Cargando…
Upfront Advanced Radiotherapy and New Drugs for NSCLC Patients with Synchronous Brain Metastases: Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze? A Real-World Analysis from Lombardy, Italy
SIMPLE SUMMARY: This study aims to compare effectiveness and cost profile in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring synchronous brain metastases (BMs) who received non-chemo first-line systemic therapy with or without advanced radiotherapy (aRT). A total of 177 lung cancer patients, o...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9953825/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36831447 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041103 |
Sumario: | SIMPLE SUMMARY: This study aims to compare effectiveness and cost profile in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring synchronous brain metastases (BMs) who received non-chemo first-line systemic therapy with or without advanced radiotherapy (aRT). A total of 177 lung cancer patients, of whom 58 were treated with systemic treatment (either TKIs or pembrolizumab) plus aRT (STRT) and 119 with systemic treatment alone, were selected. The addition of aRT to systemic treatment was associated with a significantly better OS (p = 0.020) and PFS (p = 0.041) than systemic therapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value indicated an average cost of €3792 for each month of survival after STRT and confirmed clinical effectiveness but higher healthcare costs. This real-world study suggests that upfront aRT in this setting represents a valid treatment strategy, boosting the efficacy of emerging drug classes with sustainable costs for the health service. ABSTRACT: Aim: Healthcare administrative databases represent a valuable source for real-life data analysis. The primary aim of this study is to compare effectiveness and cost profile in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring synchronous brain metastases (BMs) who received non-chemo first-line systemic therapy with or without advanced radiotherapy (aRT). Methods: Diagnostic ICD-9-CM codes were used for identifying all patients with a new diagnosis of lung cancer between 2012 and 2019. Among these, patients who had started a first-line systemic treatment with either TKIs or pembrolizumab, alone or in combination with intensity-modulated or stereotactic RT, were selected. Clinical outcomes investigated included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time-to-treatment failure (TTF). The cost outcome was defined as the average per capita cumulative healthcare direct costs of the treatment, including all inpatient and outpatient costs. Results: The final cohort included 177 patients, of whom 58 were treated with systemic treatment plus aRT (STRT) and 119 with systemic treatment alone. The addition of aRT to systemic treatment was associated with a significantly better OS (p = 0.020) and PFS (p = 0.041) than systemic therapy alone. The ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) value indicated an average cost of €3792 for each month of survival after STRT treatment and confirmed clinical effectiveness but higher healthcare costs. Conclusions: This real-world study suggests that upfront aRT for NCLSC patients with synchronous BMs represents a valid treatment strategy, boosting the efficacy of novel and emerging drug classes with sustainable costs for the health service. Translational relevance: The present real-world study reports that the use of upfront advanced radiotherapyaRT and new-generation systemic agents, such as TKIs and pembrolizumab, may have higher oncological control and an improved cost-effectiveness profile than the use of new-generation systemic agents alone in NCLSC patients with synchronous brain metastases. Acquired evidence can also be used to inform policymakers that adding advanced radiotherapy results is a sustainable cost for the health service. Since approximately 50% of patients do not meet RCT inclusion criteria, a significant proportion of them is receiving treatment that is not evidence-informed; therefore, these results warrant further studies to identify the best radiotherapy timing and possible dose escalation approaches to improving treatment efficacy in patient subgroups not typically represented in randomized controlled trials. |
---|