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 Medical Journal

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 178-186

  Lee, Vivian W Y ^a   Schwander, Bjoern ^b   Lee, Victor H F ^c  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b AHEAD GmbH Agency for Health Economic Assessment and oDissemination   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR; ERLOTINIB; GEFITINIB; PROTEIN KINASE INHIBITOR; QUINAZOLINE DERIVATIVE;

ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER MORTALITY; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DISEASE COURSE; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; FEMALE; GENE MUTATION; HONG KONG; HUMAN; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); ADULT; AGED; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; GENETICS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; MUTATION; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III AS TOPIC; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ERLOTINIB HYDROCHLORIDE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MUTATION; PROTEIN KINASE INHIBITORS; QUINAZOLINES; RECEPTOR, EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR;

EID: 84902014209     PISSN: 10242708     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12809/hkmj133986     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010;127:2893-917.
2. American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2010.
3. D'Addario G, Fruh M, Reck M, Baumann P, Klepetko W, Felip E. Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2010;21 Suppl 5:v116-9.
4. Yang P, Allen MS, Aubry MC, et al. Clinical features of 5,628 primary lung cancer patients: experience at Mayo Clinic from 1997 to 2003. Chest 2005;128:452-62.
5. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2008. Available from: http://seer. cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/. Accessed 15 Sep 2011.
6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Practice Guidelines in Oncology-Asian Consensus Statement-non-small cell lung cancer (Version 1.2009). Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/ physician_gls/PDF/nscl-asia.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2011.
7. Goldstraw P, Crowley J, Chansky K, et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM classification of malignant tumours. J Thorac Oncol 2007;2:706-14.
8. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Practice Guidelines in Oncology-Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (Version 2.2012). Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp. Accessed 10 Oct 2011.
9. Carey KD, Garton AJ, Romero MS, et al. Kinetic analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor somatic mutant proteins shows increased sensitivity to the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, erlotinib. Cancer Res 2006;66:8163-71.
10. Paz-Ares L, Soulieres D, Klughammer B, Melezinek I, Moecks J, Mok T. Pooled analysis of clinical outcomes in studies of patients with EGFR mutations treated with either an EGFR TKI or chemotherapy. 2009 Jul 16; 2009. Available from: http://www.mojemedicina.cz/files/leciva/ prezentace/tarceva/wclcsf/egfr-mutations-analysis-wclc- 2009-paz-ares.ppt. Accessed Oct 2013.
11. Bria E, Milella M, Cuppone F, et al. Outcome of advanced NSCLC patients harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations randomized to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors or chemotherapy as first-line treatment: a meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 2011;22:2277-85.
12. Zhou C, Wu YL, Chen G, et al. Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:735-42.
13. Zhou C, Wu J, Chen G, et al. Updated efficacy and quality of life (QoL) analyses in OPTIMAL, a phase III, randomized, open-label study of first-line erlotinib vs gemcitabine/ carboplatin in patients with EGFR activating-mutation positive (EGFR Act Mut+) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 2011 ASCO Annual Meeting. J Clin Oncol 2011;29 Suppl: abstract 7520.
14. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 2009;361:947-57.
15. Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K, et al. Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. N Engl J Med 2010;362:2380-8.
16. Mitsudomi T, Morita S, Yatabe Y, et al. Gefitinib versus cisplatin plus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (WJTOG3405): an open label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:121-8.
17. Kim ST, Lee J, Sun JM, et al. Prognostic model to predict outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer patients with erlotinib as salvage treatment. Oncology 2010;79:78-84.
18. Sardari Nia P, Van Marck E, Weyler J, Van Schil P. Prognostic value of a biologic classification of non-smallcell lung cancer into the growth patterns along with other clinical, pathological and immunohistochemical factors. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010;38:628-36.
19. Kefeli U, Kaya S, Ustaalioglu BO, et al. Prognostic factors in elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a twocenter experience. Med Oncol 2011;28:661-6.
20. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:683-91.
21. Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, Khan M, Coyle D. Indirect evidence: indirect treatment comparisons in metaanalysis. Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/hta/reports-publications/search/publication/884. Accessed 19 Oct 2011.
22. Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published metaanalyses. BMJ 2003;326:472.
23. Tudur C, Williamson PR, Khan S, Best LY. The value of the aggregate data approach in meta-analysis with time-toevent outcomes. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 2001;164:357-70.
24. Woods BS, Hawkins N, Scott DA. Network meta-analysis on the log-hazard scale, combining count and hazard ratio statistics accounting for multi-arm trials: a tutorial. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10:54.
25. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical methods. 8th ed. Iowa, US: Iowa State University Press; 1989: 64-82.
26. Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, Khan M, Coyle D. Indirect treatment comparison software application (Version 1.0). Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/en/resources/aboutthis- guide/download-software. Accessed 21 Oct 2011.
27. Yang CH, Fukuoka M, Mok T, et al. Final overall survival results from a phase III, randomised, open-label, first-line study of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Asia. Presented at 35th ESMO Congress; 2010 Oct 8; Milan, Italy: Abstract LBA2.
28. Nafees B, Stafford M, Gavriel S, Bhalla S, Watkins J. Health state utilities for non small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008;6:84.
29. Taiwan Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research. Guidelines of Methodological Standards for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations in Taiwan 2006. Available from: http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/ countrydet.asp?c=31&t=1. Accessed 19 Oct 2011.
30. Census and Statistics Department, HKSAR. Hong Kong in figures-2012 Edition. Available from: http://www. statistics.gov.hk/pub/B10100032012AN12B0100.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2013.
31. Tan-Torres Edejer R, Baltussen R, Adam T, et al. Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Geneva: WHO; 2003. Available from: http://www.who.int/choice/publications/p_2003_generalised_cea.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2013.
32. Han JY, Park K, Kim SW, et al. First-SIGNAL: first-line single-agent iressa versus gemcitabine and cisplatin trial in never-smokers with adenocarcinoma of the lung. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:1122-8.
33. Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, et al. Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive nonsmall- cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, openlabel, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:239-46.
34. Ahn MJ, Lee J, Park YH, et al. Korean ethnicity as compared with white ethnicity is an independent favorable prognostic factor for overall survival in non-small cell lung cancer before and after the oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor era. J Thorac Oncol 2010;5:1185-96.
35. Soo RA, Loh M, Mok TS, et al. Ethnic differences in survival outcome in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:1030-8.
36. Soo RA, Kawaguchi T, Loh M, et al. Differences in outcome and toxicity between Asian and caucasian patients with lung cancer treated with systemic therapy. Future Oncol 2012;8:451-62.
37. Li J, Zhao M, He P, Hidalgo M, Baker SD. Differential metabolism of gefitinib and erlotinib by human cytochrome P450 enzymes. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:3731-7.
38. Ranson M, Hammond LA, Ferry D, et al. ZD1839, a selective oral epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is well tolerated and active in patients with solid, malignant tumors: results of a phase I trial. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:2240-50.
39. Hidalgo M, Siu LL, Nemunaitis J, et al. Phase I and pharmacologic study of OSI-774, an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid malignancies. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3267-79.