IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v43y2025i4d10.1007_s40273-024-01462-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of Exclusionary EGFR Testing for Taiwanese Patients Newly Diagnosed with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma

Author

Listed:
  • Huang-Tz Ou

    (National Cheng Kung University)

  • Jui-Hung Tsai

    (National Cheng Kung University)

  • Yi-Lin Chen

    (National Cheng Kung University Hospital)

  • Tzu-I. Wu

    (National Cheng Kung University)

  • Li-Jun Chen

    (National Cheng Kung University)

  • Szu-Chun Yang

    (National Cheng Kung University)

Abstract

Background and Objective Approximately half of lung adenocarcinomas in East Asia harbor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. EGFR testing followed by tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS), upfront tissue-based NGS, and complementary NGS approaches have emerged on the front line to guide personalized therapy. We study the cost effectiveness of exclusionary EGFR testing for Taiwanese patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma. Methods This economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective of the healthcare sector with a lifetime horizon. Simulated patients were entered into a joint model combining decision trees and partitioned survival models upon diagnosis of advanced lung adenocarcinoma. We compared exclusionary EGFR testing with upfront tissue-based NGS and complementary NGS approaches. The model inputs were derived from regional estimates (prevalence of targetable gene alterations), trials (testing accuracy, survival outcomes, and adverse events), ACT Genomics (testing costs), National Health Insurance payments, retail prices (drug costs), and hospital cohorts (utility values). All costs were made equivalent to 2023 US dollars. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied. We adopted a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$70,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. One-way deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed. Results The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of exclusionary EGFR testing versus upfront tissue-based NGS was US$15,521 per quality-adjusted life-year, whereas the incremental net monetary benefit was US$2530. The costs of osimertinib and pembrolizumab were the major determinants. The incremental net monetary benefit of exclusionary EGFR testing versus complementary NGS approach was US$2174, and its major determinants included the true-negative rate of EGFR testing and the prevalence rate of an EGFR mutation. Given the willingness-to-pay thresholds of US$35,000, US$70,000, and US$105,000 (1, 2, and 3 per capita gross domestic product) per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that exclusionary EGFR testing would be cost effective were 79.1%, 95.6%, and 91.2%, respectively. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that exclusionary EGFR testing is a cost-effective strategy for Taiwanese patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

Suggested Citation

  • Huang-Tz Ou & Jui-Hung Tsai & Yi-Lin Chen & Tzu-I. Wu & Li-Jun Chen & Szu-Chun Yang, 2025. "Cost Effectiveness of Exclusionary EGFR Testing for Taiwanese Patients Newly Diagnosed with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 429-440, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01462-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01462-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-024-01462-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-024-01462-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eline M. Krijkamp & Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Eva A. Enns & Hawre J. Jalal & M. G. Myriam Hunink & Petros Pechlivanoglou, 2018. "Microsimulation Modeling for Health Decision Sciences Using R: A Tutorial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 400-422, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Eline Krijkamp & Eva A. Enns & Alan Yang & M. G. Myriam Hunink & Petros Pechlivanoglou & Hawre Jalal, 2023. "A Tutorial on Time-Dependent Cohort State-Transition Models in R Using a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Example," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(1), pages 21-41, January.
    2. Mei-Chin Su & Yi-Jen Wang & Tzeng-Ji Chen & Shiao-Hui Chiu & Hsiao-Ting Chang & Mei-Shu Huang & Li-Hui Hu & Chu-Chuan Li & Su-Ju Yang & Jau-Ching Wu & Yu-Chun Chen, 2020. "Assess the Performance and Cost-Effectiveness of LACE and HOSPITAL Re-Admission Prediction Models as a Risk Management Tool for Home Care Patients: An Evaluation Study of a Medical Center Affiliated H," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-17, February.
    3. Anna Heath & Petros Pechlivanoglou, 2022. "Prioritizing Research in an Era of Personalized Medicine: The Potential Value of Unexplained Heterogeneity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 649-660, July.
    4. Isaac Corro Ramos & Talitha Feenstra & Salah Ghabri & Maiwenn Al, 2024. "Evaluating the Validation Process: Embracing Complexity and Transparency in Health Economic Modelling," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(7), pages 715-719, July.
    5. Yi-Shu Lin & James F O’Mahony & Joost Rosmalen, 2023. "A Simple Cost-Effectiveness Model of Screening: An Open-Source Teaching and Research Tool Coded in R," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 507-523, July.
    6. Peter Shewmaker & Stavroula A. Chrysanthopoulou & Rowan Iskandar & Derek Lake & Earic Jutkowitz, 2022. "Microsimulation Model Calibration with Approximate Bayesian Computation in R: A Tutorial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 557-570, July.
    7. Stavroula A. Chrysanthopoulou & Carolyn M. Rutter & Constantine A. Gatsonis, 2021. "Bayesian versus Empirical Calibration of Microsimulation Models: A Comparative Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(6), pages 714-726, August.
    8. Yingying Zhang & Noemi Kreif & Vijay S. GC & Andrea Manca, 2024. "Machine Learning Methods to Estimate Individualized Treatment Effects for Use in Health Technology Assessment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(7), pages 756-769, October.
    9. William, Jananie & Loong, Bronwyn & Hanna, Dana & Parkinson, Bonny & Loxton, Deborah, 2022. "Lifetime health costs of intimate partner violence: A prospective longitudinal cohort study with linked data for out-of-hospital and pharmaceutical costs," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    10. Elizabeth A. Handorf & J. Robert Beck & Andres Correa & Chethan Ramamurthy & Daniel M. Geynisman, 2023. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Therapy Sequence in Advanced Cancer: A Microsimulation Approach with Application to Metastatic Prostate Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 949-960, October.
    11. Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Eline Krijkamp & Eva A. Enns & Alan Yang & M. G. Myriam Hunink & Petros Pechlivanoglou & Hawre Jalal, 2023. "An Introductory Tutorial on Cohort State-Transition Models in R Using a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Example," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(1), pages 3-20, January.
    12. Paolo Candio & Koen B. Pouwels & David Meads & Andrew J. Hill & Laura Bojke & Claire Williams, 2022. "Modelling decay in effectiveness for evaluation of behaviour change interventions: a tutorial for public health economists," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(7), pages 1151-1157, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01462-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.