Cost-effectiveness of alternative testing strategies in cancer patients followed by histology-independent therapy with entrectinib: an analysis of three European countries.

To explore variations in the cost-effectiveness of entrectinib across different testing strategies and settings. Four testing strategies where adult cancer patients received entrectinib if they tested positive for  gene fusions compared with 'no testing' and standard of care (SoC) for all patients were evaluated. Immunohistochemistry for all patients followed by RNA-based next-generation sequencing after a positive result was the optimal strategy in all included countries. However, the incremental net monetary benefit compared with SoC was negative in all countries, ranging between international euros (int€) -206 and -404. In a subgroup analysis with only -positive patients, the incremental net monetary benefit was int€ 8405 in England, int€ -53,088 in Hungary and int€ 54,372 in The Netherlands. Using the cost-effectiveness thresholds recommended by national guidelines, none of the testing strategies were cost-effective compared with no testing. The implementation of entrectinib is unlikely to become cost-effective in Hungary, due to the large cost difference between the entrectinib and SoC arms, while there might be more potential in England and The Netherlands.