Real-world health utility scores and toxicities to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in epidermal growth factor receptor mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
EGFR mutation
health economics
health utility scores
lung cancer
real-world
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
received:
28
07
2019
revised:
09
09
2019
accepted:
11
09
2019
pubmed:
28
10
2019
medline:
17
9
2020
entrez:
26
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
As the treatment landscape in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFRm) continues to evolve, real-world health utility scores (HUS) become increasingly important for economic analyses. In an observational cohort study, questionnaires were completed in EGFRm NSCLC outpatients, to include demographics, EQ-5D-based HUS and patient-reported toxicity and symptoms. Clinical and radiologic characteristics together with outcomes were extracted from chart review. The impact of health states, treatment type, toxicities, and clinical variables on HUS were evaluated. Between 2014 and 2018, a total of 260 patients completed 994 encounters. Across treatment groups, patients with disease progression had lower HUS compared to controlled disease (0.771 vs 0.803; P = .01). Patients predominantly received gefitinib as the first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (n = 157, mean-HUS = 0.798), whereas osimertinib (n = 62, mean-HUS = 0.806) and chemotherapy (n = 38, mean-HUS = 0.721) were more likely used in subsequent treatment lines. In longitudinal analysis, TKIs retained high HUS (>0.78) compared to chemotherapy (HUS < 0.74). There were no differences between the frequency or severity of toxicity scores in patients receiving gefitinib compared to osimertinib; however, TKI therapy resulted in fewer toxicities than chemotherapy (P < .05), with the exception of worse diarrhea and skin rash (P < .001). Severity in toxicities inversely correlated with HUS (P < .001). Clinico-demographic factors significantly affecting HUS included age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Score (ECOG PS), disease state, treatment group, and metastatic burden. In a real-world EGFRm population, patients treated with gefitinib or osimertinib had similar HUS and toxicities, scores which were superior to chemotherapy. Health utility scores inversely correlated with patient-reported toxicity scores. In the era of targeted therapies, future economic analyses should incorporate real-world HUS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
As the treatment landscape in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFRm) continues to evolve, real-world health utility scores (HUS) become increasingly important for economic analyses.
METHODS
In an observational cohort study, questionnaires were completed in EGFRm NSCLC outpatients, to include demographics, EQ-5D-based HUS and patient-reported toxicity and symptoms. Clinical and radiologic characteristics together with outcomes were extracted from chart review. The impact of health states, treatment type, toxicities, and clinical variables on HUS were evaluated.
RESULTS
Between 2014 and 2018, a total of 260 patients completed 994 encounters. Across treatment groups, patients with disease progression had lower HUS compared to controlled disease (0.771 vs 0.803; P = .01). Patients predominantly received gefitinib as the first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (n = 157, mean-HUS = 0.798), whereas osimertinib (n = 62, mean-HUS = 0.806) and chemotherapy (n = 38, mean-HUS = 0.721) were more likely used in subsequent treatment lines. In longitudinal analysis, TKIs retained high HUS (>0.78) compared to chemotherapy (HUS < 0.74). There were no differences between the frequency or severity of toxicity scores in patients receiving gefitinib compared to osimertinib; however, TKI therapy resulted in fewer toxicities than chemotherapy (P < .05), with the exception of worse diarrhea and skin rash (P < .001). Severity in toxicities inversely correlated with HUS (P < .001). Clinico-demographic factors significantly affecting HUS included age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Score (ECOG PS), disease state, treatment group, and metastatic burden.
CONCLUSIONS
In a real-world EGFRm population, patients treated with gefitinib or osimertinib had similar HUS and toxicities, scores which were superior to chemotherapy. Health utility scores inversely correlated with patient-reported toxicity scores. In the era of targeted therapies, future economic analyses should incorporate real-world HUS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31650705
doi: 10.1002/cam4.2603
pmc: PMC6912023
doi:
Substances chimiques
Protein Kinase Inhibitors
0
ErbB Receptors
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7542-7555Subventions
Organisme : AstraZeneca Canada
Pays : International
Organisme : Posluns Family Fund
Pays : International
Organisme : Alan Brown Chair in Molecular Genomics
Pays : International
Organisme : University of Toronto
Pays : International
Organisme : Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute
Pays : International
Organisme : Lusi Wong Early Detection of Lung Cancer Program
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
BMJ Open. 2014 Oct 31;4(10):e005762
pubmed: 25361836
Cancer Med. 2019 Dec;8(18):7542-7555
pubmed: 31650705
Lung Cancer. 2008 Dec;62(3):374-80
pubmed: 18467000
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017 Nov;26(6):
pubmed: 28557060
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Aug;12(8):735-42
pubmed: 21783417
Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Mar 15;17(6):1616-22
pubmed: 21135146
Oncologist. 2019 Mar;24(3):349-357
pubmed: 30257889
Am J Cancer Res. 2015 Aug 15;5(9):2892-911
pubmed: 26609494
N Engl J Med. 2017 Feb 16;376(7):629-640
pubmed: 27959700
Mol Clin Oncol. 2013 Jan;1(1):65-68
pubmed: 24649124
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;4(8):1080-1084
pubmed: 29852038
Ann Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;29(3):687-693
pubmed: 29293889
Med Decis Making. 2015 Apr;35(3):371-87
pubmed: 25670839
Lung Cancer. 2010 Jan;67(1):4-11
pubmed: 19939491
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;36(22):2244-2250
pubmed: 29864379
Cancer Treat Rev. 2016 Apr;45:139-62
pubmed: 27019457
Mol Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug;9(2):201-206
pubmed: 30101022
Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 12;7:40374
pubmed: 28079142
Lancet Oncol. 2016 May;17(5):577-89
pubmed: 27083334
Oncologist. 2019 Jul;24(7):e501-e509
pubmed: 30952820
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Apr 15;19(8):2240-7
pubmed: 23470965
Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5-21
pubmed: 21037243
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jun 24;362(25):2380-8
pubmed: 20573926
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Aug 10;27(23):3868-74
pubmed: 19581533
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Dec;17(12):1643-1652
pubmed: 27751847
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):113-125
pubmed: 29151359
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 20;36(9):841-849
pubmed: 28841389
Clin Lung Cancer. 2017 Jul;18(4):388-395.e4
pubmed: 28111120
Br J Cancer. 2015 Nov 17;113(10):1519-28
pubmed: 26461059
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 4;12(8):e0181867
pubmed: 28777825
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2018 Feb 05;10:1758834018755072
pubmed: 29434678
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Sep 15;18(18):3302-17
pubmed: 10986064
PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31115
pubmed: 22328929
JAMA. 2014 May 21;311(19):1998-2006
pubmed: 24846037
Oncotarget. 2018 Apr 27;9(32):22559-22570
pubmed: 29854298
Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(8):855-63
pubmed: 11596837
Oncotarget. 2016 Nov 29;7(48):78985-78993
pubmed: 27738317
J Surg Res. 2003 Sep;114(1):1-5
pubmed: 13678691
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007 Dec 21;5:70
pubmed: 18154669
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Feb;16(2):141-51
pubmed: 25589191
J Thorac Oncol. 2017 Apr;12(4):633-643
pubmed: 28007626
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2013 Jan;22(1):60-9
pubmed: 22694595