Proposal for a novel methodology to screen and score cost versus survival for anticancer drugs in metastatic disease: could cost weigh in evaluation?

Abstract

Purpose: Rising costs of anticancer drugs prompt concerns about their approval, use, and affordability. A methodology was developed to evaluate cost versus survival for anticancer drugs in metastatic breast cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: Costs of evaluated drugs were calculated by using average wholesale prices in US dollars. Ratios of cost to day of survival (cost/survival/d) were obtained by dividing costs of the entire treatment by reported median survival gain in days. A crude score of 100% was assigned to a cost/survival/d of less than $25, and 0% to a cost/survival/d of more than $750. A strategy was designed to correct for overall survival (OS) versus progression-free survival (PFS), adverse effects, and quality of life.

Results: In breast cancer, PFS scores of bevacizumab varied between 0% and 60%. In NSCLC, OS scores of bevacizumab improved from 0% to 50%, as a result of histology, lower prices, and extended therapy. Gefitinib and erlotinib PFS scores were 80% and 70%, respectively. Correction for longer survival with erlotinib resulted in similar scores. In maintenance therapy, the OS score for pemetrexed was 70% as compared with 25% for erlotinib. Generic drugs scored 70% to 90%.

Conclusion: Cost/survival varied with the number of cycles. In breast cancer, bevacizumab scores failed to justify its use. In NSCLC, 10 cycles of bevacizumab scored 0%. Scores improved with extended treatment and lower prices. Scores for gefitinib and erlotinib would support their approval. Erlotinib was preferred because of longer PFS. Results tended to endorse maintenance pemetrexed but not erlotinib. Generic drugs demonstrated high scores. Cost/survival could weigh in drug evaluation.