Cost-effectiveness of treating advanced melanoma with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes based on an international randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: In a multicenter, open-label randomized phase 3 clinical trial conducted in the Netherlands and Denmark, treatment with ex vivo-expanded tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL-NKI/CCIT) from autologous melanoma tumor compared with ipilimumab improved progression-free survival in patients with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma after failure of first-line or second-line treatment. Based on this trial, we conducted a cost-utility analysis. METHODS: A Markov decision model was constructed to estimate expected costs (expressed in 2021€) and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) of TIL-NKI/CCIT versus ipilimumab in the Netherlands. The Danish setting was assessed in a scenario analysis. A modified societal perspective was applied over a lifetime horizon. TIL-NKI/CCIT production costs were estimated via activity-based costing. Through sensitivity analyses, uncertainties and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean total undiscounted lifetime benefits were 4.47 life years (LYs) and 3.52 QALYs for TIL-NKI/CCIT and 3.33 LYs and 2.46 QALYs for ipilimumab. Total lifetime undiscounted costs in the Netherlands were €347,168 for TIL-NKI/CCIT (including €67,547 for production costs) compared with €433,634 for ipilimumab. Undiscounted lifetime cost in the Danish scenario were €337,309 and €436,135, respectively. This resulted in a dominant situation for TIL-NKI/CCIT compared with ipilimumab in both countries, meaning incremental QALYs were gained at lower costs. Survival probabilities, and utility in progressive disease affected the ICER most. CONCLUSION: Based on the data of a randomized phase 3 trial, treatment with TIL-NKI/CCIT in patients with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma is cost-effective and cost-saving, both in the current Dutch and Danish setting. These findings led to inclusion of TIL-NKI/CCIT as insured care and treatment guidelines. Publicly funded development of the TIL-NKI/CCIT cell therapy shows realistic promise to further explore development of effective personalized treatment while warranting economic sustainability of healthcare systems.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland. METHODS: A health economic model was used to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PE screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics. The analysis was conducted from the healthcare perspective with a time horizon of one year from the start of pregnancy. The main outcome measures were incremental health care costs and incremental costs per PE case averted. RESULTS: The incremental health care costs for PE screening versus routine screening per woman were €14 in Germany, and -CHF42 in Switzerland, the latter representing cost savings. In Germany, the incremental costs per PE case averted were €3,795. In Switzerland, PE screening was dominant. The most influential parameter in the one-way sensitivity analysis was the cost of PE screening (Germany) and the probability of preterm PE in routine screening (Switzerland). In Germany, at a willingness-to-pay for one PE case avoided of €4,200, PE screening had a probability of more than 50% of being cost-effective compared to routine screening. In Switzerland, at a willingness-to-pay of CHF0, PE screening had a 78% probability of being the most cost-effective screening strategy. CONCLUSION: For Switzerland, PE screening is expected to be cost saving in comparison to routine screening. For Germany, the additional health care costs per woman were expected to be €14. Future cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted with a longer time horizon.

Cost-utility analysis on robot-assisted and laparoscopic prostatectomy based on long-term functional outcomes.

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) is one of the standard treatment options for prostate cancer. However, controversy still exists on its added value. Based on a recent large-sample retrospective cluster study from the Netherlands showing significantly improved long-term urinary functioning after RARP compared to Laparoscopic RP (LRP), we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of RARP compared to LRP. A decision tree was constructed to measure the costs and effects from a Dutch societal perspective over a ~ 7 year time-horizon. The input was based on the aforementioned study, including patient-reported consumption of addition care and consumed care for ergonomic issues reported by surgeons. Intervention costs were calculated using a bottom-up costing analysis in 5 hospitals. Finally, a probabilistic-, one-way sensitivity- and scenario analyses were performed to show possible decision uncertainty. The intervention costs were €9964 for RARP and €7253 for LRP. Total trajectory costs were €12,078 for RARP and €10,049 for LRP. RARP showed higher QALYs compared to LRP (6.17 vs 6.11). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was €34,206 per QALY gained, in favour of RARP. As a best-case scenario, when RARP is being centralized (> 150 cases/year), total trajectory costs decreased to €10,377 having a higher utilization, and a shorter procedure time and length of stay resulting in an ICUR of €3495 per QALY gained. RARP showed to be cost-effective compared to LRP based on data from a population-based, large scale study with 7 years of follow-up. This is a clear incentive to fully reimburse RARP, especially when hospitals provide RARP centralized.

Image-guided navigation for locally advanced primary and locally recurrent rectal cancer: evaluation of its early cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: A first pilot study showed that an image-guided navigation system could improve resection margin rates in locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) patients. Incremental surgical innovation is often implemented without reimbursement consequences, health economic aspects should however also be taken into account. This study evaluates the early cost-effectiveness of navigated surgery compared to standard surgery in LARC and LRRC. METHODS: A Markov decision model was constructed to estimate the expected costs and outcomes for navigated and standard surgery. The input parameters were based on pilot data from a prospective (navigation cohort n = 33) and retrospective (control group n = 142) data. Utility values were measured in a comparable group (n = 63) through the EQ5D-5L. Additionally, sensitivity and value of information analyses were performed. RESULTS: Based on this early evaluation, navigated surgery showed incremental costs of €3141 and €2896 in LARC and LRRC. In LARC, navigated surgery resulted in 2.05 Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) vs 2.02 QALYs for standard surgery. For LRRC, we found 1.73 vs 1.67 QALYs respectively. This showed an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of €136.604 for LARC and €52.510 for LRRC per QALY gained. In scenario analyses, optimal utilization rates of the navigation technology lowered the ICER to €61.817 and €21.334 for LARC and LRRC. The ICERs of both indications were most sensitive to uncertainty surrounding the risk of progression in the first year after surgery, the risk of having a positive surgical margin, and the costs of the navigation system. CONCLUSION: Adding navigation system use is expected to be cost-effective in LRRC and has the potential to become cost-effective in LARC. To increase the probability of being cost-effective, it is crucial to optimize efficient use of both the hybrid OR and the navigation system and identify subgroups where navigation is expected to show higher effectiveness.

Understanding the Costs of Surgery: A Bottom-Up Cost Analysis of Both a Hybrid Operating Room and Conventional Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, many hospitals have adopted hybrid operating rooms (ORs). As resources are limited, these ORs have to prove themselves in adding value. Current estimations on standard OR costs show great variety, while cost analyses of hybrid ORs are lacking. Therefore, this study aims to identify the cost drivers of a conventional and hybrid OR and take a first step in evaluating the added value of the hybrid OR. METHODS: A comprehensive bottom-up cost analysis was conducted in five Dutch hospitals taking into account: construction, inventory, personnel and overhead costs by means of interviews and hospital specific data. The costs per minute for both ORs were calculated using the utilization rates of the ORs. Cost drivers were identified by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The costs per minute for the conventional OR and the hybrid OR were €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10- €23.07), respectively. Total personnel and total inventory costs had most impact on the conventional OR costs. For the hybrid OR the costs were mostly driven by utilization rate, total inventory and construction costs. The results were incorporated in an open access calculation model to enable adjustment of the input parameters to a specific hospital or country setting. CONCLUSION: This study estimated a cost of €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10-€23.07) for the conventional and hybrid OR, respectively. The main factors influencing the OR costs are: total inventory costs, total construction costs, utilization rate, and total personnel costs. Our analysis can be used as a basis for future research focusing on evaluating value for money of this promising innovative OR. Furthermore, our results can inform surgeons, and decision and policy-makers in hospitals on the adoption and optimal utilization of new (hybrid) ORs.

Selecting Image-Guided Surgical Technologies in Oncology: A Surgeon's Perspective.

BACKGROUND: To improve surgical performance, image-guided (IG) technologies are increasingly introduced. Yet, it is unknown which oncological procedures yield most value from these technologies. This study aimed to select the most promising IG technology per oncologic indication. METHODS: An Analytic Hierarchical Process was used to evaluate three IG technologies: navigation, optical imaging, and augmented reality, in five oncologic indications compared with usual care. Sixteen decision criteria were selected. The relative importance of the criteria and the expected performance of the technologies were evaluated among surgeons. The combination of these scores gives the expected value per technology. RESULTS: On criteria level, sparing critical tissue (9%-18%) and reducing the risk of local recurrence (11%-27%) were most important. Navigation was preferred in three indications-removal of lymph nodes (42%), liver (47%), and rectal tumors (33%). In removing rectal tumors, optical imaging was equally preferred (34%). In removing breast and tongue tumors, no technology was clearly preferred. CONCLUSIONS: In selecting IG technologies, especially optical and navigation technologies are expected to add value in addition to usual care. Further development of those technologies for the preferred indications seems valuable. Multi-attribute analysis showed to be useful in prioritization of conducting clinical studies and steer research and development initiatives.

Evaluating different adoption scenarios for TIL-therapy and the influence on its (early) cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TIL) is an innovative therapy for advanced melanoma with promising clinical phase I/II study results and likely beneficial cost-effectiveness. As a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of TIL therapy in advanced melanoma compared to ipilimumab is still ongoing, adoption of TIL therapy by the field is confronted with uncertainty. To deal with this, scenario drafting can be used to identify potential barriers and enables the subsequent anticipation on these barriers. This study aims to inform adoption decisions of TIL by evaluating various scenarios and evaluate their effect on the cost-effectiveness. METHODS: First, 14 adoption scenarios for TIL-therapy were drafted using a Delphi approach with a group of involved experts. Second, the likelihood of the scenarios taking place within 5 years was surveyed among international experts using a web-based questionnaire. Third, based on the questionnaire results and recent literature, scenarios were labeled as being either "likely" or "-unlikely". Finally, the cost-effectiveness of TIL treatment involving the "likely" scored scenarios was calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-nine experts from 12 countries completed the questionnaire. The scenarios showed an average likelihood ranging from 29 to 58%, indicating that future developments of TIL-therapy were surrounded with quite some uncertainty. Eight of the 14 scenarios were labeled as "likely". The net monetary benefit per patient is presented as a measure of cost-effectiveness, where a positive value means that a scenario is cost-effective. For six of these scenarios the cost-effectiveness was calculated: "Commercialization of TIL production" (the price was assumed to be 3 times the manufacturing costs in the academic setting) (-€51,550), "Pharmaceutical companies lowering the prices of ipilimumab" (€11,420), "Using TIL-therapy combined with ipilimumab" (-€10,840), "Automatic TIL production" (€22,670), "TIL more effective" (€23,270), "Less Interleukin-2" (€20,370). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating possible future developments, TIL-therapy was calculated to be cost-effective compared to ipilimumab in the majority of "likely" scenarios. These scenarios could function as facilitators for adoption. Contrary, TIL therapy was expected to not be cost-effective when sold at commercial prices, or when combined with ipilimumab. These scenarios should be considered in the adoption decision as these may act as crucial barriers.

Early budget impact analysis on magnetic seed localization for non-palpable breast cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Current localization techniques used in breast conserving surgery for non-palpable tumors show several disadvantages. Magnetic Seed Localization (MSL) is an innovative localization technique aiming to overcome these disadvantages. This study evaluated the expected budget impact of adopting MSL compared to standard of care. METHODS: Standard of care with Wire-Guided Localization (WGL) and Radioactive Seed Localization (RSL) use was compared with a future situation gradually adopting MSL next to RSL or WGL from a Dutch national perspective over 5 years (2017-2022). The intervention costs for WGL, RSL and MSL and the implementation costs for RSL and MSL were evaluated using activity-based costing in eight Dutch hospitals. Based on available list prices the price of the magnetic seed was ranged €100-€500. RESULTS: The intervention costs for WGL, RSL and MSL were respectively: €2,617, €2,834 and €2,662 per patient and implementation costs were €2,974 and €26,826 for MSL and RSL respectively. For standard of care the budget impact increased from €14.7m to €16.9m. Inclusion of MSL with a seed price of €100 showed a budget impact of €16.7m. Above a price of €178 the budget impact increased for adoption of MSL, rising to €17.6m when priced at €500. CONCLUSION: MSL could be a cost-efficient localization technique in resecting non-palpable tumors in the Netherlands. The online calculation model can inform adoption decisions internationally. When determining retail price of the magnetic seed, cost-effectiveness should be considered.

Treatment With Tumor-infiltrating Lymphocytes in Advanced Melanoma: Evaluation of Early Clinical Implementation of an Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product.

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL)-therapy in advanced melanoma is an advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) which, despite promising results, has not been implemented widely. In a European setting, TIL-therapy has been in use since 2011 and is currently being evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. As clinical implementation of ATMPs is challenging, this study aims to evaluate early application of TIL-therapy, through the application of a constructive technology assessment (CTA). First the literature on ATMP barriers and facilitators in clinical translation was summarized. Subsequently, application of TIL-therapy was evaluated through semistructured interviews with 26 stakeholders according to 6 CTA domains: clinical, economic, patient-related, organizational, technical, and future. In addition, treatment costs were estimated. A number of barriers to clinical translation were identified in the literature, including: inadequate financial support, lack of regulatory knowledge, risks in using live tissues, and the complex path to market approval. Innovative reimbursement procedures could particularly facilitate translation. The CTA survey of TIL-therapy acknowledged these barriers, and revealed the following facilitators: the expected effectiveness resulting in institutional support for an internal pilot, the results of which led to the inclusion of TIL-therapy in a national coverage with evidence development program, the availability of an in-house pharmacist, quality assurance expertise and a TIL-skilled technician. Institutional and national implementation of TIL-therapy remains complex. The promising clinical effectiveness is expected to facilitate the adoption of TIL-therapy, especially when validated through a randomized controlled trial. Innovative and conditional reimbursement procedures, together with the organization of knowledge transfer, could support and improve clinical translation of TIL and ATMPs.

Early cost-effectiveness of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) for second line treatment in advanced melanoma: a model-based economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: An emerging immunotherapy is infusion of tumor infiltrating Lymphocytes (TIL), with objective response rates of around 50% versus 19% for ipilimumab. As an Advanced Therapeutic Medicinal Products (ATMP), TIL is highly personalized and complex therapy. It requests substantial upfront investments from the hospital in: expensive lab-equipment, staff expertise and training, as well as extremely tight hospital logistics. Therefore, an early health economic modelling study, as part of a Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) program, was performed. METHODS: We used a Markov decision model to estimate the expected costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years; QALYs) for TIL versus ipilimumab for second line treatment in metastatic melanoma patients from a Dutch health care perspective over a life long time horizon. Three mutually exclusive health states (stable disease (responders)), progressive disease and death) were modelled. To inform further research prioritization, Value of Information (VOI) analysis was performed. RESULTS: TIL is expected to generate more QALYs compared to ipilimumab (0.45 versus 0.38 respectively) at lower incremental cost (presently €81,140 versus €94,705 respectively) resulting in a dominant ICER (less costly and more effective). Based on current information TIL is dominating ipilimumab and has a probability of 86% for being cost effective at a cost/QALY threshold of €80,000. The Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) amounted to €3 M. CONCLUSIONS: TIL is expected to have the highest probability of being cost-effective in second line treatment for advanced melanoma compared to ipilimumab. To reduce decision uncertainty, a clinical trial investigating e.g. costs and survival seems most valuable. This is currently being undertaken as part of a CED program in the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with Denmark.