A comparison of individualized treatment guided by VeriStrat with standard of care treatment strategies in patients receiving second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A cost-utility analysis.

Nelson RE, Stenehjem D, Akerley W. A comparison of individualized treatment guided by VeriStrat with standard of care treatment strategies in patients receiving second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A cost-utility analysis. Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2013 Dec 1; 82(3):461-8.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 11-210 – Using Economics and Epidemiology to Evaluate MRSA Decolonization in the VA

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: Two therapies are appropriate as 2nd-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor therapy. VeriStrat, a serum proteomic test, can be used to guide treatment decisions for NSCLC patients. The test classifies patients as likely to benefit from either of these two treatment options. The objective of this research was to model the anticipated survival and cost-effectiveness of four different treatment strategies: chemotherapy for all patients (C-all), EGFR inhibitor for all (E-all), a performance status guided selection strategy (PS-guided), and a strategy guided by VeriStrat test results (V-guided). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a Markov model with the perspective of the U.S. health care system. Model inputs were taken from published literature for the base-case analysis. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The C-all treatment strategy showed the best overall survival outcome (10.1 months), followed by V-guided (9.6 months), PS-guided (9.2 months), and E-all (8.2 months) strategies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a V-guided treatment strategy was $91,111 (vs. E-all) and $8462 (vs. PS-guided) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The ICER for C-all compared to V-guided was $105,616. This cost-utility analysis indicates that a treatment strategy guided by the VeriStrat test in patients receiving second-line therapy for NSCLC may experience an overall survival benefit at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio that is reasonable when compared with other practices, including cancer treatments, generally covered in the U.S. health care system. However, treating all patients with chemotherapy yielded the greatest expected survival.