Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of the included publications

From: A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of targeted therapies for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Author (Publication year)

Country/perspective (Pharma sponsored?)

Treatment line

Treatment

Incremental costs

LYG gained

QALY’s gained

ICER (per LYG)

ICER (per QALY)

    

In US-$

  

In US-$

In US-$

   

Erlotinib vs. BSC/chemotherapy

     

Wang et al. (2013) [16]

China/health care system (no)

First

Erlotinib vs. carboplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy

$ 48,119***

0.84

0.58

$ 30,455

$ 85,927

Vergnenegre et al. (2012) [13]

France/payer (yes)

First maintenance

Erlotinib plus BSC vs. BSC

11,140 € ($ 15,476*)

0.28

 

39,783 € ($ 55,266*)

 

Germany/payer (yes)

13,141 € ($ 18,255*)

0.28

 

46,931 € ($ 65,196*)

 
 

Italy/payer (yes)

  

7,808 € ($ 10,847*)

0.28

 

27,885 € ($ 38,738*)

 

Walleser et al. (2012) [14]

UK/payer (no)

First maintenance

Erlotinib vs. BSC

7,898 € ($ 10,460*)

0.39

 

20,711 € ($ 27,430*)

 

Germany/payer (no)

9,580 € ($ 12,688*)

 

25,124 € ($ 33,275*)

 

France/payer (no)

8,873 € ($ 11,752*)

 

23,271 € ($ 30,821*)

 

Spain/payer (no)

8,488 € ($ 11,242*)

 

22,261 € ($ 29,483*)

 
 

Italy/payer (no)

  

8,149 € ($ 10,793*)

  

21,368 € ($ 28,300*)

 

Klein et al. (2010) [15]

USA/payer (yes)

First maintenance

Erlotinib vs. pemetrexed

$ -24,474

-0.1629

 

no statement

 
   

Erlotinib vs. BSC

$ 7,470

0.0982

 

$ 76,069**

 

Araújo et al. (2008) [17]

Portugal/health care system (yes)

Subsequent

Erlotinib vs. BSC

10,366 € ($ 15,184)

0.15

0.064

70,424 € ($ 103,159)

161,742 € ($ 236,924)

Erlotinib vs. docetaxel

-2,784 € ($ -4,078)

0

0.025

Dominant

Dominant

   

Erlotinib vs. pemetrexed

-6,284 € ($ -9,205)

0

0.009

Dominant

Dominant

Carlson et al. (2008) [12]

USA/payer (yes)

Subsequent

Erlotinib vs. docetaxel

$ -2,127

 

0.01

 

Dominant

   

Erlotinib vs. pemetrexed

$ -6,782

 

0.01

 

Dominant

Lewis et al. (2010) [18]

UK/NHS (yes)

Subsequent (second)

Erlotinib vs. docetaxel

£ -226 ($ -352)

 

0.032

 

Dominant

Thongprasert et al. (2012) [19]

Thailand/payer (yes)

Subsequent

Erlotinib vs. docetaxel

$ 1,746

 

0.0140

 

$ 124,703

Cromwell et al. (2011) [20]

Canada/health care system (no)

Subsequent

Erlotinib vs. docetaxel

2,891 CAD ($ 2,529)

0.003

 

Not calculated, no statistical differences

 

Cromwell et al. (2012) [21]

Canada/health care system (no)

Subsequent

Erlotinib vs. BSC

11,102 CAD ($ 9,712)

0.25

 

36,838 CAD ($ 32,226)

 

Bradbury et al. (2010) [22]

Canada/health care system (no)

Subsequent

Erlotinib vs. BSC

12,303 CAD ($ 11,454)

0.13

 

94,638 CAD ($ 88,109)

 
   

Gefitinib vs. chemotherapy

     

Zhu et al. (2013) [23]

China/health care system (no)

First

Gefitinib (WT patients only) vs. routine care

$ 26,150

0.74

0.46

$ 35,337

$ 57,066

Thongprasert et al. (2012) [19]

Thailand/payer (yes)

Subsequent

Gefitinib vs. docetaxel

$ -247

/

0.0140

/

Dominant

   

Erlotinib (various combinations)

     

Chouaid et al. (2012) [24]

France/payer (yes)

First

Erlotinib followed by docetaxel and gemcitabine (DG) vs. DG followed by erlotinib (fit elderly patients)

3,954 € ($ 5,497)

/

-0.01

/

395,400 € ($ 549,700)

Chouaid et al. (2013) [25]

France/payer (yes)

First

Erlotinib followed by gemcitabine vs. gemcitabine followed by erlotinib (frail elderly patients)

130€ ($ 181)

/

-0.02

/

/

Carlson et al. (2009) [26]

USA/societal (no)

Subsequent

EGFR protein expression test (erlotinib if high expression/docetaxel if low expression) vs. No testing (erlotinib monotherapy)

$ 6,274

/

0.04

/

$ 179,612

   

EGFR gene copy number test (erlotinib if high number/docetaxel if low number) vs. No testing (erlotinib monotherapy)

$ 9,209

0.12

0.06

$ 78,367

$ 162,018

   

Bevacizumab (plus chemotherapy) vs. chemotherapy

     

Giuliani et al. (2010) [27]

Italy/payer (yes)

First

Bevacizumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine vs. pemetrexed plus cisplatin

4,007 € ($ 5,566)

0.12

 

34,919 € ($ 48,509)

 

Ahn et al. (2011) [28]

Korea/payer (yes)

First

Bevacizumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine vs. cisplatin plus pemetrexed

$ 33,322

1.10

 

$ 30,318

 
 

Taiwan/payer (yes)

First

Bevacizumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine vs. cisplatin plus pemetrexed

$ 64,541

1.19

 

$ 54,317

 

Goulart et al. (2011) [29]

USA/payer (no)

First

Bevacizumab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel vs. carboplatin-paclitaxel

$ 71,620

0.23

0.13

$ 308,982

$ 559,610

Klein et al. (2009) [30]

USA/payer (yes)

First

Carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab vs. cisplatin/pemetrexed

$ 24,528

0.0727

0.0244

$ 337,179

$ 1,006,065

Klein et al. (2010) [15]

USA/payer (yes)

First

Bevacizumab vs. pemetrexed

$ 9,187

-0.0480

 

Dominated

 
  1. Abbreviations: BSC best supportive care, CAD Canadian dollar, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, LYG life-year gained, QALY quality-adjusted life year, UK United Kingdom, vs. versus, WT wild type.
  2. *Price year assumed **Not calculated by the authors ***Stated by the authors. The components of nominator and denominator, however, indicate that erlotinib is dominant.