The cost-effectiveness of alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) advanced NSCLC previously treated with crizotinib

Introduction Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) targeting drugs provide an important option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with this distinct tumor type; however, there is considerable uncertainty as to which drug provides the optimal value after crizotinib treatment. This study estimated the cost-utility of alectinib vs ceritinib from a US payer perspective.

Methods A cost-utility model was developed using partition survival methods and three health states: progression-free (PF), post-progression (PP), and death. Survival data were derived from the key clinical trials (alectinib: NP28761 &; NP28673, ceritinib: ASCEND I and II). Costs included drugs, adverse events, and supportive care. Utilities were based on trial data and the literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess parameter uncertainty.

Results Treatment with alectinib vs ceritinib resulted in increases of 2.55 months in the PF state, 0.44 quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), and $13,868, yielding a mean cost/QALY of $31,180. In the PSA, alectinib had a 96% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY. Drivers of model results were drug costs and utilities in the PF health state. The ICER ranged from $10,600–$65,000 per QALY in scenario analyses, including a sub-group analysis limited to patients with prior chemotherapy and crizotinib treatment.

Conclusions Treatment with alectinib in ALK?+?crizotinib-treated patients increased time progression-free and QALYs vs ceritinib. The marginal cost increase was driven by longer treatment durations with alectinib. This model demonstrates that alectinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment after progression on crizotinib.     

Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line ceritinib vs crizotinib and platinum doublet chemotherapy for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US third-party payer’s perspective.

Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable disease, progressive disease, death) was developed over a 20-year time horizon. Ceritinib’s efficacy inputs (progression-free and overall survival) were estimated from ASCEND-4; parametric survival models extrapolated data beyond the trial period. The relative efficacy of ceritinib vs chemotherapy was obtained from ASCEND-4, the relative efficacy of ceritinib vs crizotinib was estimated using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. Drug acquisition, treatment administration, adverse event management, and medical costs were obtained from publicly available databases and the literature, and inflated to 2016?US dollars. Treatment-specific stable-state utilities were derived from trials and progressive-state utility from the literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated for ceritinib vs each comparator. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on US willingness-to-pay thresholds. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness.

Results: In the base case, first-line ceritinib was associated with total direct costs of $299,777 and 3.28 QALYs (from 4.61 life years gained [LYG]) over 20 years. First-line crizotinib and chemotherapy were associated with 2.73 and 2.41 QALYs, 3.92 and 3.53 LYG, and $263,172 and $228,184 total direct costs, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained was $66,064 for ceritinib vs crizotinib and $81,645 for ceritinib vs chemotherapy. In the first 2 years following treatment initiation, ceritinib dominated crizotinib by conferring greater health benefits at reduced total costs. Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Limitations: In the absence of head-to-head trials, an indirect comparison method was used.

Conclusions: Ceritinib is cost-effective compared to crizotinib and chemotherapy in the treatment of previously untreated ALK-positive metastatic NCSLC in the US.     

Cost-effectiveness of second-line atezolizumab in Canada for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness in Canada of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel or nivolumab for the treatment of advanced NSCLC after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy.

Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed. Clinical inputs were obtained from the phase III OAK trial comparing atezolizumab with docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC who progressed after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were extrapolated beyond the trial period using parametric models. A cure model assuming a 1% cure fraction was fitted to the OS data for atezolizumab. Outcomes for nivolumab were informed by a network meta-analysis (NMA) vs atezolizumab. Resource use and costs were informed by clinical expert opinion and published Canadian sources. Utility values were obtained from the OAK trial. The perspective of the analysis was that of the Canadian publicly-funded healthcare system. The base case time horizon was 10?years, and the discount rate was 1.5% annually for both costs and effects. Scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results and all analyses were performed probabilistically.

Results: Atezolizumab demonstrated a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.60 compared with docetaxel at an incremental cost of $85,073, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $142,074/QALY. Atezolizumab dominated nivolumab (regardless of dosing regimen), based on modest differences in both QALYs and costs. Docetaxel was most likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds below $125,000/QALY gained, while atezolizumab was most likely to be cost effective beyond this WTP threshold. In most scenario analyses, the results remained robust to changes in parameters. A reduced time horizon and alternative approaches to the NMA had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results.

Conclusion: Atezolizumab represents a cost-effective therapeutic option in Canada for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC who progress after first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy.     

Economic burden in patients with ALK + non-small cell lung cancer,with or without brain metastases,receiving second-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors

Abstract

Aims: To describe the real-world economic burden of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy.

Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis using data from US Optum: Clinformatics Data Mart administrative claims database. Adult patients with ALK?+?NSCLC treated with ceritinib or alectinib as second-line ALK inhibitors between 1 January 2011 and 30 September 2017 were included. Healthcare costs and resource utilization for up to 1?year of therapy were calculated on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis and stratified by presence or absence of brain metastases (BM). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with costs. Top ten cost drivers of non-inpatient procedure costs were recorded.

Results: One hundred and twelve patients received second-line ALK inhibitors. Total mean PPPM healthcare costs were $23,984 for all patients receiving up to 1?year of post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy. Total mean PPPM costs for patients with BM on or prior to post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy were 1.37-times as high as those for patients without BM (p?=?0.0406). Mean PPPM outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization stays were higher for patients with BM versus no BM. The main cost drivers for non-inpatient procedures were radiation therapy, medications, and diagnostic radiology.

Limitations: Analyses did not include newer ALK-directed therapies. BM development after the index date (defined as the date of the first claim for a second-line ALK inhibitor) may have been misclassified as non-BM. Findings may not be generalizable to patients with no health insurance coverage.

Conclusions: Treatment of patients with ALK?+?NSCLC with ceritinib or alectinib as post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy represents a high economic burden. Healthcare costs and resource utilization were significantly higher for patients with ALK?+?NSCLC with BM versus no BM.     

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the UK for advanced EGFR-T790M non-small cell lung cancer

Aim: This study presents the cost-utility analysis that was developed to inform the NICE health technology assessment of osimertinib vs platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PDC) in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy.

Methods and materials: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) from a UK payer perspective and over lifetime (15 years) was developed. Direct costs included disease management, treatment-related (acquisition, administration, monitoring, adverse events), and T790M testing costs. Efficacy and safety data were taken from clinical trials AURA extension and AURA2 for osimertinib and IMPRESS for PDC. An adjusted indirect treatment comparison was applied to reduce the potential bias in the non-randomized comparison. Parametric functions were utilized to extrapolate survival beyond the observed period. Health state utility values were calculated from EQ-5D data collected in the trials and valued using UK tariffs. Resource use and costs were based on published sources.

Results: Osimertinib was associated with a gain of 1.541 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of £64,283 vs PDC (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: £41,705/QALY gained). Scenario analyses showed that none of the plausible scenarios produced an ICER above £44,000 per QALY gained, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated a 63.4% probability that osimertinib will be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000.

Limitations: The analysis is subject to some level of uncertainty inherent to phase 2 single-arm data and the immaturity of the currently available survival data for osimertinib.

Conclusions: Osimertinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment option compared with PDC in the second-line setting in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive NSCLC from a UK payer perspective. Further data from the ongoing AURA clinical trial program will reduce the inherent uncertainty in the analysis.     

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for the treatment of previously treated PD-L1 positive advanced NSCLC patients in the United States

Objectives: This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-squamous cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1 positive tumors (total proportion score [TPS]?≥?50%). The analysis was conducted from a US third-party payer perspective.

Methods: A partitioned-survival model was developed using data from patients from the KEYNOTE 010 clinical trial. The model used Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the trial for patients treated with either pembrolizumab 2?mg/kg or docetaxel 75?mg/m² with extrapolation based on fitted parametric functions and long-term registry data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived based on EQ-5D data from KEYNOTE 010 using a time to death approach. Costs of drug acquisition/administration, adverse event management, and clinical management of advanced NSCLC were included in the model. The base-case analysis used a time horizon of 20 years. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3% per year. A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

Results: Base case results project for PD-L1 positive (TPS ≥50%) patients treated with pembrolizumab a mean survival of 2.25 years. For docetaxel, a mean survival time of 1.07 years was estimated. Expected QALYs were 1.71 and 0.76 for pembrolizumab and docetaxel, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained with pembrolizumab vs docetaxel is $168,619/QALY, which is cost-effective in the US using a threshold of 3-times GDP per capita. Sensitivity analyses showed the results to be robust over plausible values of the majority of inputs. Results were most sensitive to extrapolation of overall survival.

Conclusions: Pembrolizumab improves survival, increases QALYs, and can be considered as a cost-effective option compared to docetaxel in PD-L1 positive (TPS ≥50%) pre-treated advanced NSCLC patients in the US.     

Brain metastases in patients with ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer: clinical symptoms,treatment patterns and economic burden

Abstract

Objective:

Brain metastases (BM) are highly prevalent among anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients; yet little is known about their real-world treatment patterns and clinical and economic burdens. This study aimed to describe these patients’ treatment patterns, symptoms, and costs.

Research design and methods:

Retrospective study pooling data from three large administrative databases in the US (08/2011–06/2013). ALK+ NSCLC patients with BM and continuous enrollment for ≥ 60 days before and ≥30 days after the first observed BM diagnosis were identified by pharmacy records for crizotinib among patients with lung cancer and BM diagnostic codes.

Main outcome measures:

Treatment patterns, symptoms, healthcare resource utilization, and costs, before and after BM diagnosis.

Results:

Of the 213 crizotinib patients with BM diagnoses meeting the selection criteria, 23.0% had BM prior to NSCLC diagnosis; 47.4% had BM prior to crizotinib initiation; 19.2% during crizotinib treatment; and 10.3% post-crizotinib treatment. For those diagnosed with BM after NSCLC diagnosis, the median time between the NSCLC and BM diagnoses was 88 days. Following the first observed BM diagnosis, 88.7% used chemotherapy, 63.4% had radiotherapy, and 31.9% had stereotactic radiosurgery. The prevalence of BM-related symptoms substantially increased post-BM-diagnosis: fatigue (from 15% to 39%), headaches (from 5% to 24%), and depression (from 5% to 15%). Monthly costs per patient averaged $5983 before the BM diagnosis and $22,645 after diagnosis. Patients’ resource utilization increased significantly post-BM-diagnosis, with a 3-fold increase in OP visits and a 6-fold increase in IP stays. Post-BM-diagnosis costs were driven by pharmacy (42.0%), inpatient (29.6%), and outpatient costs (26.0%).

Limitations:

The study sample was limited to crizotinib-treated patients.

Conclusions:

Post-BM-diagnosis, patients experience high symptom burden. Post-BM-diagnosis, treatment is highly variable and costly: average monthly costs per patient almost quadrupled post-BM-diagnosis.     

Brain metastases in non-small cell lung cancer patients on epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: symptom and economic burden

Objective: This study describes the symptom and economic burden associated with brain metastases (BM) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs).

Methods: This retrospective study included adults with ≥2 medical claims, within 90 days, for lung cancer and ≥1 administration of EGFR-TKIs. Based on ICD-9 codes, patients were stratified into cohorts by type of metastases (BM, other metastases [OM], or no metastases [NM]), and by when the metastasis diagnosis occurred (synchronous or asynchronous).

Results: The population (synchronous BM [SBM]?=?24, synchronous OM [SOM]?=?23, asynchronous BM [ASBM]?=?15, asynchronous OM [ASOM]?=?49, NM?=?85) was mostly female (57%), average age 69 years (SD?=?11). SBM patients experienced more fatigue and nausea/vomiting compared with SOM and NM patients and more headaches and loss of appetite than NM patients. ASBM was associated with more fatigue, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain/numbness, altered mental status, and seizures than NM, and more headaches and pain/numbness than ASOM. SBM patients experienced a greater increase in per-member-per-month all-cause total healthcare costs after diagnosis ($20,301) vs SOM ($9,131, p?=?.001) and NM ($2,493, p?=?.001). ASBM’s cost increase between baseline and follow-up ($7,867) did not differ from ASOM’s ($4,947, p?=?.195); both were larger than NM ($2,493, p?=?.001 and p?=?.009, respectively).

Limitations: EGFR mutation status was inferred based on EGFR-TKI treatment, not by molecular testing. Patients were from US commercial insurance plans; results may not be generalizable to other populations.

Conclusions: Among patients with EGFR-TKI-treated NSCLC, patients with BM experienced more symptoms and, when diagnosed synchronously, had significant increases in total medical costs vs patients with OM and NM. Therapeutic options with central nervous system activity may offer advantages in symptomatology and costs in EGFR-mutated patients with BM.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line pembrolizumab treatment for PD-L1 positive,non-small cell lung cancer in China

Purpose: Pembrolizumab was recently approved in several countries as a first-line treatment for patients with PD-L1 positive, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is expensive. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in treating advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 positive cancer in China.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy for patients with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of NSCLC tumor cells. Model inputs for transition probabilities and toxicity were derived from published clinical trial data, while health utilities were estimated from a literature review. Costs for drugs were updated to standard fee data from West China Hospital in 2017. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

Results: Pembrolizumab gained 0.45 QALYs at an incremental cost of $46,362 compared to chemotherapy for an ICER of $103,128 per QALY gained. In most scenarios, the ICER exceeded three times the Chinese Gross Domestic Product per capita. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that, when the utility of the progression-free status increased to the maximal value of 0.845 and the 1?mg dose price decreased to $10.50, the ICER reduced to $25,216/QALY.

Conclusions: Pembrolizumab is not likely to be cost-effective in the treatment of PD-L1 positive, NSCLC for Chinese patients. Less aggressive pricing may increase accessibility for patients in China.     

Budget impact analysis of comprehensive genomic profiling in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Aims: Broad molecular profiling of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is strongly advised to optimize genomic matching with available targeted treatment options or investigational agents. Unlike conventional molecular diagnostic testing, or smaller hotspot panels, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) identifies genomic alterations across hundreds of clinically relevant cancer genes from a single tissue specimen. The present study sought to estimate the budget impact of increased use of CGP using a 324-gene panel (FoundationOne) vs non-CGP (represented by a mix of conventional molecular diagnostic testing and smaller NGS hotspot panels) and the number needed to test with CGP to gain 1 life year.

Materials and methods: A decision analytic model was developed to assess the budget impact of increased CGP in advanced NSCLC from a US private payer perspective. Model inputs were based on published literature (epidemiology and treatment outcomes), real-world data (testing and rates, medical service costs), list prices for CGP and anti-cancer drugs, and assumptions for clinical trial participation.

Results: Among 2 million covered lives, 532 had advanced NSCLC; 266 underwent molecular diagnostic testing. An increase in CGP among those tested, from 2% to 10%, was associated with $0.02 per member per month budget impact, of which $0.013 was attributable to costs of prolonged drug treatment and survival and $0.005 to testing cost. Approximately 12 patients would need to be tested with CGP to add 1 life year.

Limitations: The model incorporated certain assumptions to account for inputs with a limited evidence profile and simplify the possible post-CGP treatments.

Conclusions: An increase in CGP utilization from 2% to 10% among patients with advanced NSCLC undergoing molecular diagnostic testing was associated with a modest budget impact, most of which was attributable to increased use of more effective treatments and prolonged survival.     

Healthcare costs in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and disease progression during targeted therapy: a real-world observational study

Aims: To assess healthcare costs during treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and following disease progression in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: A retrospective analysis of medical records of US community oncology practices was conducted. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB/IV) diagnosed between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2015, initiated treatment with erlotinib or afatinib (first-line or second-line), and had disease progression. Monthly Medicare-paid costs were evaluated during the TKI therapy period and following progression.

Results: The study included 364 patients. The total mean monthly cost during TKI therapy was $20,106 (95% confidence interval [CI]?=?$16,836–$23,376), of which 47.0% and 42.4% represented hospitalization costs and anti-cancer therapy costs, respectively. Following progression on TKI therapy (data available for 316 patients), total mean monthly cost was $19,274 (95% CI?=?$15,329–$23,218), and was higher in the 76.3% of patients who received anti-cancer therapy following progression than in the 23.7% of those who did not ($20,490 vs $15,364; p?<?.001). Among patients who received it, anti-cancer therapy ($11,198; 95% CI?=?$7,102–$15,295) represented 54.7% of total mean monthly cost. Among patients who did not receive anti-cancer therapy, hospitalization ($13,829; 95% CI?=?$4,922–$22,736) represented 90.0% of total mean monthly cost. Impaired performance status and brain metastases were significant predictors of increased cost during TKI therapy.

Limitations: The study design may limit the generalizability of findings.

Conclusions: Healthcare costs during TKI treatment and following progression appeared to be similar and were largely attributed to hospitalization and anti-cancer therapy. Notably, almost one-quarter of patients did not receive anti-cancer therapy following progression, potentially indicating an unmet need; hospitalization was the largest cost contributor for these patients. Additional effective targeted therapies are needed that could prolong progression-free survival, leading to fewer hospitalizations for EGFR mutation-positive patients.     

Drug wastage and costs to the healthcare system in the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Background: Lung cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers in the US. This study was designed to evaluate the actual drug wastage and cost to the healthcare system using patient-level retrospective observational electronic medical record (EMR) data from a cohort of lung cancer patients in the US.

Methods: Data from the Flatiron Health advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort was used for this study. Drug administered amount (in mg) was used to determine an optimal set of available vial sizes to minimize waste. Drug wastage was defined as the difference between the drug amount in the optimal set of vials and the administered amount. Wholesale acquisition costs were used to value the cost of drugs, with and without vial sharing assumptions. The amount and cost of waste were quantified over the 2-year study period (January 2015–December 2016).

Results: There were 8,467 eligible patients included in this study, providing data from 103,826 unique drug administrations across multiple lines of therapy. Overall wastage was 4.37% of the total medication used to care for patients. While costs per administration were low, the total cost of wastage for the study population represented $16,630,112 across the 2-year study period. Assuming that vial sharing occurred at the site level slightly reduced waste to 3.74% (reducing costs to $15,953,212 over 2 years).

Conclusions: Drug wastage is an important concern and has implications on healthcare costs in NSCLC. Evaluation of these real-world data suggest that pharmacists and physicians are able to reduce drug wastage by optimizing vial combinations and sharing vials among patients. Even small amounts of reduction in wastage could be useful in reducing healthcare costs in the US; however, caution is needed with drug rounding efforts to ensure patients do not receive a sub-optimal dose of medication.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the Spanish setting of the PEAK trial of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) vs bevacizumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Spain.

Methods: A semi-Markov model was developed including the following health states: Progression free; Progressive disease: Treat with best supportive care; Progressive disease: Treat with subsequent active therapy; Attempted resection of metastases; Disease free after metastases resection; Progressive disease: after resection and relapse; and Death. Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression free survival and overall survival data from the PEAK Phase II clinical trial were used to estimate health state transitions. Additional data from the PEAK trial were considered for the dose and duration of therapy, the use of subsequent therapy, the occurrence of adverse events, and the incidence and probability of time to metastasis resection. Utility weightings were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials evaluating first-, second-, and third-line treatments. The study was performed from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective including only direct costs. A life-time horizon was applied. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results: Based on the PEAK trial, which demonstrated greater efficacy of panitumumab vs bevacizumab, both in combination with mFOLFOX6 first-line in wild-type RAS mCRC patients, the estimated incremental cost per life-year gained was €16,567 and the estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was €22,794. The sensitivity analyses showed the model was robust to alternative parameters and assumptions.

Limitations: The analysis was based on a simulation model and, therefore, the results should be interpreted cautiously.

Conclusions: Based on the PEAK Phase II clinical trial and taking into account Spanish costs, the results of the analysis showed that first-line treatment of mCRC with panitumumab?+?mFOLFOX6 could be considered a cost-effective option compared with bevacizumab?+?mFOLFOX6 for the Spanish NHS.     

Current and projected patient and insurer costs for the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States through 2040

Aims: The objective of this study was to quantify the current and to project future patient and insurer costs for the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the US.

Materials and methods: An analysis of administrative claims data among patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer from 2007–2015 was conducted. Future costs were projected through 2040 based on these data using autoregressive models.

Results: Analysis of claims data found the average total cost of care during first- and second-line therapy was $1,161.70 and $561.80 for patients, and $45,175.70 and $26,201.40 for insurers, respectively. By 2040, the average total patient out-of-pocket costs are projected to reach $3,047.67 for first-line and $2,211.33 for second-line therapy, and insurance will pay an average of $131,262.39 for first-line and $75,062.23 for second-line therapy.

Limitations: Claims data are not collected for research purposes; therefore, there may be errors in entry and coding. Additionally, claims data do not contain important clinical factors, such as stage of disease at diagnosis, tumor histology, or data on disease progression, which may have important implications on the cost of care.

Conclusions: The trajectory of the cost of lung cancer care is growing. This study estimates that the cost of care may double by 2040, with the greatest proportion of increase in patient out-of-pocket costs. Despite the average cost projections, these results suggest that a small sub-set of patients with very high costs could be at even greater risk in the future.