Pralsetinib for RET Fusion-Positive Advanced Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Roche) of pralsetinib (Gavreto ® ), as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pralsetinib for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with a RET inhibitor. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with University Medical Center Groningen, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarizes the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS reported data from the ARROW trial. ARROW is a single-arm, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, multi-cohort study in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and other advanced solid tumors. The CS included both untreated and pre-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients, among other disease types. The comparators in the untreated population were pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The comparators for the pre-treated population were docetaxel monotherapy, docetaxel + nintedanib, and platinum-based chemotherapy ± pemetrexed. As no comparators were included in ARROW, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate relative effectiveness. The ERG's concerns included the immaturity of data, small sample size, and lack of comparative safety evidence. The ERG considers the clinical evidence presented to be insufficiently robust to inform the economic model. Even when all the ERG preferred assumptions were implemented in the model, uncertainty remained on a number of issues, such as the appropriateness of the hazard ratios and the methods and data used to derive them, long-term efficacy of pralsetinib, and direct evidence for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). NICE did not recommend pralsetinib within its marketing authorization for treating RET fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults who have not had a RET inhibitor before. The uncertainty of the clinical evidence and the estimates of cost effectiveness were too high to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Therefore, pralsetinib was not recommended for routine use.

First-line versus second-line use of pralsetinib in treatment of rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

“…PRL has demonstrated impressive and long-lasting efficacy, making it the novel standard of care for individuals with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, particularly in the multi-cohort, open-label phase I/II registrational trial ARROW ( 10 , 11 ). However, given its high cost of nearly $22,371.60 per month, information regarding the costs and effectiveness of PRL can aid in determining clinical practices and coverage decisions ( 12 , 13 ). An evaluation of its economic efficiency within the high-cost US healthcare system amidst competitive demands for novel services has yet to be conducted.…”