Objectives: Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can be treated with either Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) or Video Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) resection. To support decision making, not only the impact on survival needs to be taken into account, but also on quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SBRT to VATS resection with respect to quality adjusted life years (QALY) lived and costs in operable stage I NSCLC. Materials and methods: Patient level and aggregate data from eight Dutch databases were used to estimate costs, health utilities, recurrence free and overall survival. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias in these studies. A microsimulation model predicting lifetime outcomes after treatment in stage I NSCLC patients was used for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Model outcomes for the two treatments were overall survival, QALYs, and total costs. We used a Dutch health care perspective with 1.5 % discounting for health effects, and 4 % discounting for costs, using 2018 cost data. The impact of model parameter uncertainty was assessed with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Patients receiving either VATS resection or SBRT were estimated to live 5.81 and 5.86 discounted QALYs, respectively. Average discounted lifetime costs in the VATS group were €29,269 versus €21,175 for SBRT. Difference in 90-day excess mortality between SBRT and VATS resection was the main driver for the difference in QALYs. SBRT was dominant in at least 74 % of the probabilistic simulations. Conclusion: Using a microsimulation model to combine available evidence on survival, costs, and health utilities in a cost-effectiveness analysis for stage I NSCLC led to the conclusion that SBRT dominates VATS resection in the majority of simulations.@en

Background: Risk-sharing arrangements (RSAs) can be used to mitigate uncertainty about the value of a drug by sharing the financial risk between payer and pharmaceutical company. We evaluated the projected impact of alternative RSAs for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapies based on real-world data. Methods: Data on treatment patterns of Dutch NSCLC patients from four different hospitals were used to perform “what-if” analyses, evaluating the costs and benefits likely associated with various RSAs. In the scenarios, drug costs or refunds were based on response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) response, survival compared to the pivotal trial, treatment duration, or a fixed cost per patient. Analyses were done for erlotinib, gemcitabine/cisplatin, and pemetrexed/platinum for metastatic NSCLC, and gemcitabine/cisplatin, pemetrexed/cisplatin, and vinorelbine/cisplatin for nonmetastatic NSCLC. Results: Money-back guarantees led to moderate cost reductions to the payer. For conditional treatment continuation schemes, costs and outcomes associated with the different treatments were dispersed. When price was linked to the outcome, the payer's drug costs reduced by 2.5% to 26.7%. Discounted treatment initiation schemes yielded large cost reductions. Utilization caps mainly reduced the costs of erlotinib treatment (by 16%). Given a fixed cost per patient based on projected average use of the drug, risk sharing was unfavorable to the payer because of the lower than projected use. The impact of RSAs on a national scale was dispersed. Conclusions: For erlotinib and pemetrexed/platinum, large cost reductions were observed with risk sharing. RSAs can mitigate uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness or budget impact of drugs, but only when the type of arrangement matches the setting and type of uncertainty.@en

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) survival is compared between patients treated in all academic (n = 1289) versus all non-academic (n = 12,698) Dutch hospitals, using Kaplan-Meier estimates and a Cox proportional hazards model. For 1009 patients, treatment patterns are described. Diagnosis in an academic hospital is associated with decreased mortality. Possibilities for improvement of NSCLC care are suggested. Background The aims of this study are to analyze differences in survival between academic and non-academic hospitals and to provide insight into treatment patterns for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Results show the state of NSCLC survival and care in the Netherlands. Methods The Netherlands Cancer Registry provided data on NSCLC survival for all Dutch hospitals. We used the Kaplan-Meier estimate to calculate median survival time by hospital type and a Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the relative risk of mortality (expressed as hazard ratios) for patients diagnosed in academic versus non-academic hospitals, with adjustment for age, gender, and tumor histology, and stratifying for disease stage. Data on treatment patterns in Dutch hospitals was obtained from 4 hospitals (2 academic, 2 non-academic). A random sample of patients diagnosed with NSCLC from January 2009 until January 2011 was identified through hospital databases. Data was obtained on patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, and treatments. Results The Cox proportional hazards model shows a significantly decreased hazard ratio of mortality for patients diagnosed in academic hospitals, as opposed to patients diagnosed in non-academic hospitals. This is specifically true for primary radiotherapy patients and patients who receive systemic treatment for non-metastasized NSCLC. Conclusion Patients diagnosed in academic hospitals have better median overall survival than patients diagnosed in non-academic hospitals, especially for patients treated with radiotherapy, systemic treatment, or combinations. This difference may be caused by residual confounding since the estimates were not adjusted for performance status. A wide variety of surgical, radiotherapeutic, and systemic treatments is prescribed.@en

Objectives The aim of this article was to provide practical guidance in setting up patient registries to facilitate real-world data collection for health care decision making. Methods This guidance was based on our experiences and involvement in setting up patient registries in oncology in the Netherlands. All aspects were structured according to 1) mission and goals (“the Why”), 2) stakeholders and funding (“the Who”), 3) type and content (“the What”), and 4) identification and recruitment of patients, data handling, and pharmacovigilance (“the How”). Results The mission of most patient registries is improving patient health by improving the quality of patient care; monitoring and evaluating patient care is often the primary goal (“the Why”). It is important to align the objectives of the registry and agree on a clear and functional governance structure with all stakeholders (“the Who”). There is often a trade off between reliability, validity, and specificity of data elements and feasibility of data collection (“the What”). Patient privacy should be carefully protected, and address (inter-)national and local regulations. Patient registries can reveal unique safety information, but it can be challenging to comply with pharmacovigilance guidelines (“the How”). Conclusions It is crucial to set up an efficient patient registry that serves its aims by collecting the right data of the right patient in the right way. It can be expected that patient registries will become the new standard alongside randomized controlled trials due to their unique value.@en

Objectives: Real-world resource use and cost data on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are scarce. This data is needed to inform health-economic modelling to assess the impact of new diagnostic and/or treatment technologies. This study provides detailed insight into real-world medical resource use and costs of stage I-IV NSCLC in the Netherlands. Materials and methods: A random sample of patients newly diagnosed with NSCLC (2009-2011) was selected from four Dutch hospitals. Data was retrospectively collected from patient charts. This data included patient characteristics, tumour characteristics, treatment details, adverse events, survival and resource use. Resource use was multiplied by Dutch unit costs expressed in EUR 2012. Total mean costs were corrected for censoring using the Bang and Tsiatis weighted complete-case estimator. Furthermore, costs of adverse events, costs per phase of NSCLC management and costs of second opinions are presented. Results: Data was collected on 1067 patients. Total mean costs for NSCLC diagnosis, treatment and follow-up are €28,468 during the study period and €33,143 when corrected for censoring. Adverse events were recorded in the patient charts for 369 patients (41%) and 82 patients (9%) experienced an adverse event of grade III or higher. For these patients, adverse event-related hospital admissions cost on average €2,091. Mean total costs are €1,725 for the diagnostic period, €17,296 for first treatment line, and €13,236 for each later treatment line. Costs of providing a second opinion are €2,580 per patient. Conclusions: Total mean hospital costs per NSCLC patient are €33,143 for the total duration of the disease. Ignoring censoring in our data underestimates these costs by 14%. Main limitations of the study relate to the short follow-up time, staging difficulties and missing data. Its main strength is that it provides highly detailed, real-world data on the costs of NSCLC.@en

For patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN), chemotherapy can prolong life and alleviate symptoms. However, expected gains may be small, not necessarily outweighing considerable toxicity and high costs. Treatment choice is to a large extent dependent on preferences of doctors and patients and data on these choices are scarce. The purpose of this study is to obtain real-world information on palliative systemic treatment and costs of R/M SCCHN in the Netherlands. In six Dutch head and neck treatment centers, data were collected on patient and tumor characteristics, treatment patterns, disease progression, survival, adverse events, and resource use for R/M SCCHN, between 2006 and 2013. 125 (14 %) out of 893 R/M SCCHN patients received palliative, non-trial first-line systemic treatment, mainly platinum + 5FU + cetuximab (32 %), other platinum-based combination therapy (13 %), methotrexate monotherapy (27 %) and capecitabine monotherapy (14 %). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.4 and 6.0 months, respectively. 34 (27 %) patients experienced severe adverse events. Mean total hospital costs ranged from €10,075 (±€9,891) (methotrexate monotherapy) to €39,459 (±€21,149) (platinum + 5FU + cetuximab). Primary cost drivers were hospital stays and anticancer drug treatments. Major health care utilization and costs are involved in systemically treating R/M SCCHN patients with a limited survival.@en

Objectives To calculate the cost-utility of different strategies for the detection of occult lymph node metastases in cT1-T2N0 oral cancer. Methods A decision tree followed by a Markov model was designed to compare the cost-utility of the following strategies: (a) USgFNAC (ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration cytology), (b) SLNB (sentinel lymph node biopsy), (c) USgFNAC and, if negative, SLNB (d) END (elective neck dissection). Data was collected from 62 patients in four Dutch head and neck centres. Utilities were measured with the EQ5D questionnaire and resource use was recorded from patient charts. Costs were calculated from a hospital perspective. Uncertainty was explored with scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results With a 5- or 10-year time horizon, SLNB results in the highest number of additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, 0.12 and 0.26, respectively) for the smallest additional costs (€56 and €74, respectively) compared to USgFNAC. With a lifetime horizon END results in the highest number of additional QALYs (0.55) for an additional €1.626 per QALY gained compared to USgFNAC. When we make different assumptions regarding the duration of disutilities (≥5 years) or the improvement (≥3%) of sensitivity of SLNB, SLNB is the most favourable strategy from all time horizons. Conclusion SLNB is a good diagnostic strategy to evaluate cT1-T2N0 oral cancer. SLNB is the preferred strategy in a 5- or 10-year time horizon. From a lifetime horizon, END may be preferred. SLNB may become the optimal strategy from all time horizons if its sensitivity can be slightly improved.@en

Clinical trial EMR 62202-006 demonstrates prolonged median locoregional control (24.4 vs. 14.9 months), progression-free survival (17.1 vs. 12.4 months) and overall survival (49.0 vs. 29.3 months) for patients who receive cetuximab added to the comparator radiotherapy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN). In the Netherlands, hospitals receive reimbursement for cetuximab conditional on cost-effectiveness in daily practice. To estimate the real-world incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for radiotherapy + cetuximab over radiotherapy alone in first line treatment of LA SCCHN, a Markov model is constructed with health states “alive without progression”, “alive following progression” and “death”. Transition probabilities per month are estimated from clinical trial data and retrospectively collected real-world data from two Dutch head and neck cancer treatment centres (2007–2010, n = 141). 5-year, 10-year and lifetime horizons are used, without and with discounting (4 % costs, 1.5 % effects) to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Two scenarios explore different assumptions on prognosis of real-world versus trial patients. Adding cetuximab to radiotherapy results in increased costs and health gains in both scenarios and across each of the time horizons. Incremental costs per QALY gained range between €14,624 and €38,543 in the base-case. For a willingness to pay of €80,000 per QALY, the acceptability curves for the different scenarios show probabilities between 0.76 and 0.87 of radiotherapy + cetuximab being cost-effective compared to radiotherapy alone. Current results show the combined treatment of radiotherapy + cetuximab to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with LA SCCHN.@en

In a randomized controlled trial in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN), treatment with RT plus cetuximab resulted in improved survival compared to treatment with RT alone. Uncertainty exists about the generalizability of the trial results for the Dutch healthcare setting due to possible discrepancies in treatment allocation. Retrospective patient chart review was performed for 141 patients treated with first line RT plus cetuximab or RT alone, diagnosed in 2007-2010 in two head and neck treatment centers. Combined with aggregated population-based data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and patient level clinical trial data, use of cetuximab in Dutch daily practice was assessed through comparison of patient characteristics, treatment characteristics and treatment outcomes between trial and daily practice. 61 daily practice patients fulfilled the selection criteria. In line with Dutch guidelines, RT plus cetuximab is prescribed in patients requiring combined therapy unfit to receive traditional platinum-based chemotherapeutics. These patients have unfavorable baseline characteristics, due to selection on - amongst others - high age of the patients. Beyond 1 year after treatment start, patients treated with RT plus cetuximab in daily practice died earlier than patients treated with RT plus cetuximab in the trial. Selective treatment allocation in daily practice limits generalizability of EMR 062202-006 trial results. Evidence is needed about the effectiveness of RT plus cetuximab compared to other treatments for patients with unfavorable clinical baseline characteristics.

@en