Cost-Effectiveness of Tumor Genomic Profiling to Guide First-Line Targeted Therapy Selection in Patients With Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma

Objectives

A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of 10 oncogenes, targeted gene panel testing (TGPT) of 4 oncogenes, and no tumor profiling over the lifetime for patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ perspective was conducted.

Methods

A decision analytic model used 10 000 hypothetical Medicare beneficiaries with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma to simulate outcomes associated with CGP (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ERBB2, MET, NTRK1, NTRK2, NTRK3, RET, ROS1), TGPT (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ROS1), and no tumor profiling (no genes tested). First-line targeted cancer-directed therapies were assigned if actionable gene variants were detected; otherwise, nontargeted cancer-directed therapies were assigned. Model inputs were derived from randomized trials (progression-free survival, adverse events), the Veterans Health Administration and Medicare (drug costs), published studies (nondrug cancer-related management costs, health state utilities), and published databases (actionable variant prevalences). Costs (2019 US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% per year. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses used 1000 Monte Carlo simulations.

Results

No tumor profiling was the least costly/person ($122 613 vs $184 063 for TGPT and $188 425 for CGP) and yielded the least QALYs/person (0.53 vs 0.73 for TGPT and 0.74 for CGP). The costs per QALY gained and corresponding 95% confidence interval were $310 735 ($278 323-$347 952) for TGPT vs no tumor profiling and $445 545 ($322 297-$572 084) for CGP vs TGPT. All probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations for both comparisons surpassed the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150 000 per QALY gained).

Conclusion

Compared with no tumor profiling in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma, tumor profiling (TGPT, CGP) improves quality-adjusted survival but is not cost-effective.