Entrectinib as first-line vs. second-line therapy in ROS1 fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: The concept of cost-effectiveness is crucial for the optimal allocation of scarce healthcare resources. However, the cost-effectiveness of entrectinib in ROS1 fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been evaluated. We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of entrectinib as a first-line treatment compared to its reservation for second-line therapy or the exclusive use of chemotherapy in ROS1 Methods: A Markov model was created to assess the clinical outcomes and healthcare costs associated with these three treatment approaches. Cost and utility values were obtained from established literature and cost databases. To test model robustness, probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: In the first-line setting, where entrectinib was administered as the initial therapy, it yielded an extra 0.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $73,453, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1,090,594.30 per QALY compared to chemotherapy. Conversely, in the second-line setting, when entrectinib was used as a second-line therapy following chemotherapy, it provided an extra 0.11 QALYs at an incremental cost of $53,480, resulting in an ICER of $494,290.39 per QALY compared to chemotherapy. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that the cost of entrectinib and utility values of progressed disease were the most influential factors for the ICER. Conclusions: Considering the current pricing of entrectinib, it is not deemed cost-effective as a firstline or second-line therapy for patients with ROS1 fusion-positive advanced NSCLC when compared to chemotherapy. Alternatively, reserving entrectinib exclusively for second-line therapy might strike a balance between healthcare expenditures and patient outcomes.