Assessment of disease control rate and safety of sorafenib in targeted therapy for advanced liver cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced liver cancer (ALC) were evaluated based on transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). METHODS: 92 patients with ALC admitted to our hospital from May 2020 to August 2022 were randomly rolled into a control (Ctrl) group and an observation (Obs) group, with 46 patients in each. Patients in the Ctrl group received TACE treatment, while those in the Obs group received sorafenib molecular targeted therapy (SMTT) on the basis of the treatment strategy in the Ctrl group (400 mg/dose, twice daily, followed by a 4-week follow-up observation). Clinical efficacy, disease control rate (DCR), survival time (ST), immune indicators (CD3+, CD4+, CD4+/CD8+), and adverse reactions (ARs) (including mild fatigue, liver pain, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), diarrhea, and fever) were compared for patients in different groups after different treatments. RESULTS: the DCR in the Obs group (90%) was greatly higher to that in the Ctrl group (78%), showing an obvious difference (P < 0.05). The median ST in the Obs group was obviously longer and the median disease progression time (DPT) was shorter, exhibiting great differences with those in the Ctrl group (P < 0.05). Moreover, no great difference was observed in laboratory indicators between patients in various groups (P > 0.05). After treatment, the Obs group exhibited better levels in all indicators. Furthermore, the incidence of ARs in the Obs group was lower and exhibited a sharp difference with that in the Ctrl group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: SMTT had demonstrated good efficacy in patients with ALC, improving the DCR, enhancing the immune response of the body, and reducing the incidence of ARs, thereby promoting the disease outcome. Therefore, it was a treatment method worthy of promotion and application.

Tislelizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Objective: The goal of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab and sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Methods: A comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken within the framework of a partitioned survival model to accurately gage the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of tislelizumab compared to sorafenib. The model incorporated relevant clinical data and all survival rates were from RATIONALE-301 trials. The stability of the partitioned survival model was assessed by performing one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses. Results: The total cost incurred for the tislelizumab treatment was $16181.24, whereas the sorafenib was $14306.87. The tislelizumab regimen resulted in a significant increase of 0.18 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an extra cost of $1874.37 as compared to chemotherapy. The ICER was $10413.17 per QALY, which was found to be below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37304.34/QALY. The results of the sensitivity analysis found that no fluctuations in any of the factors affected our results, even when these parameters fluctuated. Conclusion: Tislelizumab appears to be a cost-effective first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma when compared to sorafenib in China. These findings can inform decision-making processes regarding the selection of the most cost-effective treatment option for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the perspective of the Chinese health service system. METHODS: A lifetime partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed to cost-effectively analyze Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC. The clinical and safety data were derived from a recently randomized clinical trial (RATIONALE-301). Utilities were collected from the published literature. Costs were obtained from an open-access database (http://www.yaozh.com) and previous studies. The model cycle was 21 days, according to the RATIONALE-301 study, and the simulation period was patients' lifetime. Long-term direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were determined. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation index. one-way sensitivity analysis (OSWA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to analyze the uncertainty of parameters and to adjust and verify the stability of the baseline results. RESULTS: The Tislelizumab group generated a cost of $39,746.34 and brought health benefits to 2.146 QALYs, while the cost and utility of the Sorafenib group were $26750.95 and 1.578 QALYs, respectively. The Tislelizumab group increased QALYs by 0.568, the incremental cost was $12995.39, and the ICER was $22869.64/QALY, lower than the willingness to pay threshold (WTP). OSWA results showed that the utility of progressed disease (PD), cost of Camrelizumab, and cost of Tislelizumab were the main factors affecting the ICER. PSA results showed that, within 1000 times the Monte Carlo simulation, the cost of the Tislelizumab group was lower than three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China ($37653/QALY). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) revealed that when WTP was no less than $12251.00, the Tislelizumab group was the dominant scheme, and the economic advantage grew with an increasing WTP. When WTP ≥ $19000.00, the Tislelizumab group became the absolute economic advantage. CONCLUSION: Under the current economic conditions in China, the Tislelizumab therapeutic scheme is more cost-effective than the Sorafenib therapeutic scheme for treating patients with unresectable HCC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Camrelizumab Plus Rivoceranib Versus Sorafenib as a First-Line Therapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Chinese Health Care System.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib showed significant clinical benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival compared to sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess its cost effectiveness from the perspective of Chinese health care system. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model was developed based on the Phase 3 randomized CARES-310 clinical trial data. Health state utility values were obtained from the CARES-310 clinical trial, and direct medical costs were derived from the relevant literature and local charges. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib were 0.41 QALYs and $13,684.84, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $33,619.98/QALY, lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of China ($35,864.61/QALY). Subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib were $35,920.01 and $29,717.98 in patients with ALBI grade 1 and grade 2, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the cost of camrelizumab, the proportion of patients receiving subsequent treatment in the camrelizumab plus rivoceranib group, and the cost of rivoceranib were the most significant factors in the base-case analysis. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that the probabilities of cost effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib were 61.27%, 51.46%, and 82.78% for any grade, and ALBI grade 1 and grade 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib was more cost effective than sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable HCC in the Chinese setting.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with less adverse events (AE) compared with sorafenib in the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). But which approach is the most cost-effective remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs sorafenib as first-line therapy for patients with advanced HCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: A partitioned survival mode was constructed to evaluate the health and economic outcomes of nivolumab vs sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced HCC. The clinical data and outcomes were obtained from CheckMate 459 trial. Medical costs and utilities were collected from published sources. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. Additional subgroup and scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: Treatment with nivolumab yielded an additional 0.27 QALYs with an incremental cost of $65,579.19 compared with sorafenib, leading to an ICER of $236,765.93/QALY in China. One-way sensitivity analysis found the model outputs to be most affected for hazard ratio (HR) of OS and the cost of nivolumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was 0% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,201.19/QALY. The scenario analyses indicated altering the time horizon of the model did not reverse the economic results. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab as first-line treatment could gain more health benefits for advanced HCC compared with sorafenib, but was estimated not to be cost-effective at the commonly adopted WTP threshold of China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus IBI305 versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatic cell carcinoma in China.

BACKGROUND: Sintilimab combined with IBI305 treatment regimen had potential clinical benefits than sorafenib in the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatic cell carcinoma (HCC). However, whether sintilimab plus IBI305 has economic benefits in China remains unclear. METHODS: From the perspective of Chinese payers, we used the Markov model to simulate patients with HCC receiving treatment with sintilimab plus IBI305 and sorafenib. The transition probability between health states was estimated using the parametric survival model, and the cumulative medical costs and utility of the two treatment methods were estimated. Considering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as the evaluation index, sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of uncertainty on the results. RESULTS: Compared to sorafenib, sintilimab plus IBI305 generated an additional $17552.17 and 0.33 quality-adjusted life years, resulting in an ICER of $52817.89. The analysis outcomes were most sensitive to the total cost of sintilimab plus IBI305. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,334, sintilimab plus IBI305 showed a 1.28% probability of being cost-effective. The total cost of sintilimab plus IBI305 should be reduced by at least 31.9% to be accepted by Chinese payers. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of whether the price of sintilimab plus IBI305 and sorafenib is covered by Medicare, sintilimab plus IBI305 is unlikely to be cost-effective for first-line treatment of patients with unresectable HCC.

Cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapy with Y-90 resin microspheres for intermediate- and advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in Brazil.

AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a severe condition with poor prognosis that places a significant burden on patients, caregivers, and healthcare systems. Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) is a treatment available to patients with HCC which addresses some of the limitations of alternative treatment options. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken into the use of SIRT using Y-90 resin microspheres for the treatment of unresectable intermediate- and late-stage HCC in Brazil. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned-survival model was developed, including a tunnel state for patients downstaged to receive treatments with curative intent. Sorafenib was the selected comparator, a common systemic treatment in Brazil and for which comparative evidence exists. Clinical data were extracted from published sources of pivotal trials, and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years (LYs). The analysis was conducted from the Brazilian private payer perspective and a lifetime horizon was implemented. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: LYs and QALYs were higher for SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres versus sorafenib (0.27 and 0.20 incremental LYs and QALYs, respectively) and costs were slightly higher for SIRT (R$15,864). The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was R$77,602 per QALY. The ICER was mostly influenced by parameters defining the sorafenib overall survival curve and SIRT had a 73% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of R$135,761 per QALY (3-times the per-capita gross domestic product in Brazil). Overall, sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results indicating that SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres is cost-effective compared with sorafenib. LIMITATIONS: A rapidly evolving treatment landscape in Brazil and worldwide, and the lack of local data for some variables were the main limitations. CONCLUSIONS: SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres is a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib in Brazil.

Lenvatinib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

PURPOSE: This aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations comparing lenvatinib to other vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors and other treatment options in the management of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using highly sensitive search syntax. The titles and abstracts of all records were studied and screened to identify eligible economic evaluations. To enable comparison across different countries, the results of economic evaluations make it possible to compare, the costs and ICER of all studies were converted into 2022 US dollars, and a 3% annual increase for inflation was applied. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. This study is conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: Lenvatinib was found to be cost-effective (ICER = dominant) compared to most drugs in the included studies, except in studies where it was compared with donafenib or when the price of sorafenib was significantly discounted (e.g., with a 90% discount, the value of ICER was + 104,669 USD). CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib was generally cost-effective in most studies, but not compared to donafenib or sorafenib (if the price sorafenib was significantly discounted).

First-line systemic treatment strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oral multikinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective for treating advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) but may increase cost. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of oral multikinase inhibitors and ICIs in the first-line treatment of patients with aHCC. METHODS: A three-state Markov model was established to study the cost-effectiveness of drug treatment from the perspective of Chinese payers. The key outcomes in this study were total cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The total costs and QALYs of sorafenib, sunitinib, donafenib, lenvatinib, sorafenib plus erlotinib, linifanib, brivanib, sintilimab plus IBI305, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab were $9070 and 0.25, $9362 and 0.78, $33,814 and 0.45, $49,120 and 0.83, $63,064 and 0.81, $74,814 and 0.82, $81,995 and 0.82, $74083 and 0.85, and $104,188 and 0.84, respectively. The drug regimen with the lowest ICER was sunitinib ($551 per QALY), followed by lenvatinib ($68,869 per QALY). For oral multikinase inhibitors, the ICER of lenvatinib, sorafenib plus erlotinib, linifanib and brivanib compared with sunitinib was $779576, $1534,347, $1768,971, and $1963,064, respectively. For ICIs, sintilimab plus IBI305 is more cost effective than atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. The model was most sensitive to the price of sorafenib, the utility of PD, and the price of second-line drugs. CONCLUSION: For oral multikinase inhibitors, the order of possible treatment options is sunitinib > lenvatinib > sorafenib plus erlotinib > linifanib > brivanib > donafenib. For ICIs, the order of possible treatment options is sintilimab plus IBI305 > atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Cost-utility analysis of atezolizumab with bevacizumab in untreated unresectable or advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in France.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The IMbrave150 clinical trial assessed the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab (ATZ+BVA) versus sorafenib in adults with advanced/unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, who have not received prior systemic treatment. Our aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ATZ+BVA versus sorafenib in France based on an updated prices and considering French National real-world data, to confirm the initial recommendations from the Heath Technology Assessment submission published in 2021, and provide additional visibility to decision-makers reflecting current clinical practice. METHODS: A partition survival model was developed to project clinical outcomes, quality of life, and costs of patients with HCC treated with ATZ+BVA versus sorafenib over a lifetime horizon. Survival outcomes were extrapolated via parametric functions for both treatment strategies. Quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, French tariffs) were sourced from IMbrave150. The Guyot method was considered as a scenario analysis by integrating retrospective real-world data extracted from the French Health Insurance Database to refine long term survival extrapolations. RESULTS: In the reference case, ATZ+BVA was associated with 0.61 additional Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) compared to sorafenib (1.95 vs 1.35), and an incremental cost of €92,704. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 152,974 €/QALY gained. Adjusting the survival curves with French external evidence led to a 14% ICUR reduction (131,163 €/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: ATZ+BVA is a cost-effective strategy based on the range recently published for the value of a QALY in France and offers better chances of survival to patients.

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.

Economic evaluations of radioembolization with Itrium-90 microspheres in hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with yttrium-90 microspheres is a clinically effective therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment. This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the available economic evaluations of TARE for the treatment of HCC. METHODS: The Preferred Reported Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was followed by applying a search strategy across six databases. All studies identified as economic evaluations with TARE for HCC treatment in English or Spanish language were considered. Costs were adjusted using the 2020 US dollars based on purchasing-power-parity ($US PPP). RESULTS: Among 423 records screened, 20 studies (6 cost-analyses, 3 budget-impact-analyses, 2 cost-effectiveness-analyses, 8 cost-utility-analyses, and 1 cost-minimization analysis) met the pre-defined criteria for inclusion. Thirteen studies were published from the European perspective, six from the United States, and one from the Canadian perspectives. The assessed populations included early- (n = 4), and intermediate-advanced-stages patients (n = 15). Included studies were evaluated from a payer perspective (n = 20) and included both payer and social perspective (n = 2). TARE was compared with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in nine studies or sorafenib (n = 11). The life-years gained (LYG) differed by comparator: TARE versus TACE (range: 1.3 to 3.1), and TARE versus sorafenib (range: 1.1 to 2.53). Of the 20 studies, TARE was associated with lower treatment costs in ten studies. The cost of TARE treatment varied widely according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system and ranged from 1311 $US PPP/month (BCLC-A) to 71,890 $US PPP/5-years time horizon (BCLC-C). The incremental cost-utility ratio for TARE versus TACE resulted in a 17,397 $US PPP/Quality-adjusted-Life-Years (QALY), and for TARE versus sorafenib ranged from dominant (more effectiveness and lower cost) to 3363 $US PPP/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations of TARE for HCC treatment are heterogeneous. Overall, TARE is a cost-effective short- and long-term therapy for the treatment of intermediate-advanced HCC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Donafenib as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of donafenib compared to sorafenib and lenvatinib as first-line treatments for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in China. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of donafenib, sorafenib, and lenvatinib for advanced HCC. The key clinical data of these targeted therapies were assessed through a network meta-analysis. The cost and health utilities were mainly collected from the literature. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were the primary outcomes. Model uncertainty was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: For health outcomes, donafenib gained the highest QALYs among the three treatments, followed by lenvatinib and sorafenib (1.106, 0.999, and 0.915 QALYs, respectively). For cost, donafenib was the cheapest option, followed by sorafenib and lenvatinib ($42,116, $43,193, and $44,261). The PSA indicated that the probability of being cost-effective for donafenib was 86.98% and 93.56% when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were one and three times the gross domestic product per capita in China, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses also found the results to be robust. CONCLUSION: Compared to sorafenib and lenvatinib, donafenib was likely to be a cost-effective treatment with the highest QALYs and the lowest cost for patients with advanced HCC in China.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Five Systemic Treatments for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China: An Economic Evaluation Based on Network Meta-Analysis.

Background and Objective: Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is the main histological subtype of liver cancer and causes a great disease burden in China. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of five first-line systemic treatments newly approved in the Chinese market for the treatment of uHCC, namely, sorafenib, lenvatinib, donafenib, sintilimab plus bevacizumab (D + A), and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (T + A) from the perspective of China's healthcare system, to provide a basis for decision-making. Methods: We constructed a network meta-analysis of 4 clinical trials and used fractional polynomial models to indirectly compare the effectiveness of treatments. The partitioned survival model was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. Primary model outcomes included the costs in US dollars and health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $33,521 (3 times the per capita gross domestic product in China) per QALY. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the robustness. To test the effect of active treatment duration on the conclusions, we performed a scenario analysis. Results: Compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib, donafenib, D + A, and T + A regimens, it yielded an increase of 0.25, 0.30, 0.95, and 1.46 life-years, respectively. Correspondingly, these four therapies yielded an additional 0.16, 0.19, 0.51, and 0.86 QALYs and all four ICERs, $40,667.92/QALY gained, $27,630.63/QALY gained, $51,877.36/QALY gained, and $130,508.44/QALY gained, were higher than $33,521 except for donafenib. T + A was the most effective treatment and donafenib was the most economical option. Sensitivity and scenario analysis results showed that the base-case analysis was highly reliable. Conclusion: Although combination therapy could greatly improve patients with uHCC survival benefits, under the current WTP, donafenib is still the most economical option.

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.

Real-World Assessment of Cancer Drugs Using Local Data Uploaded to the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy Dataset in England.

AIMS: In England, not all cancer drugs are routinely funded; new medicines are first appraised by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Funding can be temporarily given through the Cancer Drugs Fund while further information is collected. The Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) dataset collects information on all patients receiving chemotherapy in England. To date, little has been published, despite concerns that real-world effectiveness of medicines may be inferior to that seen in clinical trials. The aim of the present study was to establish the feasibility of using our local copy of routinely collected SACT data for the evaluation of outcomes, using the data within the context of gastrointestinal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used our local SACT dataset submissions from three National Health Service trusts, with a reproducible method of data linkage, to undertake a cohort analysis of treatment duration and overall survival for cetuximab, panitumumab, trifluridine/tipiracil (all three in colorectal cancer), sorafenib (in hepatocellular cancer) and nab-paclitaxel (nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel) with gemcitabine (in pancreatic cancer) for all patients treated from May 2016 to March 2021. RESULTS: In our population, epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors and trifluridine/tipiracil and sorafenib performed similarly to expected but nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer seemed to be no better than gemcitabine alone, when given within the current funding arrangements in England. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the publication of national outcome data. If these results are confirmed on a larger cohort, it would support the reappraisal of certain drugs and provide further evidence to clinicians and patients when deciding the best treatment.

Sorafenib en el tratamiento del carcinoma hepatocelular no operable o metastásico, sin tratamiento sistémico previo, en CHILD-PUGH clase A / Sorafenib in the treatment of inoperable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, without previous systemic treatment, in CHILD-PUGH class A

INTRODUCCIÓN: Hepatocarcinoma es la neoplasia con la séptima incidencia más frecuente y la cuarta mayor mortalidad a nivel mundial, según Globocan 2020. El carcinoma hepatocelular es altamente letal, con opciones de tratamiento limitadas. La edad promedio tiene un rango etario entre 60-70 años, pero varía según la distribución geográfica. Es más frecuente en países en vías de desarrollo y es causado principalmente por el virus de la hepatitis B, virus de la hepatitis C, esteatohepatitis no alcohólica y alcoholismo. El 80-90% de pacientes con hepatocarcinoma tiene cirrosis hepática. Los criterios Child-Turcotte-Pugh permiten evaluar el grado de severidad de la cirrosis. La sobrevida alcanzada al año en los pacientes con Child-Pugh A, B y C es del 95%, 80% y 45%, respectivamente. El tratamiento de los pacientes con hepatocarcinoma y cirrosis hepática significa un reto médico, debido a las comorbilidades de fondo, insuficiencia hepática y mayor riesgo de infecciones. TECNOLOGÍA: Sorafenib es un inhibidor oral multiquinasa que actúa a nivel de las células endoteliales e inhibe la proliferación celular a través de la inhibición del RAF quinasa serina/treonina. Ha sido empleado en el tratamiento de neoplasias malignas, incluido hepatocarcinoma. MÉTODOS: Se plantea la pregunta PICO: "¿En los pacientes con diagnóstico de Hepatocarcinoma no operable o metastásico, sin tratamiento sistémico previo, con CHILD-PUGH Clase A, ¿Cuál es la eficacia y seguridad de sorafenib en comparación con Placebo?". Se tomaron como objetivos de estudio la sobrevida libre de progresión (SLP), sobrevida global (SG) y toxicidad. En base a la pregunta PICO, se realizó una búsqueda sistemática en MEDLINE, COCHRANE, BRISA y TRIP DATABASE. DISCUSIÓN: Hepatocarcinoma es la séptima neoplasia con mayor incidencia y la cuarta con mayor mortalidad a nivel mundial, según Globocan 2020. El carcinoma hepatocelular es altamente letal, con opciones de tratamiento limitadas. La edad promedio tiene un rango etario entre 60-70 años, pero varía según la distribución geográfica. Es más frecuente en países en vías de desarrollo y es causado principalmente por el virus de la hepatitis B, virus de la hepatitis C, esteatohepatitis no alcohólica y alcoholismo. El 80-90% de pacientes con hepatocarcinoma tiene cirrosis hepática. Los criterios Child-TurcottePugh permiten evaluar el grado de severidad de la cirrosis. La sobrevida alcanzada al año en los pacientes con Child-Pugh A, B y C es del 95%, 80% y 45%, respectivamente. El tratamiento de los pacientes con hepatocarcinoma y cirrosis hepática significa un reto médico. Sorafenib es un inhibidor oral multiquinasa que actúa a nivel de las células endoteliales e inhibe la proliferación celular a través de la inhibición del RAF quinasa serina/treonina. La experiencia en el INEN apunta que Sorafenib fue empleado en 03 pacientes durante el año 2019, 20 pacientes en el 2020, 20 pacientes en el 2021 y 03 paciente durante lo que va del año 2022 (Gráfico N°3). Veinte pacientes con CHC recibieron sorafenib durante el año 2021. Todos los pacientes tenían diagnostico CHC irresecablemetastásico, Child Pugh A, durante el año 2021. El 25% eran mujeres, con edad media de 53.5 años (40% eran menores de 40 años). La media de tiempo de tratamiento fue 6.15 meses, similar al obtenido en el estudio SHARP. El 25% recibió entre 11-13 cursos de sorafenib. El 16% continúan sorafenib hasta la fecha. Con respecto a la toxicidad; se reportaron: astenia, dolor abdominal, descamación, anemia, plaquetopenia, mucositis, síndrome mano-pie, hiperbilirrubinemia, hipertransaminasemia, diarrea y náuseas. La toxicidad grado 3-4 reportada fue: dérmica, anemia e hipertransaminasemia. Un paciente descontinuo terapia por toxicidad dérmica grado 3, cuatro pacientes descontinuaron terapia por descompensación de cirrosis hepática. Un paciente descontinuo terapia por perderse de vista tras pandemia por covid-19. El 80% (16) descontinuó por progresión de enfermedad. CONCLUSIONES: El carcinoma hepatocelular es una de las neoplasias con mayor mortalidad en nuestro país. Las opciones de tratamiento para carcinoma hepatocelular irresecable/metastásico son limitadas o inaccesibles en nuestro país. Evaluaciones de tecnología sanitaria y guías de práctica clínica internacionales recomiendan el empleo de sorafenib en pacientes con carcinoma hepatocelular metastásico/irresecable, Child Pugh A, ECOG 0-2. 02 RS/MA es seguro y eficaz (mejora estadísticamente la SLP y SG) con sorafenib en comparación con placebo en pacientes con carcinoma hepatocelular metastásico/irresecable, Child Pugh A, previamente no tratados, ECOG 0-2. 02 ECAs reporta que sorafenib es seguro y eficaz en carcinoma hepatocelular metastásico/irresecable, Child Pugh A, previamente no tratados, ECOG 0-2. Agencias regulatorias internacionales (FDA. EMA) recomiendan el empleo de sorafenib en la población de interés. La experiencia de terapia en el INEN sugiere que el tratamiento con sorafenib es seguro y eficaz en la población de interés. Ante lo presentado y discutido en reunión de la UFETS, se decide aprobar el empleo de Sorafenib en los pacientes con hepatocarcinoma avanzado/irresecable, con buena condición clínica (ECOG 0-1) y Child-Pugh A.

The Cost Effectiveness of Donafenib Compared With Sorafenib for the First-Line Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China.

Background: Recent clinical trials have demonstrated that donafenib has superior efficacy and safety compared with sorafenib in Chinese patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of donafenib compared with sorafenib for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC in China. Methods: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing donafenib and sorafenib from a Chinese healthcare payer's perspective. The model adopted a lifetime horizon and a 4-week cycle length. Survival data were derived from the ZGDH3 study and fitted with standard parametric functions for extrapolation beyond the trial period. Cost data were obtained from the mean price of publicly listed online bids in 2021 and medical service prices across provinces in China. Utility data were obtained from previous literature. The cost and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were carried out to verify the robustness of the model. Results: Compared with sorafenib, donafenib incurred a higher cost (US$22,330.23 vs. US$14,775.92) but yielded more quality-adjusted life years (1.045 vs. 0.861 QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for donafenib was US$41,081.52 per QALY gained (ICER = US$13,439.10/QALY). The PSA results indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the GDP in China, the probability of donafenib being cost effective was 16.9%. The ICER (US$13,439.10/QALY) decreased when the branded price of sorafenib was used in the model. Conclusions: Donafenib is unlikely to be cost effective compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic HCC in China. Reducing the price of donafenib can increase the possibility of it being cost effective in the future.

Treatment Patterns and Health Resource Utilization in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Failure of Sorafenib in Real-World Setting in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize current treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) observed among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after the failure of sorafenib in real-world setting in Taiwan. METHODS: A chart review was conducted in 130 patients; the inclusion criteria were patients with HCC who were aged 20 years or older and had received systemic therapy or best supportive care after failure of first-line systemic treatment with sorafenib between 2016 and 2018. Anonymized data on patient characteristics, treatment pathways, and survival were abstracted. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 61.7 years (range 27-84); of these 130 patients, 103 (79%) were male, 81 (62%) had high alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels (≥400 ng/mL), and 96 (78.0%) were deceased at the time of data abstraction. After sorafenib therapy, 60 patients (46%) received systemic therapy, including nivolumab monotherapy (42%) and chemotherapy (25%). Oncologist visits at a semiannual per-patient rate of 3.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4-4.0) and hospitalizations at rate of 1.1 (95% CI 1.0-1.3) were the key contributors to HRU. Semiannual per-patient hospitalization rate was 1.3 (95% CI 1.1-1.5) in the high-AFP group. Median survival from discontinuation of sorafenib was 6.9 months (95% CI 5.9-9.0). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world evidence research on treatment patterns reflected substantial HRU consistent with the severity of HCC, particularly in the high-AFP group. Findings highlighted continuing high mortality in HCC, underlying a need for new treatments that can lengthen survival. Results can inform future evaluations of new HCC treatments that estimate the health economic impact of their adoption in Taiwan.

Economic Evaluation of Sintilimab Plus Bevacizumab Versus Sorafenib as a First-line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in China to provide economic evidence to inform health decision making. METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system using a partitioned survival model with three mutually exclusive health states: progression free, post-progression, and death. Efficacy data were obtained from the ORIENT-32 clinical trial and extrapolated to the lifetime horizon. Cost and utility values were derived from published studies and online price databases. The primary outcomes of the model were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were carried out to verify the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: Compared with sorafenib, sintilimab plus bevacizumab incurred a higher lifetime cost ($33,766 vs. $23,294) and yielded more QALYs (1.428 vs. 0.928 QALYs). The ICER for sintilimab plus bevacizumab was $20,968/QALY and lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $33,592. The results of sensitivity analysis showed that ICER values were most sensitive to the subsequent treatment cost of the sorafenib group after progression and the price of bevacizumab. In the scenario analysis, the ICER was $4191/QALY when a 7.5 mg/kg dose of bevacizumab was applied in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with sorafenib, the sintilimab plus bevacizumab combination is likely to be a cost-effective option for patients with unresectable HCC in China.