A cost analysis of sorafenib for desmoid tumors.

INTRODUCTION: A recent randomized trial demonstrated that sorafenib improved progression free survival (PFS) in patients with desmoid tumors despite many patients experiencing stable disease or spontaneous regression without treatment. Utilizing these trial data, we performed a cost analysis of sorafenib efficacy through two years of treatment. METHODS: Current Medicare Part D rates for sorafenib were utilized (dose 400 mg/day, cost $309/day). Annual costs per progression and objective response were calculated. Radiologic progression and response were defined using RECIST criteria. Patients with disease progression were separately analyzed in two groups: both clinical and radiologic (CAR), and radiologic alone. RESULTS: 84 previously randomized patients were analyzed (placebo: 35, sorafenib: 49). At one year, sorafenib was associated with a 43% absolute risk reduction (ARR) of CAR progression and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 2.3 patients/year, costing $259,406. At two years, ARR was 48% and NNT of 2.1 patients/year, costing $473,697. When evaluating only patients with RECIST defined radiologic progression, sorafenib patients experienced ARR of 13.9% with NNT 7.2 and estimated costs of $812,052 at one year. Two-year ARR was 17.5% with NNT 5.7 and estimated costs $1,285,052. Sorafenib patients experienced improved RECIST partial response rates at 1 and 2 years of 14.7% and 14.3%, with NNT 6.8 and 6.9, and costs of $766,938 and $1,556,433; respectively. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of desmoid tumors, Sorafenib led to improved PFS, but at a significant cost per patient. Favorable RECIST outcomes were less likely and costlier. Patients should be informed of possible benefits of treatment versus potential financial burden.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sorafenib Monotherapy and Selected Combination Therapy with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sorafenib treatment in combination with other therapies versus sorafenib monotherapy among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are enrolled in Taiwan's National Health Insurance. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to simulate treatment outcomes and direct medical costs of sorafenib combination therapy and monotherapy from the perspective of the healthcare payer in Taiwan. Both life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to measure treatment outcomes, and all costs were expressed in 2014 New Taiwan dollars (NT$). Model parameters were acquired primarily using data from population-based administrative databases: the Cancer Registry, National Health Insurance Research Database, and the Death Registry. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times the per capita gross domestic product at NT$2,133,930. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: For advanced HCC patients, sorafenib combined with other treatments might not be a cost-effective option when compared with sorafenib therapy alone. In the base-case analysis, combination treatment with sorafenib was estimated to increase costs by NT$434,788 compared with monotherapy, with a gain of 0.1595 QALYs. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was NT$2,725,943 per QALY gained. Results were sensitive to health utility values and monthly costs accrued in the progression-free survival state of the combination therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence from Taiwan demonstrated that while sorafenib in combination with other therapeutic approaches might improve treatment outcome when compared with sorafenib monotherapy, its ICER exceeded the WTP threshold and was considered not cost-effective.

Inter-operator variability and source of errors in tumour response assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the inter-operator concordance and the potential sources of discordance in defining response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: All patients who received sorafenib between September 2008 and February 2015 were scrutinised for this retrospective study. Images were evaluated separately by three radiologists with different expertise in liver imaging (operator 1, >10 years; operator 2, 5 years; operator 3, no specific training in liver imaging), according to: response evaluation radiological criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver (RECICL). RESULTS: The overall response concordance between the more expert operators was good, irrespective of the criteria (RECIST 1.1, ĸ = 0.840; mRECIST, ĸ = 0.871; RECICL, ĸ = 0.819). Concordance between the less expert operator and the other colleagues was lower. The most evident discordance was in target lesion response assessment, with expert operators disagreeing mostly on lesion selection and less expert operators on lesion measurement. As a clinical correlate, overall survival was more tightly related with "progressive disease" as assessed by the expert compared to the same assessment performed by operator 3. CONCLUSIONS: Decision on whether a patient is a responder or progressor under sorafenib may vary among different operators, especially in case of a non-specifically trained radiologist. Regardless of the adopted criteria, patients should be evaluated by experienced radiologists to minimise variability in this critical instance. KEY POINTS: • Inter-operator variability in the assessment of response to sorafenib is poorly known. • The concordance between operators with expertise in liver imaging was good. • Target lesions selection was the main source of discordance between expert operators. • Concordance with non-specifically trained operator was lower, independently from the response criteria. • The non-specifically trained operator was mainly discordant in measurements of target lesions.

Safety assessment of sorafenib in Chinese patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: subgroup analysis of the GIDEON study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the safety of sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in Chinese patients. METHODS: A subgroup of 345 Chinese patients from the international database of the Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and Of its treatment with sorafeNib (GIDEON) study was included in this analysis. Safety assessment measures were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria version 3.0. RESULTS: Of 331 evaluable patients, 98% started sorafenib at 800 mg/day. The median treatment duration was 22 weeks (range, 0.1-116 weeks), and median overall survival (OS) was 322 days (10.7 months). Approximately 50% of patients had at least one adverse event, and 6% had grade 3-4 adverse events. Drug-related adverse events were experienced by 29% of patients, and 3.6% had grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events. Overall, 23% of patients (n = 77) experienced serious adverse events, among which only 1 event was drug-related (0.3%). No differences in overall adverse events, serious adverse events, and deaths were observed between Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B patients. The most frequent drug-related adverse events were dermatological/skin (24%), hand-foot skin reaction (20%), gastrointestinal (11%), and diarrhea (11%). The majority of adverse events occurred within 30 days of beginning sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib has satisfactory efficacy and safety in Chinese Child-Pugh A and B patients with unresectable HCC using the recommended dosage of 800 mg/day, and the safety of sorafenib is not affected by liver function. Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal adverse events may help to decrease dose interruptions or discontinuation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ; Identifier: NCT00812175. Date of registration: December 19, 2008.

Sorafenib prescribed by gastroenterologists and hepatologists for hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study.

Sorafenib is the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved first-line therapy shown to have survival benefit for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients with advanced HCC are often but not exclusively transferred from non-oncologists to oncologists to initiate systemic therapy. The objective of this study was to assess whether sorafenib prescribing by non-oncologists has any impact on utilization, adverse effects, cost or outcome.This was a retrospective cohort study utilizing data from patients prescribed sorafenib for HCC within Veterans Health Administration hospitals with 100% chart abstraction to confirm HCC diagnosis, identify prescribing provider specialty (oncology versus gastroenterology/hepatology), and obtain data required for cancer staging by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system. The primary outcome was overall survival from the time of sorafenib prescription.A total of 4903 patients who prescribed sorafenib for HCC were identified, for whom 340 patients (6.9%) were prescribed drug by a non-oncologist (Onc). BCLC Stage, age, Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, and comorbidity indices were similar between patients prescribed sorafenib by oncologists and non-oncologists. Oncologists more often discontinued sorafenib due to progression, whereas non-oncologists were more likely to continue sorafenib until death resulting in greater pill utilization and cost. Overall survival in both unadjusted and multivariable models showed no significant impact of prescriber type on survival (222 vs 217 days, P = .96), confirmed with propensity-matched subcohorts.Similar survival outcomes were observed for patients with HCC prescribed sorafenib by non-oncologists and oncologists, suggesting that non-oncologists with expertise in the management of HCC can safely and effectively administer sorafenib.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with non-curative or palliative intent for hepatocellular carcinoma in the real-world setting.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) presentation is heterogeneous necessitating a variety of therapeutic interventions with varying efficacies and associated prognoses. Poor prognostic patients often undergo non-curative palliative interventions including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), sorafenib, chemotherapy, or purely supportive care. The decision to pursue one of many palliative interventions for HCC is complex and an economic evaluation comparing these interventions has not been done. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of non-curative palliative treatment strategies such as TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, sorafenib alone, and non-sorafenib chemotherapy compared with no treatment or best supportive care (BSC) among patients diagnosed with HCC between 2007 and 2010 in a Canadian setting. Using person-level data, we estimated effectiveness in life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) along with total health care costs (2013 US dollars) from the health care payer's perspective (3% annual discount). A net benefit regression approach accounting for baseline covariates with propensity score adjustment was used to calculate incremental net benefit to generate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and uncertainty measures. Among 1,172 identified patients diagnosed with HCC, 4.5%, 7.9%, and 5.6%, received TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, sorafenib, and non-sorafenib chemotherapy clone, respectively. Compared with no treatment or BSC (81.9%), ICER estimates for TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib was $6,665/QALY (additional QALY: 0.47, additional cost: $3,120; 95% CI: -$18,800-$34,500/QALY). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve demonstrated that if the relevant threshold was $50,000/QALY, TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, non-sorafenib chemotherapy, and sorafenib alone, would have a cost-effectiveness probability of 99.7%, 46.6%, and 5.5%, respectively. Covariates associated with the incremental net benefit of treatments are age, sex, comorbidity, and cancer stage. Findings suggest that TACE with or without sorafenib is currently the most cost-effective active non-curative palliative treatment approach to HCC. Further research into new combination treatment strategies that afford the best tumor response is needed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization with or without sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) and TACE in combination with sorafenib (TACE-sorafenib) have shown a significant survival benefit for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Adopting either as a first-line therapy carries major cost and resource implications. The objective of this study was to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of TACE against TACE-sorafenib for unresectable HCC using a decision analytic model. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to compare TACE and TACE-sorafenib. Transition probabilities and utilities were obtained from systematic literature reviews, and costs were obtained from West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China. Survival benefits were reported in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Sensitive analysis was performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters of the model. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that TACE cost $26 951 and yielded survival of 0.71 QALYs, and TACE-sorafenib cost $44 542 and yielded survival of 1.02 QALYs in the entire treatment. The ICER of TACE-sorafenib versus TACE was $56 745 per QALY gained, which was above threshold for cost-effectiveness in China. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the major driver of ICER was the cost post TACE-sorafenib therapy with stable state. CONCLUSION: TACE is a more cost-effective strategy than TACE-sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable HCC.

Cost Effectiveness of Lenvatinib, Sorafenib and Placebo in Treatment of Radioiodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib (Lenvima®) and sorafenib (Nexavar®) are the two most recently Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs for treating radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). Both demonstrated superior progression-free survival over placebo in their respective Phase III clinical trials. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments with placebo from a limited societal perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and health benefits for treatment of RR-DTC. The probabilities and survival rates were obtained from two Phase III trials: the SELECT trial comparing lenvatinib to placebo, and the DECISION trial comparing sorafenib to placebo. A bimonthly cycle length and half-cycle correction were used for a lifetime time horizon. Medical costs and utility data were obtained from RedBook, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and the published literature. All costs were adjusted to US$2015, discounted at 3% annually. Then second-order Monte Carlo simulation with distributions was conducted to obtain the acceptability curve to address the uncertainty around model inputs. RESULTS: In the base case, lenvatinib was the most cost-effective treatment compared to sorafenib (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $25,275/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) and placebo (ICER = $40,869). Sorafenib is also cost-effective compared to placebo (ICER = $64,067/QALY). The treatment decisions were found to be sensitive to the treatment costs and the health utility associated with lenvatinib and its side effects. The acceptability curve showed lenvatinib optimal 80% of time at WTP of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that lenvatinib is the optimally cost-effective treatment for RR-DTC, although both lenvatinib and sorafenib are cost-effective compared to placebo.

[Meta-analytic assessment of parenteral cytoflavin effectiveness in different neurologic disorders]. / Metaanaliticheskaia otsenka klinicheskoi éffektivnosti tsitoflavina pri nevrologicheskikh zabolevaniiakh.

AIM: To carry out an integral quantitative assessment of the clinical efficacy of parenteral use of cytoflavin in treatment of patients with CNS disorders based on the systemic selection of published controlled clinical trials and their meta-analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-one high evidence-based studies on the efficacy of parenteral use of cytoflavin in different CNS disorders (4314 patients) have been analyzed. Comparisons with basic treatment groups were undertaken to clarify the drug clinical effects adjusted for heterogeneity and variability of response parameters. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: An analysis of formalized efficacy indicators (increase in the absolute and relative value, odds ratio (OR) etc.) has demonstrated the advantages of cytoflavin. Group combination has increased the statistical power of the meta-analysis. Two models with fixed (Mantel-Haenszel amendment) and random effects were used. All the estimation protocols in different clinical groups of patients with neurologic diseases provided similar results and confirmed the stability of calculated values irrespective of heterogeneity of data arrays. OR of positive outcomes in neuropathologies treated with cytoflavin was 3,02 with χ2 heterogeneity 427,3 and p = 0,000…, I2= 85,7% (82%; 88%).

Real-World Data for the Evaluation of Transarterial Radioembolization versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with that of sorafenib in the treatment of patients with intermediate or advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system. METHODS: Patient-level data were consecutively recorded and collected at three oncology centers in Italy. A propensity score matching was performed to compare patients with similar clinical characteristics who underwent TARE or sorafenib treatment. Clinical data from the matched cohorts were used to populate a Markov model to project, on a lifetime horizon, life years, quality-adjusted life years, and economic outcomes associated with TARE and sorafenib for both intermediate and advanced HCC stages. RESULTS: Starting from data covering 389 and 241 patients who underwent TARE and sorafenib treatment, respectively, the propensity score matching yielded a total of 308 matched patients. For intermediate-stage patients, the model estimated for TARE versus sorafenib an incremental cost-utility ratio of €3,302/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €1,865 per life year gained), whereas for patients in advanced stage TARE dominated (lower costs and greater health improvements) compared with sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: From an Italian health care service perspective, TARE could be a cost-effective strategy in comparison with sorafenib for patients with intermediate or advanced HCC. The results from forthcoming randomized controlled trials comparing TARE with sorafenib will be able to confirm or reject the validity of this preliminary evaluation. In the meantime, decision makers can use these results to control and coordinate the diffusion of the technology.

Assessment of response to anti-angiogenic targeted therapy in pulmonary metastatic renal cell carcinoma: R2* value as a predictive biomarker.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of MR R2*-mapping and the optimal time-point for assessing the response of pulmonary metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) to anti-angiogenic targeted therapy (aATT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The exploration-sample group and the validation-sample group consisted of 22 and 16 patients. The parameters of MR R2*-mapping, including the R2* value at each time-point (R2*base, R2*1cyc and R2*2cyc) and change between different time-points (R2*(1cyc-base)/base, R2*(2cyc-base)/base and R2*(2cyc-1cyc)/1cyc), were evaluated with a receiver-operating-characteristic analysis, and a cut-off value derived from the clinical outcome was applied to the Kaplan-Meier method to assess the value of R2* mapping and Response-Evaluation-Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) during treatment evaluation. RESULTS: The inter-, intra-observer agreements and inter-scan consistency were excellent (p > 0.80). For the exploration-sample group, the areas under the curve for the parameters of MR R2* mapping were 0.55, 0.60, 0.83, 0.64, 0.88 and 0.83 for R2*base, R2*1cyc, R2*2cyc, R2*(1cyc-base)/base, R2*(2cyc-base)/base and R2*(2cyc-1cyc)/1cyc. For the validation-sample, R2*(2cyc-base)/base better predicted progression-free survival (p = 0.03) than RECIST and other R2* mapping parameters with a lower p value. CONCLUSION: Assessing aATT outcome based on changes in the R2* value between baseline and second treatment is more accurate than assessment at other time-points and assessment based on the RECIST. KEY POINTS: • The inter-scan consistency of R2*-mapping in pulmonary mRCC are excellent. • The intra-/inter-observer agreement of R2* mapping in pulmonary mRCC are excellent. • Using changes in R2* value between baseline/after second-treatment is better than RECIST. • The choice of baseline/after second treatment is better than other time-points.

Survival and cost-effectiveness of sorafenib therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: An analysis of the SEER-Medicare database.

Sorafenib is the only chemotherapeutic approved for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its effectiveness in patients with Child-Pugh class B cirrhosis and any moderating effects of health system characteristics are unclear. We examined the survival and cost-effectiveness associated with sorafenib in elderly patients with advanced HCC. We performed an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries with HCC diagnoses from 2007 to 2009. We compared advanced stage patients with HCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III/IV) who received sorafenib within 6 months of diagnosis (and were otherwise untreated) to advanced stage patients with HCC who received no therapy (control). We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to identify predictors of survival. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for sorafenib-treated and control patients. We included 228 sorafenib-treated patients and 870 control patients. The median survival of the sorafenib-treated patients was 150.5 days versus 62 days for control patients. On multivariate analysis, significant predictors of improved survival were treatment with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.77), being seen at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97), and being seen at a transplantation center (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93). Predictors of worse survival included stage IV disease (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.24-1.58), decompensated cirrhosis (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.30-1.70), and treatment in an urban setting (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.21-1.73.) Although sorafenib use was associated with a survival benefit (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.79) among patients with decompensated cirrhosis, the median survival benefit was 31 days, and it was not cost-effective (ICER, $224,914 per life year gained). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib is associated with improved survival in elderly patients with advanced HCC; however, it is not cost-effective among those with hepatic decompensation. (Hepatology 2017;65:122-133).

FOLFOX4 or sorafenib as the first-line treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the pharmaco-economic implications of FOLFOX4 or sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China. METHODS: To conduct the analysis, we performed a Markov model to simulate the process of advanced HCC treated with sorafenib or FOLFOX4. Clinical data were obtained from the ORIENTAL trial and the EACH trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was regarded as the primary outcome in the analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis as well as probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the impact of essential variables on the results of the analysis. RESULTS: Treatment with sorafenib provided an effectiveness gain of 0.3935 quality-adjusted life year at an average cost of $18,748.00, whereas chemotherapy of FOLFOX4 brought 0.3808 quality-adjusted life year at a cost of $6876.02. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FOLFOX4 versus sorafenib was $934,801.57/QALY. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on a Monte Carlo simulation of 1000 items, the probabilities of FOLFOX4 and sorafenib being cost-effective were 100% and 0% using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,301.00 per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOX4 chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China.

Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib versus SBRT for unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been shown to improve overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of SBRT compared to sorafenib which is the only drug for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: A Markov decision-analytic model was performed to compare the cost-effectiveness of SBRT and sorafenib for unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients transitioned between three health states: stable disease, progression disease and death. We calculated the data on cost from the perspective of our National Health Insurance Bureau. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the impact of several variables. RESULTS: The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sorafenib compared to SBRT was NT$3,788,238 per quality-adjusted life year gained (cost/QALY), which was higher than the willingness to pay threshold of Taiwan according to WHO's guideline. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the utility of progression disease for the sorafenib treatment, utility of progression free survival for SBRT, utility of progression free survival for sorafenib, utility of PFS to progression disease for SBRT and transition probability of progression disease to dead for SBRT were the most sensitive parameters in all cost scenarios. The Monte-Carlo simulation demonstrated that the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay threshold of NT$ 2,213,145 per QALY was 100 % and 0 % chance for SBRT and sorafenib. CONCLUSION: This study indicated that SBRT for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma is cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold as defined by WHO guideline in Taiwan.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of antiviral therapy in patients with advanced hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Antiviral therapy has been demonstrated to significantly improve the survival in patients with advanced hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of the study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of antiviral therapy in patients with advanced HBV-related HCC treated with sorafenib. METHODS: To conduct the analysis, a Markov model comprising three health states (progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death) was created. The efficacy data were derived from medical records. Cost data were collected based on the Chinese national drug prices. Utility data came from the previously published studies. One-way sensitivity analyses as well as probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore model uncertainties. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, addition of antiviral therapy to sorafenib generated an effectiveness of 0.68 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of $25 026.04, while sorafenib monotherapy gained an effectiveness of 0.42 QALYs at a cost of $20 249.64. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $18 370.77/QALY for antiviral therapy group versus non-antiviral therapy group. On the other hand, the ICER between the two groups in patients with high or low HBV-DNA load, with or without cirrhosis, normal or elevated alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase were $16 613.97/QALY, $19 774.16/QALY, $14 587.66/QALY, $19 873.84/QALY, $17 947.07/QALY, and $18 785.58/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the cost-effectiveness threshold ($20 301.00/QALY in China), addition of antiviral therapy to sorafenib is considered to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib monotherapy in patients with advanced HBV-related HCC in China from the patient's perspective.