Published 2014 | Version v1
Journal article

Cost-utility analysis of maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib vs observation with predefined second-line treatment after cisplatin–gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: IFCT-GFPC 0502-Eco phase III study

Others:
Institut Gustave Roussy (IGR)
Centre Léon Bérard [Lyon]
Hospices Civils de Lyon (HCL)
CHU Tenon [AP-HP] ; Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Sorbonne Université (SU)
Centre de Recherches en Oncologie biologique et Oncopharmacologie (CRO2) ; Aix Marseille Université (AMU)- Hôpital de la Timone [CHU - APHM] (TIMONE)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)
Hôpital Nord [CHU - APHM]
Centre Régional de Lutte contre le Cancer François Baclesse [Caen] (UNICANCER/CRLC) ; Normandie Université (NU)-UNICANCER-Tumorothèque de Caen Basse-Normandie (TCBN)
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Besançon (CHRU Besançon)
Centre Hospitalier Creil
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire [Rennes]
CHI Créteil
Centre Hospitalier de la Dracénie [Draguignan]
Institut de Cancérologie Lucien Neuwirth ; CHU Saint-Etienne
Hôpital Villefranche sur Saône
Centre de Lutte contre le Cancer Antoine Lacassagne [Nice] (UNICANCER/CAL) ; UNICANCER-Université Côte d'Azur (UCA)
Hôpital d'Instruction des Armées Percy ; Service de Santé des Armées
CHU Limoges
Service de pneumologie [CHU Caen] ; Université de Caen Normandie (UNICAEN) ; Normandie Université (NU)-Normandie Université (NU)-CHU Caen ; Normandie Université (NU)-Tumorothèque de Caen Basse-Normandie (TCBN)-Tumorothèque de Caen Basse-Normandie (TCBN)
Hôpital St Antoine ; Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris 6 (UPMC)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)

Description

Background: The IFCT-GFPC 0502 phase III study reported prolongation of progression-free survival with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance vs. observation after cisplatin–gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis was undertaken to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these strategies for the global population and pre-specified subgroups.Methods: A cost-utility analysis evaluated the ICER of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy vs. observation, from randomization until the end of follow-up. Direct medical costs (including drugs, hospitalization, follow-up examinations, second-line treatments and palliative care) were prospectively collected per patient during the trial, until death, from the primary health-insurance provider's perspective. Utility data were extracted from literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results: The ICERs for gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy were respectively 76,625 and 184,733 euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Gemcitabine continuation maintenance therapy had a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (52,213 €/QALY), in responders to induction chemotherapy (64,296 €/QALY), regardless of histology (adenocarcinoma, 62,292 €/QALY, non adenocarcinoma, 83,291 €/QALY). Erlotinib maintenance showed a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (94,908 €/QALY), in patients with adenocarcinoma (97,160 €/QALY) and in patient with objective response to induction (101,186 €/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in patients with PS =1, in patients with non-adenocarcinoma or with stable disease after induction chemotherapy.Conclusion: Gemcitabine-or erlotinib-maintenance therapy had ICERs that varied as a function of histology, PS and response to first-line chemotherapy.

Abstract

on behalf of the IFCT-GFPC investigators

Abstract

International audience

Additional details

Created:
March 26, 2023
Modified:
November 30, 2023