The Cost-Effectiveness of Selective Internal Radiation Therapies Compared With Sorafenib for Treating Advanced Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) compared with sorafenib for the treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the United Kingdom, including a selected subgroup of patients who have been identified as benefiting from treatment with SIRT. METHODS: A de novo economic model was developed comparing SIRT with sorafenib using data from two large randomized controlled trials. The model structure comprised a decision tree representing the outcome of the work-up procedure, transitioning into a 3-state partitioned survival model to project long-term survival outcomes. Cost-effectiveness in a post hoc defined subgroup with low tumor burden and good liver function was explored. RESULTS: At list price, SIRT was predicted to be less costly but less effective than sorafenib with an estimated saving of £156 089 per quality-adjusted life-year forgone, with cost savings of £4589 and 0.029 fewer quality-adjusted life-years than sorafenib. Accounting for existing confidential discounts for sorafenib, two SIRTs were cost-effective at a £30 000 willingness-to-pay threshold compared with sorafenib when a discount for the technologies was introduced. In the subgroup with low tumor burden and good liver function, SIRT may be associated with greater survival benefits and cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for confidential discounts, on average, SIRT technologies represent value for money in the whole advanced hepatocellular carcinoma population, being less effective but less costly than sorafenib. Results from a subgroup with low tumor burden and good liver function suggest that the cost-effectiveness of SIRTs may be maximized in this group, but further research is required to demonstrate the validity of effectiveness benefits.

The effectiveness of ablative and non-surgical therapies for early hepatocellular carcinoma: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Non-surgical therapies are frequently used for patients with early or very early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of ablative and non-surgical therapies for patients with small HCC. METHODS: Nine databases were searched (March 2021) along with clinical trial registries. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any ablative or non-surgical therapy versus any comparator in patients with HCC ≤3 cm were eligible. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The effectiveness of therapies was compared using NMA. Threshold analysis was undertaken to identify which NMA results had less robust evidence. RESULTS: Thirty-seven eligible RCTs were included (including over 3700 patients). Most were from China (n = 17) or Japan (n = 7). Sample sizes ranged from 30 to 308 patients. The majority had a high RoB or some RoB concerns. No RCTs were identified for some therapies and no RCTs reported quality of life outcomes. The results of the NMA and treatment effectiveness rankings were very uncertain. However, the evidence demonstrated that percutaneous ethanol injection was worse than radiofrequency ablation for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.45, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.16-1.82), progression-free survival (HR: 1.36, 95% CrI: 1.11-1.67), overall recurrence (relative risk [RR]: 1.19, 95% CrI: 1.02-1.39) and local recurrence (RR: 1.80, 95% CrI: 1.19-2.71). The threshold analysis suggested that robust evidence was lacking for some comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear which treatment is most effective for patients with small HCC because of limitations in the evidence base. It is also not known how these treatments would impact on quality of life. Further high quality RCTs are needed to provide robust evidence but may be difficult to undertake.

Ablative and non-surgical therapies for early and very early hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: A wide range of ablative and non-surgical therapies are available for treating small hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with very early or early-stage disease and preserved liver function. Objective: To review and compare the effectiveness of all current ablative and non-surgical therapies for patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma (≤ 3 cm). Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: Nine databases (March 2021), two trial registries (April 2021) and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. Review methods: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials of ablative and non-surgical therapies, versus any comparator, for small hepatocellular carcinoma. Randomised controlled trials were quality assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and mapped. The comparative effectiveness of therapies was assessed using network meta-analysis. A threshold analysis was used to identify which comparisons were sensitive to potential changes in the evidence. Where comparisons based on randomised controlled trial evidence were not robust or no randomised controlled trials were identified, a targeted systematic review of non-randomised, prospective comparative studies provided additional data for repeat network meta-analysis and threshold analysis. The feasibility of undertaking economic modelling was explored. A workshop with patients and clinicians was held to discuss the findings and identify key priorities for future research. Results: Thirty-seven randomised controlled trials (with over 3700 relevant patients) were included in the review. The majority were conducted in China or Japan and most had a high risk of bias or some risk of bias concerns. The results of the network meta-analysis were uncertain for most comparisons. There was evidence that percutaneous ethanol injection is inferior to radiofrequency ablation for overall survival (hazard ratio 1.45, 95% credible interval 1.16 to 1.82), progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.36, 95% credible interval 1.11 to 1.67), overall recurrence (relative risk 1.19, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 1.39) and local recurrence (relative risk 1.80, 95% credible interval 1.19 to 2.71). Percutaneous acid injection was also inferior to radiofrequency ablation for progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.63, 95% credible interval 1.05 to 2.51). Threshold analysis showed that further evidence could plausibly change the result for some comparisons. Fourteen eligible non-randomised studies were identified (n ≥ 2316); twelve had a high risk of bias so were not included in updated network meta-analyses. Additional non-randomised data, made available by a clinical advisor, were also included (n = 303). There remained a high level of uncertainty in treatment rankings after the network meta-analyses were updated. However, the updated analyses suggested that microwave ablation and resection are superior to percutaneous ethanol injection and percutaneous acid injection for some outcomes. Further research on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy was recommended at the workshop, although it is only appropriate for certain patient subgroups, limiting opportunities for adequately powered trials. Limitations: Many studies were small and of poor quality. No comparative studies were found for some therapies. Conclusions: The existing evidence base has limitations; the uptake of specific ablative therapies in the United Kingdom appears to be based more on technological advancements and ease of use than strong evidence of clinical effectiveness. However, there is evidence that percutaneous ethanol injection and percutaneous acid injection are inferior to radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation and resection. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020221357. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131224) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of primary liver cancer. There are a range of different treatments available for patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma. We looked for clinical trials in patients with small tumours (up to 3 cm) that compared different treatments. We brought together and analysed the results of these trials to see which treatments were most effective in terms of survival, progression, side effects and quality of life. Overall, the evidence has limitations; many trials had few patients and were of poor quality. Most were from China or Japan, where the common causes of liver disease and treatments available differ from those in the United Kingdom. The results of our analyses were very uncertain so we cannot be sure which treatment is the best overall. We did find that three treatments ­ radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation and surgery ­ were generally more effective than percutaneous ethanol injection and percutaneous acid injection. There was not enough evidence to be certain which treatment was better when radiofrequency ablation was compared with laser ablation, microwave ablation, proton beam therapy or surgery. We found only poor-quality, non-randomised trials on high-intensity focused ultrasound, cryoablation and irreversible electroporation. There was very little evidence on treatments that combined radiofrequency ablation with other therapies. We found no studies that compared electrochemotherapy, histotripsy, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy or wider radiotherapy techniques with other treatments. Only two studies reported data on quality of life or patient satisfaction. We discussed the findings with patients and clinical experts. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy was highlighted as a treatment that requires further research; however, it is only appropriate for certain subgroups of patients. Feasibility studies could inform future clinical trials by exploring issues such as whether patients are willing to take part in a trial or find the treatments acceptable.

Patient characteristics as effect modifiers for psoriasis biologic treatment response: an assessment using network meta-analysis subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) of psoriasis treatments, undertaken as part of the NICE Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, have included heterogeneous studies. When there is inconsistency or heterogeneity across the different comparisons or trials within the network of studies, the results of the NMA may not be valid. We explored the impact of including studies with heterogeneous patient characteristics on the results of NMAs of psoriasis treatments. METHODS: All NMAs undertaken for psoriasis STAs were identified and the included studies tabulated, including patient characteristics that may influence relative treatment effects. In addition to the original network of all studies using licensed treatment doses, a range of smaller, less heterogeneous networks were mapped: 'no previous biologic use' (< 25% patients had prior biologic therapy exposure), 'Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score ≤ 25', 'weight ≤ 90 kg' and 'white ethnicity' (≥ 90% patients were white). RESULTS: Sixty-nine studies were included in our synthesis (34,924 participants). A random effects model with a log-normal prior distribution was chosen for each of the subgroup NMAs. Heterogeneity was reduced for the four smaller networks. There were no significant differences in the relative treatment effect (PASI 75 response) for each treatment across the five NMAs, with all credible intervals overlapping, although there were noticeable differences. Treatment rankings based on the median relative risks were also generally consistent across the networks. However, the NMA that included only studies in which < 25% patients had prior biologic therapy exposure had slightly different treatment rankings; the anti-TNF therapies certolizumab pegol and infliximab ranked higher in this network than any other network, although credible intervals were large. CONCLUSIONS: This work has highlighted potential differences in treatment response for biologic-naïve patients. When conducting NMAs in any area, heterogeneity in patient characteristics of included trials should be carefully assessed and effect modification related to certain patient characteristics investigated through clinically relevant subgroup analyses.

Selective internal radiation therapies for unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review, network meta-analysis and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of primary liver cancer. Treatment choice is dependent on underlying liver dysfunction and cancer stage. Treatment options include conventional transarterial therapies for patients with intermediate-stage disease and systemic therapy [e.g. sorafenib (Nexavar®; Bayer plc, Leverkusen, Germany)] for patients with advanced-stage disease. Selective internal radiation therapies deliver radiation to liver tumours via microspheres that are injected into the hepatic artery. There are three selective internal radiation therapies: TheraSphere™ [BTG Ltd, London, UK (now Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)], SIR-Spheres® (Sirtex Medical Ltd, Woburn, MA, USA) and QuiremSpheres® (Quirem Medical BV, Deventer, the Netherlands). OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for treating patients with unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: A search was undertaken to identify clinical effectiveness literature relating to selective internal radiation therapies and relevant comparators for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies were critically appraised and summarised. The network of evidence was mapped to estimate the relative effectiveness of the different selective internal radiation therapies and comparator treatments. An economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two large randomised controlled trials rated as having a low risk of bias [SARAH: Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, Guiu B, Ilonca AD, Pageaux GP, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1624-36; and SIRveNIB: Chow PKH, Gandhi M, Tan SB, Khin MW, Khasbazar A, Ong J, et al. SIRveNIB: selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in Asia-Pacific patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1913-21] found no significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between SIR-Spheres and sorafenib (systemic therapy) in an advanced population, despite greater tumour response in the SIR-Spheres arm of both trials. There were some concerns regarding generalisability of the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials to UK practice. All other studies of SIR-Spheres, TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres were either rated as being at a high risk of bias or caused some concerns regarding bias. A network meta-analysis was conducted in adults with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had Child-Pugh class A liver cirrhosis and were ineligible for conventional transarterial therapies. The analysis included the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials as well as a trial comparing lenvatinib (Kisplyx®; Eisai Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) (systemic therapy) with sorafenib. There were no meaningful differences in overall survival between any of the treatments. The base-case economic analysis suggested that TheraSphere may be cost-saving relative to both SIR-Spheres and QuiremSpheres. However, incremental cost differences between TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres were small. In a fully incremental analysis, which included confidential Patient Access Scheme discounts, lenvatinib was the most cost-effective treatment and dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. In pairwise comparisons of sorafenib with each selective internal radiation therapy, sorafenib also dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. LIMITATIONS: The existing evidence cannot provide decision-makers with clear guidance on the comparative effectiveness of treatments in early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma or on the efficacy of TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres. CONCLUSIONS: In the advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma population, two large randomised trials have shown that SIR-Spheres have similar clinical effectiveness to sorafenib. None of the selective internal radiation therapies was cost-effective, being more costly and less effective than lenvatinib, both at list price and with Patient Access Scheme discounts. FUTURE WORK: Future studies may wish to include early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients and the low tumour burden/albumin-bilirubin 1 subgroup of advanced-stage patients. Future high-quality studies evaluating alternative selective internal radiation therapies would be beneficial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019128383. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of liver cancer. The choice of treatment depends on the extent of the cancer and liver function. Selective internal radiation therapies deliver radiation directly to liver tumours via tiny beads injected into the main blood vessel into the liver. There are three selective internal radiation therapies: TheraSphere™ [BTG Ltd, London, UK (now Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)], SIR-Spheres^® (Sirtex Medical Ltd, Woburn, MA, USA) and QuiremSpheres^® (Quirem Medical BV, Deventer, the Netherlands). Our aim was to assess the clinical effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma that is not treatable by surgery, and to assess whether or not these therapies represent good value for money. There was no meaningful difference between SIR-Spheres and sorafenib (Nexavar^®; Bayer plc, Leverkusen, Germany), which is a cancer drug for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies of other selective internal radiation therapies and studies in patients with less advanced disease were generally of poor quality, so their results may not be reliable. We could not assess whether or not selective internal radiation therapies are beneficial to patients with early- or intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, or whether or not TheraSphere and QuiremSpheres are beneficial. Compared with sorafenib or lenvatinib (Kisplyx^®; Eisai Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) (another systemic cancer drug), none of the selective internal radiation therapies were good value for money for treating patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We found that TheraSphere might be cheaper than SIR-Spheres and QuiremSpheres, but differences between TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres were small. There was not enough evidence for patients with early or intermediate disease to say whether or not selective internal radiation therapy is good value for treating these patients. Future studies in these populations, alongside any studies comparing the selective internal radiation therapies against each other, would be helpful.

Methods for selecting the best evidence to inform a NICE technology appraisal on selective internal radiation therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of medical devices are particularly challenging as the quality of evidence tends to be more limited than evidence on pharmaceutical products. This article describes the methods used to identify, select and critically appraise the best available evidence on selective internal radiation therapy devices for treating hepatocellular carcinoma, to inform a technology appraisal for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. METHODS: A comprehensive search of ten medical databases and six grey literature sources was undertaken to identify studies of three devices (TheraSphere®, SIR-Spheres® and QuiremSpheres®) for treating hepatocellular carcinoma. The large evidence base was scoped before deciding what level of evidence to include for data extraction and critical appraisal. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using criteria relevant to each study design. RESULTS: Electronic searches identified 4755 records; over 1000 met eligibility criteria after screening titles and abstracts. A hierarchical process was used to scope these records, prioritising comparative studies over non-comparative studies, where available. One hundred ninety-four full papers were ordered; 64 met the eligibility criteria. For each intervention, studies were prioritised by study design and applicability to current UK practice, resulting in 20 studies subjected to critical appraisal and data extraction. Only two trials had a low overall risk of bias. In view of the poor quality of the research evidence, our technology appraisal focused on the two higher quality trials, including a thorough critique of their reliability and generalisability to current UK practice. The 18 poorer quality studies were briefly summarised; many were very small and results were often contradictory. No definitive conclusions could be drawn from the poorer quality research evidence available. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic, pragmatic process was used to select and critically appraise the vast quantity of research evidence available in order to present the most reliable evidence on which to develop recommendations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019128383.