Being Transparent About Brilliant Failures: An Attempt to Use Real-World Data in a Disease Model for Patients with Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Real-world disease models spanning multiple treatment lines can provide insight into the (cost) effectiveness of treatment sequences in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to explore whether a disease model based solely on real-world data (RWD) could be used to estimate the effectiveness of treatments for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) that could then be suitably used in a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: We developed a patient-level simulation model using patient-level data from the Dutch CAPRI registry as input parameters. Time to event (TTE) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with multivariate regression models, and type of event (i.e., next treatment or death) was estimated with multivariate logistic regression models. To test internal validity, TTE and OS from the simulation model were compared with the observed outcomes in the registry. RESULTS: Although patient characteristics and survival outcomes of the simulated data were comparable to those in the observed data (median OS 20.6 vs. 19.8 months, respectively), the disease model was less accurate in estimating differences between treatments (median OS simulated vs. observed population: 18.6 vs. 17.9 [abiraterone acetate plus prednisone], 24.0 vs. 25.0 [enzalutamide], 20.2 vs. 18.7 [docetaxel], and 20.0 vs. 23.8 months [radium-223]). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the disease model accurately approximated the observed data in the total CRPC population. However, the disease model was unable to predict differences in survival between treatments due to unobserved differences. Therefore, the model is not suitable for cost-effectiveness analysis of CRPC treatment. Using a combination of RWD and data from randomised controlled trials to estimate treatment effectiveness may improve the model.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of first-line gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in EGFR-mutated NSCLC. To assess the cost-effectiveness of these treatments, a Markov model was developed from Dutch societal perspective. The model was based on the clinical studies included in the NMA. Incremental costs per life-year (LY) and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. RESULTS: Total discounted per patient costs for gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib were €65,889, €64,035, €69,418, and €131,997, and mean QALYs were 1.36, 1.39, 1.52, and 2.01 per patient, respectively. Erlotinib dominated gefitinib. Afatinib versus erlotinib yielded incremental costs of €27,058/LY and €41,504/QALY gained. Osimertinib resulted in €91,726/LY and €128,343/QALY gained compared to afatinib. PSA showed that gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib had 13%, 19%, 43%, and 26% probability to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY. A price reduction of osimertinib of 30% is required for osimertinib to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib has a better effectiveness compared to all other TKIs. However, at a Dutch threshold of €80,000/QALY, osimertinib appears not to be cost-effective.

Phase I/II Clinical Trial-Based Early Economic Evaluation of Acalabrutinib for Relapsed Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to construct an early economic evaluation for acalabrutinib for relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) to assist early reimbursement decision making. Scenarios were assessed to find the relative impact of critical parameters on incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: A partitioned survival model was constructed comparing acalabrutinib and ibrutinib from a UK national health service perspective. This model included states for progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS) and death. PFS and overall survival (OS) were parametrically extrapolated from ibrutinib publications and a preliminary hazard ratio based on phase I/II data was applied for acalabrutinib. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, and 1296 scenarios were assessed. RESULTS: The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £61,941/QALY, with 3.44 incremental QALYs and incremental costs of £213,339. Deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that survival estimates, utilities and treatment costs of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib and resource use during PFS have the greatest influence on the ICER. Probabilistic results under different development scenarios indicated that greater efficacy of acalabrutinib would decrease the likelihood of cost effectiveness (from 63% at no effect to 2% at maximum efficacy). Scenario analyses showed that a reduction in PFS did not lead to great QALY differences (- 8 to - 14% incremental QALYs) although it did greatly affect costs (- 47 to - 122% incremental pounds). For OS, the opposite was true (- 89 to - 93% QALYs and - 7 to - 39% pounds). CONCLUSIONS: Acalabrutinib is not likely to be cost effective compared with ibrutinib under current development scenarios. The conflicting effects of OS, PFS, drug costs and utility during PFS show that determining the cost effectiveness of acalabrutinib without insight into all parameters complicates health technology assessment decision making. Early assessment of the cost effectiveness of new products can support development choices and reimbursement processes through effective early dialogues between stakeholders.

First-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors in EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) including afatinib, dacomitinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, and osimertinib have proven efficacy in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations. However, an overall view for comparing efficacy and toxicity on a meta-level is lacking. This study compared efficacy and toxicity of first-line treatment with five different EGFR-TKIs by conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic review was performed, aiming to find eligible literature. Data of PFS, overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events were extracted. An NMA based on Bayesian statistics was established to synthesize the efficacy and toxicity of all treatments. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials, including data from 3,539 patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC, were analyzed. Rank probabilities showed that osimertinib had a potentially better efficacy in terms of PFS and OS compared to all other TKIs. For ORR, afatinib and osimertinib showed a trend of superiority compared to the other four TKIs. Furthermore, there was a high risk of diarrhea and rash for patients treated with afatinib or dacomitinib as well as a moderate risk for treatment with erlotinib, gefitinib, and osimertinib. CONCLUSION: Our study showed a favorable efficacy of osimertinib in terms of PFS and OS compared to all other EGFR-TKIs in patients with NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations. Furthermore, gefitinib, erlotinib, and osimertinib were associated with fewer toxicities compared to the other TKIs. Therefore, osimertinib is indicated as a preferable first-line TKI in patients with activating EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Ribociclib with an Aromatase Inhibitor for Previously Untreated, HR-Positive, HER2-Negative, Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as part of the institute's single technology appraisal process, invited the manufacturer of ribociclib (Kisqali®, Novartis) to submit evidence regarding the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug in combination with an aromatase inhibitor for the treatment of previously untreated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd and Erasmus University Rotterdam were commissioned as the Evidence Review Group for this submission. The Evidence Review Group reviewed the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, corrected and validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model, and conducted exploratory analyses to assess the robustness and validity of the presented clinical and cost-effectiveness results. This article describes the company submission, the Evidence Review Group assessment and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence subsequent decisions. The main clinical effectiveness evidence was obtained from the MONALEESA-2 trial, a randomised controlled trial comparing ribociclib plus letrozole with placebo plus letrozole. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ribociclib group (95% confidence interval, 19.3-not reached) vs. 14.7 months (95% confidence interval 13.0-16.5) in the placebo group. To assess the cost effectiveness of ribociclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor, the company developed an individual patient-level model using a discrete-event simulation approach in Microsoft® Excel. In the model, simulated patients move through a series of three health states until death, i.e. first-line progression-free survival, second-line progression-free survival and progressive disease. The length of progression-free survival during the first line was informed by the MONALEESA-2 trial. The benefit in progression-free survival in the first line was transferred to a benefit in overall survival assuming full progression-free survival to overall survival surrogacy (because of the immaturity of overall survival data from the MONALEESA-2 trial). Patient-level data from the BOLERO-2 trial, evaluating the addition of everolimus to exemestane in the second-line treatment of postmenopausal HR-positive advanced breast cancer, were used to inform the length of progression-free survival during the second line. Costs included in the model were treatment costs (e.g. technology acquisition costs of first, second, third and/or later line treatments), drug administration costs, monitoring costs and health state costs (including terminal care). Additionally, the costs of adverse events associated with the first-line treatment were incorporated. The Evidence Review Group recalculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using data from a different data cut-off date from the MONALEESA-2 trial and by changing some assumptions (e.g. progression-free survival to overall survival surrogacy approach and post-progression third and/or later line treatment-related costs). After two appraisal committee meetings and a revised base case submitted by the company (including a second enhanced patient access scheme discount), the committee concluded that taking into account the uncertainties in the calculation of the cost effectiveness, there were plausible cost-effectiveness estimates broadly in the range that could be considered as a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources. Therefore, ribociclib was recommended as a treatment option for the first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer, contingent on the company providing ribociclib with the discount agreed in the second enhanced patient access scheme.

Pomalidomide with Dexamethasone for Treating Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma Previously Treated with Lenalidomide and Bortezomib: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of an NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as part of the institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process, invited the manufacturer of pomalidomide (POM; Imnovid®, Celgene) to submit evidence regarding the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug in combination with dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after at least two regimens including lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BOR). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR) and Erasmus University Rotterdam were commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) for this submission. The ERG reviewed the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model, and conducted exploratory analyses in order to assess the robustness and validity of the presented clinical and cost-effectiveness results. This paper describes the company submission, the ERG assessment, and NICE's subsequent decisions. The company conducted a systematic review to identify studies comparing POM with comparators outlined in the NICE scope: panobinostat with bortezomib and dexamethasone (PANO + BOR + DEX), bendamustine with thalidomide and dexamethasone (BTD) and conventional chemotherapy (CC). The main clinical effectiveness evidence was obtained from MM-003, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing POM + LoDEX with high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX; used as a proxy for CC). Additional data from other studies were also used as nonrandomized observational data sources for the indirect treatment comparison of POM + LoDEX with BTD and PANO + BOR + DEX. Covariate or treatment switching adjustment methods were used for each comparison. The model developed in Microsoft® Excel 2010 using a semi-Markov partitioned survival structure, submitted in the original submission to NICE for TA338, was adapted for the present assessment of the cost effectiveness of POM + LoDEX. Updated evidence from the clinical-effectiveness part was used for the survival modelling of progression-free survival and overall survival. For POM + LoDEX, the patient access scheme (PAS) discount was applied to the POM price. Three separate comparisons were conducted for each comparator, each comparison using a different dataset and adjustment methods. The ERG identified and corrected some errors, and the corrected incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for POM + LoDEX versus each comparator were presented: approximately £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus BTD, savings of approximately £143,000 per QALY lost versus PANO + BOR + DEX, and approximately £49,000 per QALY gained versus CC. The ERG also conducted full incremental analyses, which revealed that CC, POM + LoDEX and PANO + BOR + DEX were on the cost-effectiveness frontier. The committee's decision on the technology under analysis deemed that POM + LoDEX should be recommended as an option for treating multiple myeloma in adults at third or subsequent relapse of treatments including both LEN and BOR, contingent on the company providing POM with the discount agreed in the PAS.

Ramucirumab for Treating Advanced Gastric Cancer or Gastro-Oesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma Previously Treated with Chemotherapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ramucirumab (Cyramza®, Eli Lilly and Company) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug administered alone (monotherapy) or with paclitaxel (combination therapy) for treating adults with advanced gastric cancer or gastro-oesophageal junction (GC/GOJ) adenocarcinoma that were previously treated with chemotherapy, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Erasmus University Rotterdam, was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company's submission, the ERG review, and NICE's subsequent decisions. Clinical effectiveness evidence for ramucirumab monotherapy (RAM), compared with best supportive care (BSC), was based on data from the REGARD trial. Clinical effectiveness evidence for ramucirumab combination therapy (RAM + PAC), compared with paclitaxel monotherapy (PAC), was based on data from the RAINBOW trial. In addition, the company undertook a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare RAM + PAC with BSC and docetaxel. Cost-effectiveness evidence of monotherapy and combination therapy relied on partitioned survival, cost-utility models. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the company was £188,640 (vs BSC) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for monotherapy and £118,209 (vs BSC) per QALY gained for combination therapy. The ERG assessment indicated that the modelling structure represented the course of the disease; however, a few errors were identified and some of the input parameters were challenged. The ERG provided a new base case, with ICERs (vs BSC) of £188,100 (monotherapy) per QALY gained and £129,400 (combination therapy) per QALY gained and conducted additional exploratory analyses. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC), considered the company's decision problem was in line with the NICE scope, with the exception of the choice of comparators for the combination therapy model. The most plausible ICER for ramucirumab monotherapy compared with BSC was £188,100 per QALY gained. The Committee considered that the ERG's exploratory analysis in which RAM + PAC was compared with PAC by using the direct head-to-head data (including utilities) from the RAINBOW trial, provided the most plausible ICER (i.e. £408,200 per QALY gained) for ramucirumab combination therapy. The Committee concluded that end-of-life considerations cannot be applied for either case, since neither failed to offer an extension to life of at least 3 months. The company did not submit a patient access scheme (PAS). After consideration of the evidence, the Committee concluded that ramucirumab alone or with paclitaxel could not be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources for treating advanced GC/GOJ patients that were previously treated with chemotherapy, and therefore its use could not be recommended. We might wonder if a complete STA process is necessary for treatments without a PAS, which are, according to the company's submission, already associated with ICERs far above the currently accepted threshold in all (base-case, sensitivity and scenario) analyses.

Cost Recommendation under Uncertainty in IQWiG's Efficiency Frontier Framework.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) employs an efficiency frontier (EF) framework to facilitate setting maximum reimbursable prices for new interventions. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) is used when yes/no reimbursement decisions are sought based on a fixed threshold. In the IQWiG framework, an additional layer of complexity arises as the EF itself may vary its shape in each PSA iteration, and thus the willingness-to-pay, indicated by the EF segments, may vary. OBJECTIVES: To explore the practical problems arising when, within the EF approach, maximum reimbursable prices for new interventions are sought through PSA. METHODS: When the EF is varied in a PSA, cost recommendations for new interventions may be determined by the mean or the median of the distances between each intervention's point estimate and each EF. Implications of using these metrics were explored in a simulation study based on the model used by IQWiG to assess the cost-effectiveness of 4 antidepressants. RESULTS: Depending on the metric used, cost recommendations can be contradictory. Recommendations based on the mean can also be inconsistent. Results (median) suggested that costs of duloxetine, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and bupropion should be decreased by €131, €29, €12, and €99, respectively. These recommendations were implemented and the analysis repeated. New results suggested keeping the costs as they were. The percentage of acceptable PSA outcomes increased 41% on average, and the uncertainty associated to the net health benefit was significantly reduced. CONCLUSIONS: The median of the distances between every intervention outcome and every EF is a good proxy for the cost recommendation that would be given should the EF be fixed. Adjusting costs according to the median increased the probability of acceptance and reduced the uncertainty around the net health benefit distribution, resulting in a reduced uncertainty for decision makers.

Lenalidomide for the Treatment of Low- or Intermediate-1-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes Associated with Deletion 5q Cytogenetic Abnormality: An Evidence Review of the NICE Submission from Celgene.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of lenalidomide (Celgene) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug for treating adults with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) associated with deletion 5q cytogenetic abnormality, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Erasmus University Rotterdam, was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company's submission, the ERG review, and the NICE's subsequent decisions. The ERG reviewed the evidence for clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, as submitted by the manufacturer to the NICE. The ERG searched for relevant additional evidence and validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model to examine the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results. Clinical effectiveness was obtained from a three-arm, European, randomized, phase III trial among red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent patients with low-/intermediate-1-risk del5q31 MDS. The primary endpoint was RBC independence for ≥26 weeks, and was reached by a higher proportion of patients in the lenalidomide 10 and 5 mg groups compared with placebo (56.1 and 42.6 vs 5.9 %, respectively; both p < 0.001). The option of dose adjustments after 16 weeks due to dose-limiting toxicities or lack of response made long-term effectiveness estimates unreliable, e.g. overall survival (OS). The de novo model of the manufacturer included a Markov state-transition cost-utility model implemented in Microsoft Excel. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the manufacturer was £56,965. The ERG assessment indicated that the modeling structure represented the course of the disease; however, a few errors were identified and some of the input parameters were challenged. In response to the appraisal documentation, the company revised the economic model, which increased the ICER to £68,125 per quality-adjusted life-year. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) did not recommend lenalidomide as a cost-effective treatment. Subsequently, the manufacturer submitted a Patient Access Scheme (PAS) that provided lenalidomide free of charge for patients who remained on treatment after 26 cycles. This PAS improved the ICER to £25,300, although the AC considered the proportion of patients who received treatment beyond 26 cycles, and hence the ICER, to be uncertain. Nevertheless, the AC accepted a commitment from the manufacturer to publish, once available, data on the proportion of patients eligible for the PAS, and believed this provided reassurance that lenalidomide was a cost-effective treatment for low- or intermediate-1-risk MDS patients.

The role of value-of-information analysis in a health care research priority setting: a theoretical case study.

BACKGROUND: The Dutch reimbursement procedure for expensive drugs requires the submission of a baseline cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis and a research plan for the period of temporary reimbursement to estimate the real-life cost-effectiveness after 4 years. The Dutch guidelines recommend a value-of-information analysis to identify the critical parameters to be studied in such an outcome study. OBJECTIVES: Identify situations where sensitivity analyses are sufficient to establish the need for additional data collection and priority setting. METHODS: We used a hypothetical Markov model with 3 groups of parameters. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) and analyzed the expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI), for different configurations of input parameters and a range of threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (λ). We introduced a multivariate (deterministic) sensitivity analysis and a partial PSA. RESULTS: Deterministic, partial PSA, and EVPPI analyses came to the same ranking of priorities for future research in most cases, irrespective of the place of the results on the CE plane. Rankings differed only when the statistical metrics that we calculated for each method were close together. CONCLUSIONS: When a clear ranking can be established, all methods lead to the same priority setting. If there is no clear ranking, we regard the parameters as equally important. Priority setting for future research depends on λ and the location of results on the CE plane. The EVPPI is needed to estimate the value of doing additional research, but to prioritize parameters for further research, extensive (partial probabilistic) sensitivity analyses and expected value of perfect information are often sufficient.

Developing and applying a stochastic dynamic population model for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a stochastic population model of disease progression in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that includes the effects of COPD exacerbations on health-related quality of life, costs, disease progression, and mortality and can be used to assess the effects of a wide range of interventions. METHODS: The model is a multistate Markov model with time varying transition rates specified by age, sex, smoking status, COPD disease severity, and/or exacerbation type. The model simulates annual changes in COPD prevalence due to COPD incidence, exacerbations, disease progression (annual decline in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second as percentage of the predicted value), and mortality. The main outcome variables are quality-adjusted life years, total exacerbations, and COPD-related health care costs. Exacerbation-related input parameters were based on quantitative meta-analysis. All important model parameters are entered into the model as probability distributions. To illustrate the potential use of the model, costs and effects were calculated for 3-year implementation of three different COPD interventions, one pharmacologic, one on smoking cessation, and one on pulmonary rehabilitation using a time horizon of 10 years for reporting outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with minimal treatment the cost/quality-adjusted life year was €8,300 for the pharmacologic intervention, €10,800 for the smoking cessation therapy, €8,700 for the combination of the pharmacologic intervention and the smoking cessation therapy, and €17,200 for the pulmonary rehabilitation program. The probability of the interventions to be cost-effective at a ceiling ratio of €20,000 varied from 58% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The COPD model provides policy makers with information about the long-term costs and effects of interventions over the entire chain of care, from primary prevention to care for very severe COPD and includes uncertainty around the outcomes.

Inverse probability weighting to control for censoring in a post hoc analysis of quality-adjusted survival data from a clinical trial of temsirolimus for renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis evaluated treatment-associated quality-adjusted survival (QAS) in patients randomly assigned to temsirolimus or interferon alfa (IFN-alfa), corrected for censoring using inverse probability weighting (IPW), in the Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (ARCC) trial. METHODS: Follow-up was divided into 11 time intervals; Kaplan-Meier estimates for not being censored were estimated for each interval. The QAS for each interval was weighted by the inverse probability of not being censored in that interval. Overall treatment-associated QAS was calculated as the sum of the weighted QAS across all follow-up intervals. Differences in mean QAS between temsirolimus and IFN-alfa were evaluated with t-statistics at a two-sided α = 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 416 patients were randomly assigned to temsirolimus (n = 209) or IFN-alfa (n = 207); 400 patients were included in this analysis. Overall weighted mean (standard deviation) QAS during progression-free survival was 111.9 (5.3) days with temsirolimus (n = 204) and 75.7 (6.3) days with IFN-alfa (n = 196). The mean weighted QAS difference of 36.2 days in favor of temsirolimus was significant (p < 0.05). LIMITATIONS: One potential limitation is that the weights developed by the Kaplan-Meier estimates did not allow for covariates to be adjusted among treatment arms. Another possible limitation is that the ARCC trial included patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, and thus it cannot be conclusively determined how our findings would apply to patients with less advanced disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with poor-prognosis advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with temsirolimus had an incremental gain of 48% (36.2 days) in QAS compared with patients treated with IFN-alfa.

Cost-effectiveness of temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: a report from the EORTC 26981/22981 NCI-C CE3 Intergroup Study.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) for the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme versus initial radiotherapy alone from a public health care perspective. METHODS: The economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomized, multicenter, phase 3 trial. The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival. Costs included all direct medical costs. Economic data were collected prospectively for a subgroup of 219 patients (38%). Unit costs for drugs, procedures, laboratory and imaging, radiotherapy, and hospital costs per day were collected from the official national reimbursement lists based on 2004. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, survival was expressed as 2.5 years restricted mean estimates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was constructed. Confidence intervals for the ICER were calculated using the Fieller method and bootstrapping. RESULTS: The difference in 2.5 years restricted mean survival between the treatment arms was 0.25 life-years and the ICER was euro37,361 per life-year gained with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from euro19,544 to euro123,616. The area between the survival curves of the treatment arms suggests an increase of the overall survival gain for a longer follow-up. An extrapolation of the overall survival per treatment arm and imputation of costs for the extrapolated survival showed a substantial reduction in ICER. CONCLUSIONS: The ICER of euro37,361 per life-year gained is a conservative estimate. We concluded that despite the high TMZ acquisition costs, the costs per life-year gained are comparable to accepted first-line treatment with chemotherapy in patients with cancer.