IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Erlotinib Monotherapy for the Maintenance Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer after Previous Platinum-Containing Chemotherapy: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal

  • Rumona Dickson

    (Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK)

  • Adrian Bagust

    (Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK)

  • Angela Boland

    (Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK)

  • Michaela Blundell

    (Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK)

  • Helen Davis

    (North West Medicines Information Centre, Liverpool, UK)

  • Yenal Dundar

    (Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK)

  • Juliet Hockenhull

    (Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK)

  • Carlos Martin Saborido

    (Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK)

  • James Oyee

    (Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK)

  • Vidhya Sagar. Ramani

    (School of Cancer Studies, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK)

Registered author(s):

    The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of erlotinib (Roche) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of erlotinib as monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and stable disease following previous treatment with four cycles of platinum-containing therapy. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) for this appraisal. The ERG reviewed the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in two stages and in accordance with the decision problem defined by NICE. The analysis of the submitted models assessed the appropriateness of the approach taken by the manufacturer in modelling the decision problem. Analysis also included reliability of model implementation and the extent of conformity to published standards and prevailing norms of practice within the health economics modelling community. Particular attention was paid to issues likely to have substantial impact on the base-case cost-effectiveness results. Clinical evidence was derived from a multi-centre, double-blind, randomized, phase III study designed to address the overall population of NSCLC patients. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The recruited population was mainly from outside of Western Europe and no patients in the pivotal trial had received pemetrexed as a first-line therapy, which is now accepted clinical practice in the UK. The evidence considered in this article includes only the population for whom marketing authorizations has been received - that is, patients with stable disease following first-line therapy. The trial reported a small but statistically significant increase in both PFS and OS in patients with stable disease receiving erlotinib compared with placebo. However, no significant difference was identified in OS when patients with non-squamous disease and stable disease were considered as a subgroup. The economic evidence was focussed on the ERG's assessment of three economic models that related to patients with stable disease and compared erlotinib with placebo in the squamous and non-squamous populations and erlotinib with pemetrexed in the non-squamous population. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported by the manufacturer were £39 936 per QALY gained (stable disease, all); £35 491 per QALY gained (stable disease, squamous); and £40 020 per QALY gained (stable disease, non-squamous). In comparison with pemetrexed, in the cases where erlotinib was considered to be superior or equivalent, erlotinib dominated. In the cases where erlotinib was considered to be slightly inferior, then the ICERs ranged between £91 789 and £511 351 per QALY gained; these ICERs appear in the south-west corner of a cost-effectiveness plane, i.e. erlotinib is cheaper but less effective than pemetrexed. The ERG recalculated the base-case cost-effectiveness results in the manufacturer's submission, considering nine key areas where corrections and/or adjustments were required, related to time horizon, discounting logic, costs of erlotinib and pemetrexed, cost of second-line chemotherapy, unit costs, utility values, PFS and OS. This resulted in ERG-revised ICERs for the stable disease squamous population of £44 812 per QALY gained, in the stable disease non-squamous population of £68 120 per QALY gained, and, when erlotinib was compared with pemetrexed, the result was £84 029 per QALY gained. All values were above NICE's perceived willingness-to-pay threshold. After the second Appraisal Committee meeting, the Committee did not recommend the use of erlotinib in this patient population.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

    Volume (Year): 29 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 12 ()
    Pages: 1051-1062

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:29:y:2011:i:12:p:1051-1062
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:29:y:2011:i:12:p:1051-1062. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.