (OR, 3.72; 95% CI, 1.33–10.40; P = 0.012).

Conclusions

These results suggest that the APE1 Asp/Asp genotype and the combination of the APE1 Asp/Asp and hOGG1-Cys variants are associated with increased risk of p53 mutation in non–small cell lung cancer.Key words: hOGG1 Ser326Cys, APE1 Asp148Glu, p53 mutation, NSCLC