A systematic review of economic evaluations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

References

• Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang L, Jiang S, Shi Y. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors for solid tumors in the past 20 years (2001-2020). J Hematol Oncol. 2020 Oct 27;13(1):143.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li T, Kung HJ, Mack PC, et al. Genotyping and genomic profiling of non-small-cell lung cancer: implications for current and future therapies. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Mar 10;31(8):1039–1049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recondo G, Facchinetti F, Olaussen KA, et al. Making the first move in EGFR-driven or ALK-driven NSCLC: first-generation or next-generation TKI? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018 Nov;15(11):694–708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosell R, Moran T, Queralt C, et al. Screening for epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 3;361(10):958–967.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dearden S, Stevens J, Wu YL, et al. Mutation incidence and coincidence in non small-cell lung cancer: meta-analyses by ethnicity and histology (mutMap). Ann Oncol. 2013 Sep;24(9):2371–2376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koivunen JP, Mermel C, Zejnullahu K, et al. EML4-ALK fusion gene and efficacy of an ALK kinase inhibitor in lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Jul 1;14(13):4275–4283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chia PL, Mitchell P, Dobrovic A, et al. Prevalence and natural history of ALK positive non-small-cell lung cancer and the clinical impact of targeted therapy with ALK inhibitors. Clin Epidemiol. 2014;6:423–432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin JJ, Shaw AT. Recent advances in targeting ROS1 in lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2017 Nov;12(11):1611–1625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frampton GM, Ali SM, Rosenzweig M, et al. Activation of MET via diverse exon 14 splicing alterations occurs in multiple tumor types and confers clinical sensitivity to MET inhibitors. Cancer Discov. 2015 Aug;5(8):850–859.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Network NCC. Non-small cell lung cancer (Version 3, 2022); 2022 [cited Apr 9, 2022]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/nscl.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Yang Z, Hackshaw A, Feng Q, et al. Comparison of gefitinib, erlotinib and Afatinib in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer. 2017 Jun 15;140(12):2805–2819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soria JC, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):113–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramalingam SS, Vansteenkiste J, Planchard D, et al. Overall survival with osimertinib in untreated, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 2;382(1):41–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao Y, Liu J, Cai X, et al. Efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutated, non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Bmj. 2019 Oct 7;367:l5460.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zeng Q, Zhang X, He S, et al. Crizotinib versus alectinib for the treatment of ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chemotherapy. 2021 Dec 14;67(2):67–80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yu A, Huang E, Abe M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted therapy and immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021 Jun;21(3):381–393.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bongers ML, Coupé VM, Jansma EP, et al. Cost effectiveness of treatment with new agents in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012 Jan;30(1):17–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange A, Prenzler A, Frank M, et al. A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of targeted therapies for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BMC Pulm Med. 2014 Dec 4;14(1):192.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nargesi S, Dolatshahi Z, Rezapour A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;12:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ofman JJ, Sullivan SD, Neumann PJ, et al. Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Manag Care Pharm. 2003 Jan-Feb;9(1):53–61.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li W, Qian L, Li W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of osimertinib administration for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer. Exp Ther Med. 2021 Apr;21(4):343.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu B, Gu X, Zhang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in treating newly diagnosed, advanced EGFR-mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Oncologist. 2019 Mar;24(3):349–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu X, Fang N, Li H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dacomitinib versus gefitinib for the first-line therapy of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the United States and China. Ann Transl Med. 2021 May;9(9):760.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aguiar PN Jr., Haaland B, Park W, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer [Comparative study; Journal article; Randomized controlled trial]. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;4(8):1080–1084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pignata M, Chouaid C, Le Lay K, et al. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Afatinib after platinum-based therapy for the treatment of squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in France. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;9:655–668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim DD, Silver MC, Kunst N, et al. Perspective and costing in cost-effectiveness analysis, 1974-2018. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020 Oct;38(10):1135–1145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holleman MS, Al MJ, Zaim R, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations. Eur J Health Econ. 2020 Feb;21(1):153–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ting J, Tien Ho P, Xiang P, et al. Cost-effectiveness and value of information of erlotinib, afatinib, and cisplatin-pemetrexed for first-line treatment of advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the United States. Value Health. 2015 Sep;18(6):774–782.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson JJ, Canestaro W, Ravelo A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) advanced NSCLC previously treated with crizotinib. J Med Econ. 2017 Jul;20(7):671–677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu X, Zhang Q, Chu YB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Afatinib, gefitinib, erlotinib and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China. Lung Cancer. 2019 Jan;127:84–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu J, He W, Ye M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Afatinib and erlotinib as second-line treatments for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Future Oncol. 2018 Nov;14(27):2833–2840.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li S, Li J, Peng L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lorlatinib as a first-line therapy for untreated advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Front Oncol. 2021;11:684073.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Loong HH, Wong CKH, Leung LKS, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceritinib vs. crizotinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Hong Kong. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020 Nov 7;18(1):50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kimura M, Yasue F, Usami E, et al. Cost-effectiveness and safety of the molecular targeted drugs Afatinib, gefitinib and erlotinib as first-line treatments for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Mol Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug;9(2):201–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas P, Vincent B, George C, et al. A comparative study on erlotinib & gefitinib therapy in non-small cell lung carcinoma patients. Indian J Med Res. 2019 Jul;150(1):67–72.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arrieta O, Catalan R, Guzman-Vazquez S, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first and second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first line of treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations. BMC Cancer. 2020 Sep 1;20(1):829.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aguilar-Serra J, Gimeno-Ballester V, Pastor-Clerigues A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;11:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Kim YJ, Oremus M, Chen HH, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib as first-line treatments for EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in Ontario, Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021 May;39(5):537–548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee VW, Schwander B, Lee VH. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus gefitinib in first-line treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J. 2014 Jun;20(3):178–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang SC, Lai WW, Hsu JC, et al. Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors: analysis of real-world data in a tertiary hospital in Taiwan. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0231413.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chouaid C, Luciani L, LeLay K, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of afatinib versus gefitinib for first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancers [Journal: article]. J Thorac Oncol. 2017 Oct;12(10):1496–1502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang H, Zeng C, Li X, et al. Cost-utility of Afatinib and gefitinib as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Future Oncol. 2019 Jan;15(2):181–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasalvia P, Hernandez F, Gil-Rojas Y, et al. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor in Colombia. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021 Aug;21(4):821–827.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu YF, Luan L, Zhu FF, et al. Modelled economic analysis for dacomitinib-a cost effectiveness analysis in treating patients with EGFR-mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China. Front Oncol. 2021;11:564234.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li WQ, Li LY, Chai J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Med. 2021 Mar;10(6):1964–1974.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aguilar-Serra J, Gimeno-Ballester V, Pastor-Clerigues A, et al. Dacomitinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Comp Eff Res. 2021 Mar;10(4):325–335.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang L, Li N, Liu M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dacomitinib versus gefitinib in the first-line treatment of EGFR-positive advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2021;13:4263–4270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson FOL, Gal P, Houisse I, et al. The cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib in first-line treatment of advanced/metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EGFRm NSCLC) in Sweden [Journal: article]. J Med Econ. 2021 Jan-Dec;24(1):447–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib as first-line treatment and sequential therapy for EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther. 2019 Feb;41(2):280–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aguilar-Serra J, Gimeno-Ballester V, Pastor-Clerigues A, et al. Osimertinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Comp Eff Res. 2019 Aug;8(11):853–863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aziz MIA, Foo WYX, Toh CK, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation positive non-small cell lung cancer in Singapore. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov;23(11):1330–1339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khoo T, Gao L. Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021 Jun;21(3):415–423.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ezeife DA, Kirk V, Chew DS, et al. Economic analysis of osimertinib in previously untreated EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer in Canada. Lung Cancer. 2018 Nov;125:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson JJ, Suh K, Orfanos P, et al. cost effectiveness of alectinib vs. crizotinib in first-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Apr;36(4):495–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guan H, Sheng Y, Guo W, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alectinib for patients with untreated ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China. Adv Ther. 2019 May;36(5):1114–1125.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li H, Lai L, Wu B. Cost effectiveness of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in first-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Drug Investig. 2020 Feb;40(2):183–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu M, Zhang L, Huang Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceritinib and alectinib versus crizotinib in the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer [Journal: article]. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:9195–9202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivignon M, Monnier R, Tehard B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alectinib compared to crizotinib for the treatment of first-line ALK+ advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in France. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0226196.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhou ZY, Mutebi A, Han S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the United States. J Med Econ. 2018 Jun;21(6):577–586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nafees B, Lloyd AJ, Dewilde S, et al. Health state utilities in non-small cell lung cancer: an international study. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct;13(5):e195–e203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nafees B, Stafford M, Gavriel S, et al. Health state utilities for non small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008 Oct 21;6:84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dansk VLS, Dyer MT, Dyer MT, et al. A review of health state utility values used in UK nice appraisals in advanced NSCLC. Value Health. 2016;19(7):A745.
   Google Scholar
• Fund IM. world economic outlook database; 2021 [cited 2022 Apr 6]. Available from: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/October/weo-report?c=512,914,612,171,614,311,213,911,314,193,122,912,313,419,513,316,913,124,339,638,514,218,963,616,223,516,918,748,618,624,522,622,156,626,628,228,924,233,632,636,634,238,662,960,423,935,128,611,321,243,248,469,253,642,643,939,734,644,819,172,132,646,648,915,134,652,174,328,258,656,654,336,263,268,532,944,176,534,536,429,433,178,436,136,343,158,439,916,664,826,542,967,443,917,544,941,446,666,668,672,946,137,546,674,676,548,556,678,181,867,682,684,273,868,921,948,943,686,688,518,728,836,558,138,196,278,692,694,962,142,449,564,565,283,853,288,293,566,964,182,359,453,968,922,714,862,135,716,456,722,942,718,724,576,936,961,813,726,199,733,184,524,361,362,364,732,366,144,146,463,528,923,738,578,537,742,866,369,744,186,925,869,746,926,466,112,111,298,927,846,299,582,487,474,754,698,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,&sy=2020&ey=2021&ssm=0&scsm=0&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1.
   Google Scholar
• Shaw AT, Bauer TM, de Marinis F, et al. First-line lorlatinib or crizotinib in advanced ALK-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 19;383(21):2018–2029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leighl NB, Karaseva N, Nakagawa K, et al. Patient-reported outcomes from FLAURA: osimertinib versus erlotinib or gefitinib in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2020 Jan;125:49–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh J, Bagust A, Boland A, et al. Erlotinib and gefitinib for treating non-small cell lung cancer that has progressed following prior chemotherapy (review of NICE technology appraisals 162 and 175): a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2015 Jun;19(47):1–134.
   Google Scholar
• Chouaïd C, Crequit P, Borget I, et al. Economic evaluation of first-line and maintenance treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;7:9–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verleger K, Penrod JR, Manley Daumont M, et al. Costs and cost drivers associated with non-small-cell lung cancer patients who received two or more lines of therapy in Europe. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2020;12:23–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar