Advertisement

Ceritinib for Untreated Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

  • Lindsay Claxton
  • Joanne O’Connor
  • Nerys Woolacott
  • Kath Wright
  • Robert Hodgson
Review Article

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ceritinib (Zykadia®, Novartis) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug, as a first-line treatment for adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive (+) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as part of the Institute’s single technology appraisal (STA) process. The CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) and CHE (Centre for Health Economics) Technology Assessment Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the Company’s submission (CS), the ERG review and NICE’s subsequent decisions. The evidence submitted in support of ceritinib, as the first-line treatment in ALK+ advanced NSCLC, was a phase III, international, multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing ceritinib with pemetrexed/cisplatin plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy (chemotherapy [CT] group). The results indicated that ceritinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with CT. The only comparator considered in the CS was crizotinib. The evidence selected in support of crizotinib was PROFILE 1014, an open-label RCT of crizotinib, compared with pemetrexed/cisplatin CT (without maintenance therapy), in previously untreated advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC. The design and population of PROFILE 1014 was similar to that of ASCEND-4, though there were some differences between the trials. The Company considered it not possible to perform an ‘anchor-based’ analysis of first-line ceritinib and crizotinib, and presented a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of ceritinib and crizotinib using only the ALK inhibitor arm of ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. The indirect comparison suggests that ceritinib may be more effective in prolonging PFS than crizotinib. The ERG agreed that an indirect comparison using only the ALK inhibitor arm of the trials was the only option available in the present assessment; however, a number of limitations and potential bias were identified in this analysis. The Company’s model estimated that ceritinib was cost effective when compared with crizotinib. However, the ERG highlighted several concerns with the Company’s analysis; the ERG’s preferred base case estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £69,255 per quality-adjusted life-year (no patient access scheme [PAS] included). The ERG considered the economic analysis to be sensitive to changes in assumption used, partly due to the due to the immaturity of the overall survival data from trials, which leads to uncertainty around the extrapolation used. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ceritinib is recommended, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC in adults, if the Company provides it with the discount agreed in the PAS.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The ERG would like to thank Professor Michael Lind, Consultant Clinical Oncologist, Castle Hill Hospital and the Hull York Medical School, who acted as a clinical expert advisor to the ERG.

Author Contributions

LC, JOC, NW, KW and RH all formed part of the ERG that produced the ERG report that this paper describes. JOC wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors commented on the manuscript and approved the final version. This summary has not been externally reviewed by PharmacoEconomics.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (project number 16/134/13) [see the HTA programme website (http://www.hta.ac.uk) for further project information]. This summary of the ERG report was compiled after the Appraisal Committee’s review, and incorporates additional information and comment from the authors on the STA process and iterations of the NICE guidance not covered by the HTA report.

Conflict of interest

LC, JOC, NW, KW and RH report no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this summary.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ceritinib for untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer [TA500]. Document B. Company evidence submission. London: NICE; 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta500/documents/committee-papers. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  2. 2.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ceritinib for untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer [TA500]. Evidence Review Group’s Report. London: NICE; 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta500/documents/committee-papers. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  3. 3.
    Royal College of Physicians. National Lung Cancer Audit annual report 2016 (for the audit period 2015): Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership; 2017. https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/nlca-annual-report-2016. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  4. 4.
    Chia PL, Mitchell P, Dobrovic A, John T. Prevalence and natural history of ALK positive non-small-cell lung cancer and the clinical impact of targeted therapy with ALK inhibitors. Clin Epidemiol. 2014;6:423–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tembuyser L, Tack V, Zwaenepoel K, Pauwels P, Miller K, Bubendorf L, et al. The relevance of external quality assessment for molecular testing for ALK positive non-small cell lung cancer: results from two pilot rounds show room for optimization. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e112159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ou SH, Bartlett CH, Mino-Kenudson M, Cui J, Iafrate AJ. Crizotinib for the treatment of ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer: a success story to usher in the second decade of molecular targeted therapy in oncology. Oncologist. 2012;17(11):1351–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shaw AT, Yeap BY, Mino-Kenudson M, Digumarthy SR, Costa DB, Heist RS, et al. Clinical features and outcome of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who harbor EML4-ALK. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(26):4247–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Takahashi T, Sonobe M, Kobayashi M, Yoshizawa A, Menju T, Nakayama E, et al. Clinicopathologic features of non-small-cell lung cancer with EML4-ALK fusion gene. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(3):889–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wong DW, Leung EL, So KK, Tam IY, Sihoe AD, Cheng LC, et al. The EML4-ALK fusion gene is involved in various histologic types of lung cancers from nonsmokers with wild-type EGFR and KRAS. Cancer. 2009;115(8):1723–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhao F, Xu M, Lei H, Zhou Z, Wang L, Li P, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who harbor EML4-ALK fusion gene: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0117333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Crizotinib for untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer [TA406]. Committee Papers. London: NICE; 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta406/documents/committee-papers. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  12. 12.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ceritinib for previously treated anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive nonsmall-cell lung cancer [TA395]. London: NICE; 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta395/resources/ceritinib-for-previously-treated-anaplastic-lymphoma-kinase-positive-nonsmallcell-lung-cancer-pdf-82602911852485. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  13. 13.
    Friboulet L, Li N, Katayama R, Lee CC, Gainor JF, Crystal AS, et al. The ALK inhibitor ceritinib overcomes crizotinib resistance in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 2014;4(6):662–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soria JC, Tan DS, Chiari R, Wu YL, Paz-Ares L, Wolf J, et al. First-line ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2017;389(10072):917–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gainor JF, Dardaei L, Yoda S, Friboulet L, Leshchiner I, Katayama R, et al. Molecular mechanisms of resistance to first- and second-generation ALK inhibitors in ALK-rearranged lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 2016;6(10):1118–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Medicines Agency. Zykadia: Summary of product characteristics. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003819/WC500187504.pdf. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  17. 17.
    Solomon BJ, Cappuzzo F, Felip E, Blackhall FH, Costa DB, Kim DW, et al. Intracranial efficacy of crizotinib versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: results from PROFILE 1014. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(24):2858–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Solomon BJ, Mok T, Kim DW, Wu YL, Nakagawa K, Mekhail T, et al. First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(23):2167–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peters S, Camidge D, Shaw A, Gadgeel S, Ahn J, Kim D, et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(9):829–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morgan P, Woolacott N, Biswas M, Mebrahtu T, Harden M, Hodgson R. Crizotinib for untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: an evidence review group perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(9):909–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blackhall F, Kim DW, Besse B, Nokihara H, Han JY, Wilner KD, et al. Patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in PROFILE 1007: a randomized trial of crizotinib compared with chemotherapy in previously treated patients with ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9(11):1625–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chouaid C, Agulnik J, Goker E, Herder GJ, Lester JF, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Health-related quality of life and utility in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective cross-sectional patient survey in a real-world setting. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8(8):997–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Felip E, Orlov S, Park K, Yu C-J, Tsai C-M, Nishio M, et al. ASCEND-3: A single-arm, open-label, multicenter phase II study of ceritinib in ALKi-naïve adult patients (pts) with ALK-rearranged (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract no. 8060]. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(15 Suppl):8060.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    NHS Reference Costs 2015-2016. National Schedule of Reference Costs: The main schedule. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-2015-to-2016.
  25. 25.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ceritinib for untreated ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer [TA500]. Final appraisal determination. London: NICE; 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta500/documents/final-appraisal-determination-document. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations