THE CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS OF ADVANCED OR METASTATIC NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3, 258 - 273, 31.10.2024

İskender Çetintürk , Vahit Yiğit

https://doi.org/10.33457/ijhsrp.1523863

Öz

Lung cancer presents a significant epidemiological and economic burden worldwide. This deadly type of cancer ranks second in incidence and first in mortality among all cancers. The rapid increase in new and expensive treatment options places a substantial financial strain on public healthcare systems. Given the limited healthcare resources, the economic evaluation of new cancer drugs is crucial for ensuring the sustainability of healthcare systems and improving patients' access to treatments. This study aims to systematically review health state utility values (HSUVs) associated with traditional chemotherapy and targeted therapies in the first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and BioMed databases to identify publications reporting HSUVs, and 10 studies were selected from 1319 based on predefined criteria. The study found that HSUVs for targeted therapies were consistently higher across all health states compared to traditional chemotherapy. The included publications provide a comprehensive framework of HSUVs applicable to this disease and highlight the need for more empirical research to obtain a broader range of HSUVs for NSCLC.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Cost-Utility Analysis, Health State Utility Values, Health-related quality of life, Chemotherapy

Kaynakça

• C. Fitzmaurice et al., “Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2017: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study,” JAMA Oncology, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 1749–1768, 2019, doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2996.
• H. H. Kyu et al., “Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 359 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017,” The Lancet, vol. 392, no. 10159, pp. 1859–1922, 2018, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32335-3.
• R. S. Herbst, J. V. Heymach, and S. M. Lippman, “Molecular Origins of Cancer Lung Cancer,” N. Engl. J. Med., vol. 359, pp. 1–169, 2008, doi: 10.1056/NEJMra0802710.
• A. R. Jazieh, R. Al Sudairy, N. Abu-Shraie, W. Al Suwairi, M. Ferwana, and H. Murad, “Erlotinib in wild type epidermal growth factor receptor non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review,” Ann. Thorac. Med., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 204–208, 2013, doi: 10.4103/1817-1737.118503.
• G. Pilkington, A. Boland, T. Brown, J. Oyee, and A. Bagust, “A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer,” BMJ, pp. 359–367, 2015, doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205914.
• J. H. Schiller et al., “Comparison of Four Chemotherapy Regimens for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer,” N. Engl. J. Med., vol. 346, no. 2, pp. 92–98, 2002, doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa011954.
• M. Cullen, “Lung cancer 4: Chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: the end of the beginning,” Thorax, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 352–356, Apr. 2003, doi: 10.1136/thorax.58.4.352.
• K. A. Olaussen and S. Postel-Vinay, “Predictors of chemotherapy efficacy in non-small-cell lung cancer: A challenging landscape,” Ann. Oncol., vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 2004–2016, 2016, doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdw321.
• S. S. Ramalingam, T. K. Owonikoko, and F. R. Khuri, “Lung cancer: New biological insights and recent therapeutic advances,” CA. Cancer J. Clin., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 91–112, 2011, doi: 10.3322/caac.20102.
• L. Osmani, F. Askin, E. Gabrielson, and Q. K. Li, “Current WHO Guidelines and the Critical Role of Immunohistochemical Markers in the Subclassification of Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma (NSCLC). Moving from Targeted Therapy to Immunotherapy,” Semin. Cancer Biol., vol. 52, no. Pt 1, pp. 103–109, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2017.11.019.
• G. A. Masters et al., “Systemic therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update,” J. Clin. Oncol., vol. 33, no. 30, pp. 3488–3515, 2015, doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.1342.
• A. Vergnenègre et al., “Cross-market cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with stable non-small cell lung cancer,” Clin. Outcomes Res., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 31–37, 2012, doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S25923.
• A. Lange, A. Prenzler, M. Frank, H. Golpon, T. Welte, and J. M. von der Schulenburg, “A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of targeted therapies for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC),” BMC Pulm. Med., vol. 14, no. 1, 2014, doi: 10.1186/1471-2466-14-192.
• D. F. Cella and J. D. Patel, “Improving health-related quality of life in non-small-cell lung cancer with current treatment options,” Clin. Lung Cancer, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 206–212, 2008, doi: 10.3816/CLC.2008.n.030.
• P. J. Neumann and J. T. Cohen, “QALYs in 2018-advantages and concerns,” JAMA, vol. 319, no. 24, pp. 2473–2474, 2018, doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.6072.
• M. R. Gold, D. Stevenson, and D. G. Fryback, “HALYs and QALYs and DALYs, oh my: Similarities and differences in summary measures of population health,” Annu. Rev. Public Health, vol. 23, pp. 115–134, 2002, doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140513.
• J. Brazier et al., “Identification, review, and use of health state utilities in cost-effectiveness models: An ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force Report,” Value Health, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 267–275, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.01.004.
• J. Brazier, D. Papaioannou, A. Cantrell, and S. Paisley, “Identifying and reviewing health state utility values for populating decision models,” in Evidence-Based Decisions and Economics: Health Care, Social Welfare, Education and Criminal Justice, I. Shemilt, K. Marsh, M. Mugford, C. Donaldson, and L. Vale, Eds. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp. 93–105, doi: 10.1002/9781444320398.ch14.
• R. Ara and J. E. Brazier, “Populating an economic model with health state utility values: Moving toward better practice,” Value Health, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 509–518, 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x.
• C. A. Brauer, A. B. Rosen, D. Greenberg, and P. J. Neumann, “Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses,” Value Health, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 213–218, 2006, doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00116.x.
• S. E. Wolowacz et al., “Estimating health-state utility for economic models in clinical studies: An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report,” Value Health, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 704–719, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.06.001.
• M. T. Muchadeyi, K. Hernandez-Villafuerte, and M. Schlander, “Quality appraisal for systematic literature reviews of health state utility values: A descriptive analysis,” BMC Med. Res. Methodol., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01784-6.
• M. Hernández Alava, A. Wailoo, F. Wolfe, and K. Michaud, “A comparison of direct and indirect methods for the estimation of health utilities from clinical outcomes,” Med. Decis. Mak., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 919–930, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0272989X13500720.
• M. Meregaglia, E. Nicod, and M. Drummond, “The estimation of health state utility values in rare diseases: Overview of existing techniques,” Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 469–473, 2020, doi: 10.1017/S0266462320000665.
• P. Balázs, Comparative analysis of health state utility measurement methods, Corvinus University of Budapest Comparative, 2023.
• D. Arnold, A. Girling, A. Stevens, and R. Lilford, “Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: Review and empirical analysis,” BMJ, vol. 339, no. 7717, pp. 385–388, 2009, doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2688.
• J. Fox-Rushby and J. Cairns, “Measuring and valuing consequences,” in *Economic Evaluation*, J. Fox-Rushby and J. Cairns, Eds., London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2005, pp. 83–150.
• G. Kobelt, Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation, Office of Health Economics, London, 2013.
• D. Arnold, A. Girling, A. Stevens, and R. Lilford, “Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: Review and empirical analysis,” BMJ, vol. 339, no. 7717, pp. 385–388, 2009, doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2688.
• P. Blinman, M. King, R. Norman, R. Viney, and M. R. Stockler, “Preferences for cancer treatments: An overview of methods and applications in oncology,” Ann. Oncol., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1104–1110, 2012, doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr559.
• E. F. Blom, K. ten Haaf, and H. J. de Koning, “Systematic review and meta-analysis of community- and choice-based health state utility values for lung cancer,” Pharmacoeconomics, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 1187–1200, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40273-020-00947-x.
• D. Moher et al., “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement,” PLoS Med., vol. 6, no. 7, 2009, doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
• J. P. Higgins and S. Green, Eds., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.: John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2008.
• Qatar Computing Research Institute, "Rayyan," http://rayyan.qcri.org/. Accessed May 31, 2024.
• D. Papaioannou, J. Brazier, and S. Paisley, “Systematic searching and selection of health state utility values from the literature,” Value Health, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 686–695, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.017.
• R. Klein et al., “Cost-Effectiveness of Pemetrexed Plus Cisplatin as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer,” J. Thorac. Oncol., vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 1404–1414, 2009, doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181ba31e0.
• A. S. Wang et al., “A Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Erlotinib Alone versus Platinum-Based Doublet Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Eastern Asian Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer,” PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e55917. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055917.
• P. Y. Balçik and B. Şahin, “Cost-effectiveness analysis of pemetrexed and gemcitabine treatment for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer in Turkey,” Turkish J. Med. Sci., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 152–158, 2016, doi: 10.3906/sag-1408-4.
• C. Limwattananon, S. Limwattananon, O. Waleekhachonloet, and T. Rattanachotphanit, “Cost-effectiveness analysis of policy options on first-line treatments for advanced, non-small cell lung cancer in Thailand,” Lung Cancer, vol. 120, no. March, pp. 91–97, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2018.04.003.
• L. She et al., “Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor proportion score 1% or greater,” Lung Cancer, vol. 138, no. September, pp. 88–94, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.10.017.
• H. Hu et al., “Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer,” Front. Oncol., vol. 10, pp. 1–11, 2020, doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01649.
• E. Parody-Rúa and C. A. Guevara-Cuellar, “Cost-Effectiveness of the Addition of Bevacizumab to First-Line Chemotherapy With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in Patients With Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC),” Value Health Reg. Issues, vol. 23, pp. 93–98, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2020.04.005.
• S. C. Yang, N. Kunst, C. P. Gross, J. D. Wang, W. C. Su, and S. Y. Wang, “Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab With and Without Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer,” Front. Oncol., vol. 11, pp. 1–9, 2021, doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.760686.
• L. Wang et al., “Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cemiplimab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment in Advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 Expression Levels of at Least 50%,” Adv. Ther., vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 4354–4365, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s12325-021-01828-1.
• R. W. Chu, A. Vegas García, C. Hickey, D. G. Power, and C. Gorry, “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,” Value Health, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 402–410, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.10.012.
• B. Nafees, M. Stafford, S. Gavriel, S. Bhalla, and J. Watkins, “Health state utilities for non-small cell lung cancer,” Health Qual. Life Outcomes, vol. 6, pp. 1–15, 2008, doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-6-84.
• J. J. Carlson, L. P. Garrison, S. D. Ramsey, and D. L. Veenstra, “The potential clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacogenomic approaches to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer,” Value Heal., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 20–27, 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00415.x.
• M. Reck et al., “Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer with high tumour mutational burden: patient-reported outcomes results from the randomised, open-label, phase III CheckMate 227 trial,” Eur. J. Cancer, vol. 116, pp. 137–147, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.05.008.
• C. Chouaid et al., “Cost Analysis of Erlotinib Versus Chemotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Frail Elderly Patients Participating in a Prospective Phase 2 Study (GFPC 0505),” Clin. Lung Cancer, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 103–107, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2012.04.006.
• Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry," [Online]. Available: https://cevr.tuftsmedicalcenter.org/databases/cea-registry.
• S. C. Yang, C. W. Kuo, W. W. Lai, C. C. Lin, W. C. Su, S. M. Chang, et al., "Dynamic Changes of Health Utility in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Different Treatments: A 7-Year Follow-Up," J. Thorac. Oncol., vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 1892–1900, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2019.07.007.
• J. R. Brahmer et al., “Health-related quality-of-life results for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in advanced, PD-L1-positive NSCLC (KEYNOTE-024): a multicentre, international, randomised, open-label phase 3 trial,” Lancet Oncol., vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1600–1609, 2017, doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30690-3