Search

Background: Tumor treating fields (TTF) was first approved for treatment of glioblastoma. Recently, the LUNAR study demonstrated that TTF + standard therapy (ST) extended survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This primary objective of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the United States healthcare payers' perspective. Methods: A 3-health-state Markov model was established to compare the cost-effectiveness of TTF + ST and that of ST alone. Clinical data were extracted from the LUNAR study, supplemented by additional cost and utility data obtained from publications or online sources. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were conducted. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was set to $150,000. The main results include total costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Subgroup analyses were conducted for two types of ST, including immune checkpoint inhibitor, and docetaxel. Results: During a 10-year time horizon, the costs of TTF + ST and ST alone were $431,207.0 and $128,125.9, and the QALYs were 1.809 and 1.124, respectively. The ICER of TTF + ST compared to ST was $442,732.7 per QALY, and the INMB was -$200,395.7 at the WTP threshold. The cost of TTF per month was the most influential factor in cost-effectiveness, and TTF + ST had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold compared with ST alone. Conclusion: TTF + ST is not a cost-effective treatment for advanced NSCLC patients who progressed after platinum-based therapy from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Perioperative (neoadjuvant and adjuvant) pembrolizumab has shown favorable efficacy in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers. Methods: We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of perioperative pembrolizumab with that of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 21-day cycles, utilizing data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-671 trial. Additional data were extracted from other publications or online sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was established. The main outcomes of this study were the measurement of QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB). Results: During a 10-year time horizon, the total costs of perioperative pembrolizumab and the control treatment were $224,779.1 and $110,026.3, respectively. The QALYs were 4.19 and 2.97 for the two treatments, respectively, which led to an ICER of $94,222.29 per QALY gained. The NMB at the WTP threshold at $150,000 per QALY gained was $67,931.3. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the cost of pembrolizumab as the primary factor influencing cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 97.7% probability of perioperative pembrolizumab being cost-effective at the WTP threshold. Conclusions: From the perspective of the United States healthcare payers, perioperative pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with early-stage NSCLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]