Cost-effectiveness analysis shows adjuvant alectinib improves outcomes in ALK-positive lung cancer patients, suggesting economic benefits over chemotherapy.
Objectives: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant alectinib versus adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with resectable (stage IB to IIIA) ALK + non-small cell lung cancer using a US societal perspective. Methods: We developed a cohort-level Markov model to compare adjuvant alectinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy using a lifetime time horizon (40 y) with a monthly cycle length and 3% discounting of health state utilities and costs. Patients started in a disease-free health state; downstream health states included treated (first- or second-line) or untreated metastatic or nonmetastatic recurrence, or death. Patient characteristics, adjuvant treatment patterns, and health utilities were based on the ALINA trial. Results: When measured across a lifetime time horizon, adjuvant alectinib was estimated to lead to 3.1 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with $429,925 lower total costs per patient, demonstrating a dominant cost-effectiveness ratio compared with adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (more effective and less costly). The net monetary benefit in favor of adjuvant alectinib was $895,766 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, adjuvant alectinib has a 99.6% probability of being more effective and less costly than adjuvant chemotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adjuvant alectinib remained dominant when all model inputs were varied in the one-way sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: In comparison with platinum-based chemotherapy, adjuvant alectinib offers substantial additional clinical and economic value to society.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cummings et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: