Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Public Health
Sec. Health Economics
Volume 12 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1276049
This article is part of the Research Topic Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and data-mining techniques to increase cost-effectiveness in healthcare View all 6 articles

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) Treatment in Chinese Patients with Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Provisionally accepted
  • 1 Graduate Collaborative Training Base of Hunan Cancer Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Changsha, Anhui Province, China
  • 2 Hunan Cancer Hospital, Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China
  • 3 Key Laboratory of Translational Radiation Oncology, Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, Hunan Province, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Background: The LUNAR trial demonstrated the significant efficacy and safety of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) plus standard-of-care (SOC) (immune checkpoint inhibitor [ICI] and docetaxel [DTX]) for patients with previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). However, it remains uncertain as to whether the high costs are justified by the corresponding survival benefits. Here, the cost-effectiveness of using TTFields plus SOC for treating mNSCLC was evaluated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A Markov model with a 15-year time horizon was established and used to comparedeveloped to enable the simulation of treatment-associated costs and patient outcomes when comparing TTFields plus SOC to SOC alone. Primary outcomes for these analyses included total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values. The impact of paramere uncertainty on model outcomes was evaluated through sensitivity analyses. Additional subgroup and scenario analyses were also performed to extend these results. Results: While TTFields plus SOC exhibited a $74,688 increase in total costs relative to SOC ($96,092 vs. $21,404), it was associated with 0.38 additional QALYs (1.08 vs. 0.82 QALYs) for an ICER of $284,490/QALY. This value exceeded the $35,983/QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold selected for these analyses by a wide margin. Relative to ICI and DTX treatment, the incremental costs of TTFields plus ICI and TTFields plus DTX were $78,115 and $71,307, respectively, with corresponding gains of 0.42 and 0.13 QALYs, yielding ICERs of $187,434/QALY, and $546,386/QALY. The parameter that most strongly impacted the results of these analyses was the cost of TTFields. Conclusions: The results indicated that given current treatment costs, TTFields plus SOC was insufficiently cost-effective in treating patients with mNSCLC in China, although TTFields plus ICI yields substantial health benefits.

    Keywords: Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), Tumor Treating Field (TTFields), Standard-of-care (SOC), Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)

    Received: 11 Aug 2023; Accepted: 07 Oct 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Pei, Xiao and Yang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Zhengda Pei, Graduate Collaborative Training Base of Hunan Cancer Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Changsha, Anhui Province, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.