US population-level model of clinical impact of lorlatinib treatment on ALK+ metastatic non-small cell lung cancer outcomes.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Adam Kasle, Devin Abrahami, David Veenstra, Robert Morlock, Priya Ramachandran, Lindsay Stansfield, Raymond Mak
{"title":"US population-level model of clinical impact of lorlatinib treatment on ALK+ metastatic non-small cell lung cancer outcomes.","authors":"Adam Kasle, Devin Abrahami, David Veenstra, Robert Morlock, Priya Ramachandran, Lindsay Stansfield, Raymond Mak","doi":"10.57264/cer-2026-0096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Lorlatinib and alectinib are next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) approved for the treatment of ALK-positive (ALK+) advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after demonstrating superior efficacy over crizotinib (first-generation ALK TKI) in the CROWN and ALEX trials, respectively. This analysis estimated the US population-level clinical impact of first-line (1L) lorlatinib versus alectinib treatment for ALK+ advanced/metastatic NSCLC. <b>Materials & methods:</b> We developed a decision-analytic model comparing lorlatinib versus alectinib use in 1L. We used a three-state partitioned survival model (pre-progression, post-progression and death) and tracked incidence of brain metastases (BMs). Lorlatinib-eligible population estimates were derived from published literature and market forecasts; treatment effectiveness for lorlatinib was derived from CROWN; alectinib comparative effectiveness was informed using a match-adjusted indirect comparison (CROWN vs ALEX). We assumed lorlatinib uptake of 38% in the base case; selected scenarios included different survival extrapolations, assuming 100% lorlatinib uptake and applying risk of BM post-discontinuation. <b>Results:</b> We estimated that 3096 patients in the US would be eligible for lorlatinib. Compared with 1L alectinib use only, our model projected that 1L lorlatinib treatment results in 1620-5170 and 1590-4880 more life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, respectively, over a 20-year time horizon across scenarios. Per-patient incidence of BM ranged from 0.14-0.18 and 0.21-0.40 for lorlatinib and alectinib, respectively, resulting in 68-256 fewer BMs. Separately, for every 5-15 patients treated with 1L lorlatinib instead of 1L alectinib, one BM would be avoided. <b>Conclusion:</b> This analysis projected that 1L lorlatinib treatment in the US could result in more LYs and quality-adjusted life-years and fewer BMs versus 1L alectinib in ALK+ advanced/metastatic NSCLC.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e260096"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2026-0096","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Lorlatinib and alectinib are next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) approved for the treatment of ALK-positive (ALK+) advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after demonstrating superior efficacy over crizotinib (first-generation ALK TKI) in the CROWN and ALEX trials, respectively. This analysis estimated the US population-level clinical impact of first-line (1L) lorlatinib versus alectinib treatment for ALK+ advanced/metastatic NSCLC. Materials & methods: We developed a decision-analytic model comparing lorlatinib versus alectinib use in 1L. We used a three-state partitioned survival model (pre-progression, post-progression and death) and tracked incidence of brain metastases (BMs). Lorlatinib-eligible population estimates were derived from published literature and market forecasts; treatment effectiveness for lorlatinib was derived from CROWN; alectinib comparative effectiveness was informed using a match-adjusted indirect comparison (CROWN vs ALEX). We assumed lorlatinib uptake of 38% in the base case; selected scenarios included different survival extrapolations, assuming 100% lorlatinib uptake and applying risk of BM post-discontinuation. Results: We estimated that 3096 patients in the US would be eligible for lorlatinib. Compared with 1L alectinib use only, our model projected that 1L lorlatinib treatment results in 1620-5170 and 1590-4880 more life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, respectively, over a 20-year time horizon across scenarios. Per-patient incidence of BM ranged from 0.14-0.18 and 0.21-0.40 for lorlatinib and alectinib, respectively, resulting in 68-256 fewer BMs. Separately, for every 5-15 patients treated with 1L lorlatinib instead of 1L alectinib, one BM would be avoided. Conclusion: This analysis projected that 1L lorlatinib treatment in the US could result in more LYs and quality-adjusted life-years and fewer BMs versus 1L alectinib in ALK+ advanced/metastatic NSCLC.

lorlatinib治疗对ALK+转移性非小细胞肺癌结局临床影响的美国人群水平模型
目的:Lorlatinib和alectinib是新一代间变性淋巴瘤激酶(ALK)酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(TKIs),分别在CROWN和ALEX试验中显示优于克唑替尼(第一代ALK TKI)的疗效,被批准用于治疗ALK阳性(ALK+)晚期/转移性非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)。该分析评估了一线(1L) lorlatinib与alectinib治疗ALK+晚期/转移性NSCLC的美国人群水平的临床影响。材料和方法:我们开发了一个决策分析模型,比较洛拉替尼和阿勒替尼在1L中的使用。我们使用三状态分区生存模型(进展前、进展后和死亡)并追踪脑转移(BMs)的发生率。lorlatinib适格人群估计来自已发表的文献和市场预测;lorlatinib的治疗效果来源于CROWN;使用匹配调整间接比较(CROWN vs ALEX)来了解alectinib的比较有效性。我们假设在基本情况下氯拉替尼的吸收量为38%;所选择的方案包括不同的生存推断,假设100%的氯拉替尼摄取和应用停药后BM的风险。结果:我们估计美国有3096名患者符合lorlatinib的治疗条件。与仅使用1L氯拉替尼相比,我们的模型预测,在20年的时间跨度内,不同情况下,1L氯拉替尼治疗的寿命分别增加1620-5170年和1590-4880年,质量调整寿命分别增加1590-4880年。氯拉替尼和阿勒替尼的每名患者脑转移发生率分别为0.14-0.18和0.21-0.40,导致脑转移减少68-256例。另外,每5-15例患者用1L氯拉替尼代替1L阿勒替尼治疗,可避免1例BM。结论:该分析预测,在美国,与1L氯拉替尼相比,1L氯拉替尼治疗ALK+晚期/转移性NSCLC可获得更多的LYs和质量调整生命年,以及更少的脑转移灶。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书