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.

Incidence and Costs of Clinically Significant Events with Systemic Therapy in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Systemic therapies have been associated with clinically significant events (CSEs) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). We evaluated the incidence of CSEs (bleeding, clotting, encephalopathy, and portal hypertension), and their impact on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs, in patients with uHCC treated with first-line (1L) atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B), lenvatinib (LEN), or sorafenib (SOR) in the USA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using medical/pharmacy claims from Optum® Clinformatics® Data Mart. Patients diagnosed with HCC who initiated 1L A + B between June 01, 2020 and December 31, 2020 or LEN/SOR between January 01, 2016 and May 31, 2020 were included. Outcomes included incidence rates of CSEs, HCRU, and costs. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with no CSEs or ≥ 1 CSE. RESULTS: In total, 1379 patients were selected (A + B, n = 271; LEN, n = 217; SOR, n = 891). Clotting (incidence rate per 100 patient-years [PY] 94.9) and bleeding (88.1 per 100 PY) were the most common CSEs in the A + B cohort. The most common CSEs in the LEN cohort were clotting (78.6 per 100 PY) and encephalopathy (66.3 per 100 PY). Encephalopathy (73.0 per 100 PY) and portal hypertension (72.3 per 100 PY) were the most common CSEs in the SOR cohort. Mean total all-cause healthcare costs per patient per month (PPPM) were $32,742, $35,623, and $29,173 in the A + B, LEN, and SOR cohorts, respectively. Mean total all-cause healthcare costs PPPM were higher in patients who had ≥ 1 CSE versus those who did not (A + B $34,304 versus $30,889; LEN $39,591 versus $30,621; SOR $31,022 versus $27,003). CONCLUSION: Despite improved efficacy of 1L systemic therapies, CSEs remain a concern for patients with uHCC, as well as an economic burden to the healthcare system. Newer treatments that reduce the risk of CSEs, while improving long-term survival in patients with uHCC, are warranted.

Certain treatments for liver cancer can cause serious side effects, including bleeding, blood clots, brain injury (encephalopathy), or increased blood flow to the liver (portal hypertension). We used an insurance database to find out how often these events, known as clinically significant events, occurred in people with liver cancer who were given treatments that target the immune system (immunotherapy) or specific proteins involved in cancer growth and survival (targeted therapy). The study included 1379 patients treated with atezolizumab (immunotherapy) plus bevacizumab (targeted therapy), or lenvatinib or sorafenib alone (both targeted therapies), as their first treatment. Clotting and bleeding were the most common clinically significant events in patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, whereas clotting and encephalopathy were the most common clinically significant events with lenvatinib, and encephalopathy and portal hypertension were the most common clinically significant events with sorafenib. On average, for every 100 patients treated for 1 year, there were more than 50 of each of these events. Average healthcare costs per patient per month ranged from around $29,000 to around $36,000 in the three different treatment groups, and were higher in people who had at least one clinically significant event. These results suggest that clinically significant events are common in people with liver cancer who are given various types of treatment. As well as raising concerns for patient safety, these events result in higher costs to healthcare systems. Therefore, newer treatments that are less likely to cause clinically significant events, while improving survival in patients with liver cancer, are needed.

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.

Development and Assessment of 1,5-Diarylpyrazole/Oxime Hybrids Targeting EGFR and JNK-2 as Antiproliferative Agents: A Comprehensive Study through Synthesis, Molecular Docking, and Evaluation.

New 1,5-diarylpyrazole oxime hybrid derivatives (scaffolds A and B) were designed, synthesized, and then their purity was verified using a variety of spectroscopic methods. A panel of five cancer cell lines known to express EGFR and JNK-2, including human colorectal adenocarcinoma cell line DLD-1, human cervical cancer cell line Hela, human leukemia cell line K562, human pancreatic cell line SUIT-2, and human hepatocellular carcinoma cell line HepG2, were used to biologically evaluate for their in vitro cytotoxicity for all the synthesized compounds 7a-j, 8a-j, 9a-c, and 10a-c. The oxime containing compounds 8a-j and 10a-c were more active as antiproliferative agents than their non-oxime congeners 7a-j and 9a-c. Compounds 8d, 8g, 8i, and 10c inhibited EGFR with IC50 values ranging from 8 to 21 µM when compared with sorafenib. Compound 8i inhibited JNK-2 as effectively as sorafenib, with an IC50 of 1.0 µM. Furthermore, compound 8g showed cell cycle arrest at the G2/M phase in the cell cycle analysis of the Hela cell line, whereas compound 8i showed combined S phase and G2 phase arrest. According to docking studies, oxime hybrid compounds 8d, 8g, 8i, and 10c exhibited binding free energies ranging from -12.98 to 32.30 kcal/mol at the EGFR binding site whereas compounds 8d and 8i had binding free energies ranging from -9.16 to -12.00 kcal/mol at the JNK-2 binding site.

Cost-effectiveness and prognostic model of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with high tumor burden and/or Vp4 tumor thrombus compared with sorafenib: a post-hoc analysis of the FOHAIC-1 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The phase III FOHAIC-1 trial revealed that hepatic arterial infusion of chemotherapy (HAIC) improved overall survival compared to sorafenib in the high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study therefore set out to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and establish a prognostic clinico-radiological score of HAIC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 409 patients with high-risk HCC who received HAIC between 2014 and 2020 were included. A Markov model was applied in the cost-effectiveness analysis using data from the FOHAIC-1 trial. In prognosis analysis, a clinico-radiological score was developed using a Cox-regression model and subsequently confirmed in the internal validation and test cohorts. The area under the curve from receiver operator characteristic analysis was used to assess the performance of the clinico-radiological score. RESULTS: HAIC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $10190.41/quality-adjusted life years compared to sorafenib, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted a ≥99.9% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below the willingness-to-pay. The Cox analysis identified five factors, namely extrahepatic metastasis (m), arterial enhancing type (a), tumor number (nu), albumin-bilirubin index (a), and involved lobe (l), which together comprise the clinico-radiological score (HAIC-manual). Patients were classified into three groups based on the number of factors present, with cutoffs at 2 and 4 factors. The stratified median overall survival for these groups were 21.6, 10.0, and 5.9 months, respectively ( P <0.001). These findings were verified through internal validation and test cohorts with a significance level of P ≤0.01. The time-dependent area under the curve from receiver operator characteristic for the ability of the HAIC-manual to predict survival in 1, 2, and 3 years were 0.71, 0.76, and 0.78, which significantly outperformed existing staging systems. CONCLUSION: HAIC is a promising and cost-effective strategy for patients with high-risk HCC. The clinico-radiological score may be a simple prognostic tool for predicting HAIC treatment.

Exploring Sorafenib and Simvastatin Combination for Ferroptosis-Induced Cancer Treatment: Cytotoxicity Screening, In Vivo Efficacy, and Safety Assessment.

Ferroptosis, a pathway dependent on oxygen and iron catalysts, holds promise as a therapeutic approach for cancer treatment due to its manageable regulation, direct control, and immunogenic properties. The sensitivity of cancer cells to ferroptosis induction varies based on their metabolic, genetic, and signalling pathways, prompting the use of combination therapy. In this study, we conducted a screening of drug combinations, including sorafenib (SOR) with simvastatin (SIM), phenethyl isothiocyanate, and trigonelline, in MDA-MB-231, A549, and HeLa cells to assess their cytotoxicity. The SOR-SIM combination exhibited a synergistic effect in MDA-MB-231, A549, and HeLa cells, with calculated CI values of ~ 0.66, 0.53, and 0.59, respectively. Furthermore, co-treatment with ferrostatin-1 resulted in a concentration-dependent increase in the IC50 values. Additionally, SOR + SIM demonstrated a significant reduction in GSH levels, an increase in MDA levels, and mitochondrial membrane depolarization across all three cell lines, indicating their ferroptosis inducing potential. In-vivo studies showed a significant reduction in tumor volume by 3.53-, 2.55-, and 1.47-fold compared to control, SIM, and SOR, respectively. Toxicity assessments revealed insignificant changes in biomarker levels and no observable deformations in isolated organs, except for erythrocyte shrinkage and membrane scrambling effects caused by the SOR + SIM combination. Overall, our findings highlight the potential of the SOR + SIM combination as an effective strategy for cancer treatment, emphasizing the importance of further research in targeted drug delivery systems to ensure its safety.

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.

EMT-Related Gene Signature: A New Method for Personalized Risk Assessment in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, accounting for more than 700,000 deaths annually. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is posited to contribute to HCC progression. We, therefore, aimed to elucidate the relationship between EMT-related gene (ERG) expression and prognosis in patients with HCC. METHODS: Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify prognostic-related differentially expressed EMT-related genes (DE-ERGs). Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess the prognostic performance of the EMT-related signature. pRRophetic R package was used to evaluate sorafenib sensitivity in the GSE14520 cohort. Gene expression in Huh7 and L02 cell lines was detected by real-time PCR and Western blotting. Differential expression of the three genes between HCC tissues and normal tissues was validated using immunohistochemical analyses. RESULTS: Of the 76 identified DE-ERGs, 29 were associated with overall survival. Three prognosis-related ERGs (GOLM1, SOX4, and CD14) were screened out by multivariate Cox regression. A gene signature was identified based on the three prognostic-related ERGs. HCC patients with a low-risk score had a better prognosis and were more sensitive to sorafenib compared to those with a high-risk score. Moreover, we further confirmed increased expression of GOLM1 and SOX4, and decreased expression of CD14, in liver cancer cell line and HCC tissue. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate the utility of an ERG signature as a potential biomarker informing prognosis in patients with HCC, which may contribute to the implementation of personalized therapies.

Formulating Ternary Inclusion Complex of Sorafenib Tosylate Using ß-Cyclodextrin and Hydrophilic Polymers: Physicochemical Characterization and In Vitro Assessment.

Sorafenib tosylate (SFNT) is the first-line drug for hepatocellular carcinoma. It exhibits poor solubility leading to low oral bioavailability subsequently requiring intake of large quantities of drug to exhibit desired efficacy. The present investigation was aimed at enhancing the solubility and dissolution rate of SFNT using complexation method. The binary inclusion complex was prepared with ß-cyclodextrin (ß-CD). The molecular docking studies confirmed the hosting of SFNT into hydrophobic cavity of ß-CD, while the phase solubility studies revealed the stoichiometry of complexation with a stability constant of 735.8 M-1. The ternary complex was prepared by combining the SFNT-ß-CD complex with PEG-6000 and HPMC polymers. The results from ATR-IR studies revealed no interaction between drug and excipients. The decreased intensities in ATR-IR peaks and changes in chemical shifts from NMR of SFNT in complexes indicate the possibility of SFNT hosting into the hydrophobic cavity of ß-CD. The disappearance of SFNT peak in DSC and XRD studies revealed the amorphization upon complexation. The ternary complexes exhibited improved in vitro solubility (17.54 µg/mL) compared to pure SFNT (0.19 µg/mL) and binary inclusion complex (1.52 µg/mL). The dissolution profile of ternary inclusion complex in 0.1 N HCl was significantly higher compared to binary inclusion complex and pure drug. In cytotoxicity studies, the ternary inclusion complex has shown remarkable effect than the binary inclusion complex and pure drug on HepG2 cell lines.

Polysaccharide and monosaccharide guided liver delivery of Sorafenib Tosylate - A nano-strategic approach and comparative assessment of hepatospecificity.

Hepatospecific delivery by ligand based receptor targeting is an established strategy to augment therapy associated with liver diseases and disorders. Previously, we have investigated the effect of ligand headgroup on cellular uptake mediated by the asialoglycoprotein receptor by in silico and in vitro approach. In this paper, we report the design of agarose based liposomes for delivery to liver cancer cells and provide a proof of concept of the targeting efficiency against galactose liposomes using an in vivo approach. Sorafenib Tosylate loaded targeting liposomes were developed and optimized using factorial design. Comparative evaluation including cell cytotoxicity, pharmacokinetics and biodistribution and hepatospecific uptake was performed for both the liposomal systems. The formulations possessed a particle size of 150 - 180 nm and a zeta potential of 30 - 60 mV depending on the amount of ligand and drug loading, with more than 90% entrapment efficiency. A two-fold increase in cytotoxicity was observed with agarose-based liposomes as compared to galactose based liposomes. In vivo PK evaluation indicated a reduction in half life of drug when loaded in agarose ligand loaded system, probably due to greater uptake in the liver as evidenced in biodistribution study. Intrahepatic disposition revealed a higher PC/NPC uptake ratio with the targeted systems as compared to conventional liposomes, although the agarose-based system resulted in highest uptake ratio. A biocompatible platform for specific delivery of drugs to hepatocytes was established validating a rational approach to design liver targeting systems.

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.