Cost effectiveness of first-line pemetrexed plus platinum compared with other regimens in the treatment of patients with nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer in the US outpatient setting

Abstract This retrospective observational study evaluated cost effectiveness of first-line treatment of advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with pemetrexed/platinum (Pem/Plat) relative to paclitaxel/carboplatin (Pac/Carbo) and paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab (Pac/Carbo/Bev). Patients initiating first-line treatment from 2006 to 2009 were identified in electronic medical records of 20 US oncology practices. Pem/Plat patients were matched 1:1 on important characteristics with Pac/Carbo and Pac/Carbo/Bev patients and followed for 1 year to assess progression, survival, and costs. Bootstrapping was used to calculate the probability of falling within quadrants of the incremental cost-effectiveness plane. Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling were also performed. Three hundred Pem/Plat patients (mean age, 67.6 years; male, 56.0%; PS 0/1, 71.0%) were matched with 300 patients in the other cohorts. Median PFS was 134 days (Pem/Plat) versus 106 days (Pac/Carbo) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67, P P P  = 0.08) and 271 days (Pac/Carbo/Bev) (HR: 0.93, P  = 0.31). Pem/Plat therapy costs were higher versus Pac/Carbo ($21,841 higher PFS; $19,137 higher OS; P  ≤ 0.05) and lower versus Pac/Carbo/Bev ($15,160 lower PFS; $19,946 lower OS; P  ≤ 0.05). Pem/Plat had a greater probability of higher costs/higher effectiveness versus Pac/Carbo (PFS, 90.1%; OS, 96.3%) and lower costs/higher effectiveness versus Pac/Carbo/Bev (PFS, 69.5%; OS, 85.0%). Pem/Plat had higher cost and effectiveness than Pac/Carbo; depending on a payer's or society's willingness to pay, Pem/Plat may be considered cost effective compared with Pac/Carbo. Pem/Plat yielded greater effectiveness with lower costs than Pac/Carbo/Bev.