Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Erlotinib

A Pharmacoeconomic Review of its Use in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

  • Adis Pharmacoeconomic Drug Evaluation
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Erlotinib (Tarceva®), an oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is associated with modest improvements in survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have previously received one or more prior chemotherapy regimens. In a well designed clinical trial in this patient population, median overall survival and progression-free survival were significantly longer in patients receiving erlotinib 150 mg/day than in those receiving placebo. Erlotinib is generally well tolerated, with most adverse events being of mild to moderate severity.

A large body of modelled pharmacoeconomic data suggests that second- or third-line erlotinib 150mg/day is a cost-saving option relative to treatment with the approved second-line intravenous chemotherapies of docetaxel and pemetrexed in patients with advanced NSCLC. In patients who had received at least one prior chemotherapy regimen, erlotinib was predicted to be dominant (i.e. more effective and less costly) or cost saving (i.e. equally effective and less costly) relative to docetaxel or pemetrexed with regard to the cost per QALY or life-year gained in cost-effectiveness analyses. Although the effect of erlotinib on overall survival was generally assumed to be equivalent to that of the chemotherapies, the estimated amount of QALYs gained was slightly greater with erlotinib than with docetaxel. In cost-minimization and national budgetary impact analyses, estimated total direct costs with erlotinib were lower than those with docetaxel and pemetrexed, because of the generally lower drug acquisition, administration and adverse event management costs associated with erlotinib. Cost advantages with erlotinib were predicted across analyses, regardless of the type of model developed, specific costs that were included, country that the study was conducted in and year of costing. Sensitivity analyses consistently showed that these results were robust to plausible changes in the key model assumptions.

In conclusion, in patients with advancedNSCLC, second- or third-line treatment with erlotinib is clinically effective in improving survival. Available pharmacoeconomic data from several countries, despite some inherent limitations, support the use of erlotinib as a cost-saving treatment relative to chemotherapy with docetaxel or pemetrexed in this patient population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. European Medicines Agency. Tarceva (erlotinib): summary of product characteristics [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/tarceva/emea-combined-h618en.pdf [Accessed 2009 Aug 3]

  2. Tarceva (erlotinib): US prescribing information. South San Francisco (CA): Genentech USA, Inc, 2009 Apr

  3. Robinson D, Keating G, Perry C. Erlotinib. Am J Cancer 2005; 4 (4): 247–52

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dancey JE. Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer. Drugs 2007; 67 (8): 1125–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Perez-Soler R. Erlotinib: recent clinical results and ongoing studies in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2007 Aug 1; 13 (15 Suppl.): 4589s–92s

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gridelli C, Ardizzoni A, Ciardiello F, et al. Second-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2008 Apr; 3 (4): 430–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. D’Addario G, Felip E. Non-small-cell lung cancer: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Ann Oncol 2009 May; 20 Suppl. 4: iv68–70

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Felip E, Garrido P, Trigo JM, et al. SEOM guidelines for the management of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Clin Transl Oncol 2009 May; 11 (5): 284–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. National Comprehensive Cancer Network®. NCCN Clinical Practice Guideline in Oncology®: non-small cell lungcancer. V.2.2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/nscl.pdf [Accessed 2009 Aug 3]

  10. European Medicines Agency. Committee for medicinal products for human use: summary of positive opinion for Iressa (gefitinib) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/opinion/Iressa_20075609en.pdf [Accessed 2009 Aug 3]

  11. Iressa® (gefitinib tablets): US prescribing information. Wilmington (DE): AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, 2005 Jun

  12. American Cancer Society. Global cancer facts and figures 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/Global_Facts_and_Figures_2007_rev2.pdf [Accessed 2009 Aug 10]

  13. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/2008CAFFfinalsecured.pdf [Accessed 2009 Aug 10]

  14. Molinier L, Combescure C, Chouaid C, et al. Cost of lung cancer: a methodological review. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (7): 651–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bradley CJ, Yabroff KR, Dahman B, et al. Productivity costs of cancer mortality in the United States: 2000–2020. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008 Dec 17; 100 (24): 1763–70

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Yabroff KA, Bradley CJ, Mariotto AB, et al. Estimates and projections of value of life lost from cancer deaths in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008 Dec 17; 100 (24): 1755–62

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Ramsey SD, Martins RG, Blough DK, et al. Second-line and third-line chemotherapy for lung cancer: use and cost. Am J Manag Care 2008 May; 14 (5): 297–306

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pompen M, Gok M, Novák A, et al. Direct costs associated with the disease management of patients with unresectable advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the Netherlands. Lung Cancer 2009 Apr; 64 (1): 110–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fox KM, Brooks JM, Kim J. Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: costs associated with disease progression. Am J Manage Care 2008 Sep; 14 (9): 565–71

    Google Scholar 

  20. Trippoli S, Vaiani M, Lucioni C, et al. Quality of life and utility in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (8): 855–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Nafees B, Stafford M, Gavriel S. Health state utilities for non small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008 Oct 21; 6: 84

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Tabberer M, Stamuli E, Walker M, et al. Utilities associated with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a community study [abstract no. PCN74]. Value Health 2006; 9 (6): A298

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, et al. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2005 Jul 14; 353 (2): 123–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bezjak A, Tu D, Seymour L, et al. Symptom improvement in lung cancer patients treated with erlotinib: quality of life analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.21. J Clin Oncol 2006 Aug 20; 24 (24): 3831–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wheatley-Price P, Ding K, Seymour L, et al. Erlotinib for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the elderly: an analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.21. J Clin Oncol 2008 May 10; 26 (14): 2350–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhu C-Q, da Cuhna Santos G, Ding K, et al. Role of KRAS and EGFR as biomarkers of response to erlotinib in National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.21. J Clin Oncol 2008 Sep 10; 26 (26): 4268–75

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wacker B, Nagrani T, Weinberg J, et al. Correlation between development of rash and efficacy in patients treated with the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib in two large phase III studies. Clin Cancer Res 2007 Jul 1; 13 (13): 3913–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Araújo A, Parente B, Sotto-Mayor R, et al. An economic analysis of erlotinib, docetaxel, pemetrexed and best supportive care as second or third line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Rev Port Pneumol 2008; 14 (6): 803–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Batigun O, Yildirim E. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of erlotinib compared with docetaxel for the treatment of relapsed non-small-cell lung cancer in Turkey [abstract no. PCN77]. Value Health 2007; 10 (6): A234

    Google Scholar 

  30. Chen W, Sheng F, Qiao N. Cost-effectiveness of erlotinib in the treatment of advanced non small cell lung cancer in China [abstract no. PCN104]. Value Health 2009 Oct; 12 (7): A276

    Google Scholar 

  31. Côté I, Leighl NB, Gyldmark M, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analyses of erlotinib compared with best supportive care for the treatment of relapsed non-small cell lung cancer from the Canadian public health care perspective [abstract no. PCN11]. Value Health 2006 Nov-Dec; 9 (6): A279. Plus poster presented at the 9th Annual European Congress of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research; 2006 Oct 28–31; Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hsia T, Chang G, Chen YM, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib compared with docetaxel and pemetrexed for second-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Taiwan [abstract no. PCN10]. Value Health 2007 Nov-Dec; 10 (6): A325

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lewis G, Morlotti L, Creeden J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of erlotinib compared with docetaxel for the treatment of relapsed non-small cell lung cancer in the UK [abstract no. CN4]. Value Health 2006 Nov-Dec; 9 (6): A203–4. Plus slide presentation at the 9th Annual European Congress of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research; 2006 Oct 28–31; Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  34. Orlewska E, Szczesna A, Szkultecka-Debck M. Cost effectiveness of erlotinib as second line agent in the treatment of advanced non small lung cancer in Poland [in Polish]. Farmakoekonomika 2006; 10 (3): 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  35. Pompen M, Novak A, Gok M, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis shows that erlotinib is cost-saving versus docetaxel, and cost-effective versus best supportive care in NSCLC [abstract no. PD6-3-5]. J Thorac Oncol 2007 Aug; 2 (8 Suppl. 4): S433

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rubio Terrés C, Alvarez Sanz C, Gylmark MG. Pharmacoeconomic analysis in Spain of therapy with erlotinib, docetaxel, pemetrexed or best supportive care in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who have failed previous chemotherapy regimens [abstract no. PCN26]. Value Health 2006 Nov-Dec; 9 (6): A283–4. Plus poster presented at the 9th Annual European Congress of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research; 2006 Oct 28–31; Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  37. Carlson JJ, Reyes C, Oestreicher N, et al. Comparative clinical and economic outcomes of treatments for refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer 2008; 61 (3): 405–15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. van der Hoek K, Taylor SC, Peacock S, et al. Costeffectiveness analysis (CEA) of third-line erlotinib therapy compared to best supportive care for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in British Columbia (BC) [abstract no. 7678]. J Clin Oncol 2007 Jun 20; 25 (18 Suppl. Pt I): 428s

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bradbury PA, Jang R, Isogai P, et al. A cost utility analysis of erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract no. PCN58]. Value Health 2008; 11 (3): A72

    Google Scholar 

  40. Capri S, Morabito A, Carillio G, et al. Economic evaluation of erlotinib, docetaxel and pemetrexed as second line therapy in non-small cell lung cancer [in Italian]. Pharmacoeconomics Ital Res Articles 2007; 9 (2): 113–24

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kotowa W, Gatzemeier U, Pirk O, et al. A comparison of the estimated costs of erlotinib, docetaxel and pemetrexed for the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer from the German healthcare perspective. J Med Econ 2007; 10 (3): 255–71

    Google Scholar 

  42. Stefani SD, Saggia MG, Vicino dos Santos EA. Costminimisation analysis of erlotinib in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a Brazilian perspective. J Med Econ 2008; 11 (3): 383–96

    Google Scholar 

  43. Orlewska E, Szczesna A, Szkultekca-Debek M. Budget impact analysis of non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) treatment with erlotinib in Polish setting [abstract no. PCN21]. Value Health 2009 May; 12 (3): A39–40

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ramsey SD, Clarke L, Kamath TV, et al. Evaluation of erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: impact on the budget of a U.S. health insurance plan. J Manag Care Pharm 2006 Jul-Aug; 12 (6): 472–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Shepherd F, Dancey J, Ramlau R, et al. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2000 May; 18 (10): 2095–103

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Hanna N, Shepherd FA, Fossella FV, et al. Randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22 (9): 1589–97

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Fossella FV, DeVore R, Kerr RN, et al. Randomized phase III trial of docetaxel versus vinorelbine or ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens. The TAX 320 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Study Group [published erratum appears in J Clin Oncol 2004 Jan 1; 22 (1): 209]. J Clin Oncol 2000 Jun; 18 (12): 2354–62

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Oanda.com. FX Converter results: currency converter for 164 currencies [online]. Available from URL: http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic [Accessed 2009 Aug 20]

  49. Groen H, Arrieta OG, Riska H, et al. The global TRUST study of erlotinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract no. 19000]. J Clin Oncol 2008 May 20; 26 (15 Suppl. Pt I): 706s

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hoffman-La Roche. A study of Tarceva (erlotinib) and standard of care chemotherapy in patients with advanced, recurrent, or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [Clinical Trials.gov identifier NCT00556322] [online]. Available from URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov [Accessed 2009 Aug 26]

  51. Carlson J, Garrison L, Ramsey S, et al. The potential clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacogenomic approachesto EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor guided therapy in nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Value Health 2009; 12 (1): 20–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Bradbury PA, Tu D, Seymour L, et al. Impact of clinical and molecular predictors of benefit for erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer on cost-effectiveness [abstract no. 6531]. J Clin Oncol 2008 May 30; 26 (15 Suppl. Pt I): 344s

    Google Scholar 

  53. US National Institutes of Health. ClinicalTrials.gov [online]. Available from URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov [Accessed 2009 Aug 26]

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adis, a Wolters Kluwer Business, 41 Centorian Drive, Private Bag 65901, Mairangi Bay, North Shore 0754, Auckland, New Zealand

    Katherine A. Lyseng-Williamson

Authors
  1. Katherine A. Lyseng-Williamson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lyseng-Williamson, K.A. Erlotinib. Pharmacoeconomics 28, 75–92 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2165/10482880-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/10482880-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation