Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States and in China.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) compared to chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer (EC) from the United States and Chinese payers' perspective. METHODS: In this economic evaluation, a partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of the United States and Chinese payers. The survival data were derived from the clinical trial (309-KEYNOTE-775), while costs and utility values were sourced from databases and published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated. The robustness of the model was evaluated through sensitivity analyses, and price adjustment scenario analyses was also performed. RESULTS: Base-case analysis indicated that LP wouldn't be cost-effective in the United States at the WTP threshold of $200 000, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an additional cost of $398596.81 (ICER $531392.20). While LP was cost-effective in China, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an increased overall cost of $62270.44 (ICER $83016.29). Sensitivity analyses revealed that the above results were stable. The scenario analyses results indicated that LP was cost-effective in the United States when the prices of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab were simultaneously reduced by 61.95% ($26.5361/mg for lenvatinib and $19.1532/mg for pembrolizumab). CONCLUSION: LP isn't cost-effective in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer in the United States, whereas it is cost-effective in China. The evidence-based pricing strategy provided by this study could benefit decision-makers in making optimal decisions and clinicians in general clinical practice. More evidence about budget impact and affordability for patients is needed.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) in patients with microsatellite stable (MSS), recurrent, pretreated endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: A decision analysis model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LP relative to doxorubicin, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), and bevacizumab in patients with recurrent pretreated MSS EC. Published data was used to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and drug cost estimates were obtained using average wholesale prices. A health state utility (HSU) penalty of -0.10 was applied to the LP group to account for treatment toxicity. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to determine cost/QALY. The willingness to pay threshold (WTP) was set at $100,000 per QALY saved. Sensitivity analyses were performed on cost, effectiveness, and HSU penalty for LP. RESULTS: Costs of treatment with doxorubicin, PLD, and bevacizumab are $23.7 million (M), $56.9 M, and $250.8 M respectively. Cost of treatment with LP is $1.8 billion. Relative to doxorubicin, the ICERs for PLD, bevacizumab, and LP are $56,808, $345,824, and $1.6 M respectively. A sensitivity analysis varying the cost of LP shows that if the combined drug cost decreases from over $58,000 to less than $11,000 per cycle, this strategy would be cost-effective. Eliminating the HSU penalty for LP decreased the ICER $1.0 M while increasing the penalty to -0.20 increased the ICER to $3.7 M. CONCLUSIONS: LP is not cost-effective in patients with recurrent pretreated, MSS EC. A dramatic reduction in cost of LP is required for this novel strategy to be cost-effective.

Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib versus carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A Markov analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab/lenvatinib (P/L) versus standard-of-care carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/T) as first-line systemic therapy for patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer. METHODS: We designed a Markov model to simulate treatment outcomes for advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer patients whose tumors are either microsatellite stable (MSS) or have high microsatellite instability (MSI-high). We adopted a healthcare sector perspective for the analysis. Model inputs for costs, health utility, and clinical estimates were obtained from the literature including data from GOG0209 and KEYNOTE-146. Primary outcomes included costs of care, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The time-horizon was three years and the discount rate was 3% annually. RESULTS: In a MSS cohort, compared to C/T, first-line treatment with P/L increased treatment costs by $212,670 and decreased QALYs by 0.28 per patient. In a MSI-high cohort, compared to C/T, P/L increased costs by $313,487 and increased QALYs by 0.11 per patient, representing an ICER of $2,849,882 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found that the price of the new drugs was the most important determinant of the ICER and that the price of the new drugs would need to decrease by 85% to $2817 per cycle to reach a $150,000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: In the MSS model, we found that first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer with P/L increased costs and worsened outcomes compared to C/T. In the MSI-high model, P/L improved survival and QALYs compared to C/T but was not cost-effective at the current cost of the drugs.

Dose-escalation strategy in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: A change in terms of cost-effectiveness.

The analysis was conducted to assess the pharmacological costs of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in the treatment of refractory mCRC were considered. We have also considered the ReDOS trial, in order to verify if the dose-escalation strategy (practice changing for regorafenib) could influences the results. Differences in OS (expressed in months) between the different arms were calculated and compared with the pharmacological costs (at the Pharmacy of our Hospital and expressed in euros (€)) needed to get one month of OS. Trifluridine/tipiracil resulted the less expensive, with 1167.50 €per month OS-gained. The ReDOS trial further reduce costs with 510.41 €per month OS-gained in favour of regorafenib with the escalation-dose strategy. Both regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil can be considered economically sustainable treatments for refractory mCRC, apparently with a lower cost of trifluridine/tipiracil. The adoption of a dose-escalation strategy (ReDOS trial) could reverse the situation making regorafenib more cost-effective than trifluridine/tipiracil.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as the third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in China. METHODS: A three-state Markov model with monthly cycle was constructed to estimate lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with mCRC from Chinese health care perspective. Survival analysis was applied to calculate transition probabilities using the data from the clinical trials FRESCO and CONCUR, which were also the data sources accessing probabilities of adverse events. Background mortality rate and drug costs were derived from government published data. Costs for medical services were obtained from real-world data and published literatures. Utilities applied to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from literature review. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were adopted to verify the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Fruquintinib provided 0.74 QALYs at a cost of CNY 151,058 (USD 22,888), whereas regorafenib provided 0.79 QALYs at a cost of CNY 226,657 (USD 32,224). Compared to fruquintinib, the ICER of regorafenib was CNY 1,529,197/QALY (USD 231,697/QALY) from Chinese health care perspective, which was above the triple GDP per capita of China in 2019 (CNY 212,676) (USD 32,224) as the threshold to define the cost-effectiveness. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results were generally robust. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the probability that fruquintinib was more cost-effective was 100% when the threshold was the triple GDP per capita of China. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to regorafenib, fruquintinib, which leads to forego about 0.05 QALYs and save about CNY 75,599 (USD 11,454), is a cost-effective choice as the third-line treatment for patients with mCRC in China.

Financial Implications of Avapritinib for Treatment of Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Patients With a PDGFRA Exon 18 Variant or After 3 Previous Therapies in a Hypothetical US Health Plan.

Importance: With the approval of avapritinib for adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) harboring a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exon 18 variant, including PDGFRA D842V variants, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations as an option for patients with GIST after third-line treatment, it is important to estimate the potential financial implications of avapritinib on a payer's budget. Objective: To estimate the budget impact associated with the introduction of avapritinib to a formulary for metastatic or unresectable GISTs in patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant or after 3 or more previous treatments from the perspective of a US health plan. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a 3-year budget impact model was developed in March 2020, incorporating costs for drug acquisition, testing, monitoring, adverse events, and postprogression treatment. The model assumed that avapritinib introduction would be associated with increased PDGFRA testing rates from the current 49% to 69%. The health plan population was assumed to be mixed 69% commercial, 22% Medicare, and 9% Medicaid. Base case assumptions included a GIST incidence rate of 9.6 diagnoses per million people, a metastatic PDGFRA exon 18 mutation rate of 1.9%, and progression rate from first-line to fourth-line treatment of 17%. Exposures: The model compared scenarios with and without avapritinib in a formulary. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual, total, and per member per month (PMPM) budget impact. Results: In a hypothetical 1-million member plan, fewer than 0.1 new patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant per year and 1.2 patients receiving fourth-line therapy per year were eligible for treatment. With avapritinib available, the total increase in costs in year 3 for all eligible adult patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant was $46 875, or $0.004 PMPM. For patients undergoing fourth-line treatment, the total increase in costs in year 3 was $69 182, or $0.006 PMPM. The combined total budget impact in year 3 was $115 604, or $0.010 PMPM, including an offset of $3607 in postprogression costs avoided or delayed. The higher rates of molecular testing resulted in a minimal incremental testing cost of $453 in year 3. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that adoption of avapritinib as a treatment option would have a minimal budget impact to a hypothetical US health plan. This would be primarily attributable to the small eligible patient population and cost offsets from reduced or delayed postprogression costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lenvatinib Compared with Sorafenib for the First-Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In the REFLECT trial, lenvatinib showed superior clinical benefits to sorafenib in terms of progression-free survival and was non-inferior for overall survival in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib for patients with advanced HCC in Australia. METHOD: A partitioned-survival model was built to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing lenvatinib and sorafenib from an Australian health-system perspective. Survival curves were obtained from the REFLECT trial and fitted with parametric survival functions for extrapolation purposes beyond the trial follow-up. Cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were accrued over the 10-year time horizon of the model. Deterministic and probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) were carried out to verify the validity of the model. RESULTS: Lenvatinib incurred higher costs (A$96,325) and superior health outcomes (QALYs: 1.205), while sorafenib had lower costs (A$92,394) and inferior health outcomes (QALYs: 1.086). Thus, lenvatinib yielded an incremental cost-utility ratio of A$33,028/QALY gained. Further, the results of the PSA found that the probability of lenvatinib being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/QALY was 64%. CONCLUSION: Our study found that, at current prices, lenvatinib is a cost-effective treatment option compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC.

Comparative Cost-utility Analysis of Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil in The Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Japan.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the cost utility of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) compared with that of best supportive care (BSC) in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with, or not considered candidates for, available therapies, including fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapies; anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents; and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents, in Japan. METHODS: Efficacy data, utility values, and costs were extracted from published studies. The cost and effectiveness of regorafenib and of T/T were compared with those of BSC and examined between the 2 agents over a 5-year time horizon using a partitioned survival analysis. The health outcomes were life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The costs were year-2018 revisions to the drug prices and medical fees. The uncertainty and robustness of the model were verified by 1-way sensitivity analysis, probability sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis compared with different clinical studies. A 2% per-annum discount was applied to expenses and QALYs. The willingness-to-pay threshold used was 5 million Japanese yen (JPY). FINDINGS: Regorafenib and T/T had incremental costs of 11,898,982 JPY (107,781 US dollars [USD]) and 5,000,141 JPY (45,291 USD), incremental effects of 0.249 QALYs (0.280 LYs) and 0.344 QALYs (0.421 LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 47,773,791 JPY (432,734 USD) and 14,550,577 JPY (131,799 USD) per QALY, respectively. Results of sensitivity analyses all exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of 15 million JPY. In the comparison of the 2 agents, T/T was a dominant alternative over regorafenib. IMPLICATIONS: As a third-line or later treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan, T/T is cost-effective compared with BSC, whereas regorafenib is not. It is necessary to adjust the price of regorafenib based on the results of this analysis, with the improvement of clinical parameters such as survival time and adverse events.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Aim: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib in the treatment of patients with nonresected hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Materials & methods: Markov model was used to simulate the direct medical cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Clinical data were derived from the Phase 3 randomized clinical trial in a Chinese population. Results: Sorafenib treatment resulted in 1.794 QALYs at a cost of $43,780.73. Lenvatinib treatment resulted in 2.916 QALYs for patients weighing <60 and ≥60 kg at a cost of $57,049.43 and $75,900.36, The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to the sorafenib treatment group was $11,825.94/QALY and $28,627.12/QALY, respectively. Conclusion: According to WHO's triple GDP per capita, the use of lenvatinib by providing drugs is a cost-effective strategy.

Propensity Score Weighting Using Overlap Weights: A New Method Applied to Regorafenib Clinical Data and a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In situations of markedly different population characteristics and weak population overlap, inverse propensity score (PS) weights suffer from extreme values. The new propensity score weighting method using overlap weights (PSOW) overcomes this limitation by estimating the overlap population at the point of highest mutual overlap, thus may be preferred to other balancing methods (trimming, target, or inverse weights) in some situations. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of PSOW with regorafenib effectiveness data from previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer based on the Czech national registry data (regorafenib) and a global phase 3 randomized clinical trial (RCT) (placebo). The second goal was to assess the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib versus placebo. METHODS: Individual data on progression-free survival (PFS)/overall survival (OS) were balanced via PSOW for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of treatment lines, metastatic colorectal cancer location, KRAS mutation, and time from metastases estimated using logistic regression. The weighted Kaplan-Meier PFS/OS curves were used in a 3-state partitioned survival model. The R code is provided. RESULTS: In comparison with target or inverse PS weights, PSOW showed remarkable performance measured by effective sample size and PS weight distribution or extreme weights despite the weak overlap between the registry and RCT. In the registry or RCT cohort, regorafenib provided better survival compared with the RCT. The new PSOW hazard ratio for OS was 0.53 (RCT: 0.79), which is conservative compared with inverse or target weights with a hazard ratio of 0.44 and 0.27, respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the first use of PSOW for clinical data and cost-effectiveness analysis. It is promising in cases of weak or small population overlap and makes pharmacoeconomic modeling, in such cases, feasible.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lenvatinib treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) compared with sorafenib in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib demonstrated a treatment effect on overall survival by the statistical confirmation of non-inferiority to sorafenib for the first-line treatment of uHCC. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib for patients with uHCC in Japan. METHODS: A partitioned-survival model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib when treating uHCC patients over a lifetime horizon and considering total public healthcare expenditure. Efficacy and safety data were extracted from the REFLECT trial. Utility values were derived from the European Quality-of-Life 5-Dimension Questionnaire, conducted with patients enrolled in the REFLECT trial. Direct medical costs, such as primary drug therapy, outpatient visits, diagnostic tests, hospitalization, post-progression therapy, and adverse-event treatments, were included. Cost parameters unavailable in the clinical trial or publications were obtained based on the consolidated clinical standards from a Delphi panel of four Japanese medical experts. RESULTS: For lenvatinib versus sorafenib, the incremental cost was - 406,307 Japanese Yen (JPY), and the incremental life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.27 and 0.23, respectively. Thus, lenvatinib dominated sorafenib, due to the mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio falling in the fourth quadrant, conferring more benefit at lower costs compared with sorafenib. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that 81.3% of the simulations were favorable to lenvatinib compared with sorafenib, with a payer's willingness-to-pay-per-QALY of 5 million JPY. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib was cost-effective compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of uHCC in Japan.

Regorafenib treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib-A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer related deaths. Patients with advanced HCC are treated with sorafenib. A recent randomized controlled trial demonstrated a survival benefit for regorafenib treatment in patients with advanced HCC who had progressed on sorafenib. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this approach. METHODS: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of regorafenib, we used a Markov model that incorporates health outcomes, measured by life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were based on 2017 discounted prices. Model robustness was validated by probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: The use of regorafenib results in a gain of 19.76 weeks of life (0.38 Life Years) as compared to placebo. When adjusted for quality of life, using regorafenib produced a gain of 0.25 quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for regorafenib compared with best supportive care was between $201,797 and $268,506 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The modest incremental benefit at a relatively high incremental cost of regorafenib treatment suggests that it is not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness to pay thresholds.

Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost analysis of yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization versus sorafenib.

AIM: The aim was to evaluate cost-effectiveness of yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization (TARE) in comparison to sorafenib treatment. PATIENTS & METHODS: A single-center, retrospective, observational study was performed, 166 patients with intermediate-/advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma were treated with sorafenib and 19 with TARE. The patients out of the sorafenib group matching the inclusion criteria for TARE, were reassigned to a subgroup SOR3. RESULTS: Mean costs for SOR3 patients amounted to €27,992 per patient, instead for TARE treatment, mean expense per patient was €17,761 (p = 0.028). Overall survival was similar between the two groups, while midterm survival rates (p = 0.012) were significantly higher with TARE treatment. CONCLUSION: TARE causes significantly lower treatment costs than sorafenib with better outcome in midterm survival.

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 of Trifluridine/tipiracil for Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options at third-line and beyond for patients with late-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are limited, and outcomes are poor with best supportive care (BSC). This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib relative to BSC alone in patients with mCRC who have been previously treated with, or are not considered candidates for, standard chemotherapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model was constructed to assess the lifetime costs and benefits accrued by patients. Clinical data were derived from the pivotal phase III (Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Study of TAS-102 plus Best Supportive Care [BSC] versus Placebo plus BSC in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Chemotherapies [RECOURSE]) and supporting phase II (J003-10040030) randomized controlled trial of trifluridine/tipiracil + BSC versus placebo + BSC, as well as the phase III Colorectal Cancer Treated With Regorafenib or Placebo After Failure of Standard Therapy (CORRECT) randomized controlled trial of regorafenib, and were extrapolated to estimate lifetime outcomes. Costs were taken from published sources, and health effects sourced from previous mCRC studies. RESULTS: Trifluridine/tipiracil was associated with a 0.27 incremental life year versus BSC alone, which corresponds to a 0.17 quality-adjusted life year gain. The incremental cost of treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil was £8,479, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £51,194 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Trifluridine/tipiracil was shown to dominate regorafenib (improve outcomes with reduced costs). Sensitivity analyses showed principal areas of uncertainty were survival estimates and patient utility. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that trifluridine/tipiracil is more clinically and cost-effective than regorafenib, with clinical outcomes greatly exceeding those for patients treated with BSC alone. Based on the results of the analysis, trifluridine/tipiracil offers an important new treatment option for patients with mCRC maintaining good performance status at the end of life.

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 of regorafenib as second-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, has demonstrated prolonged survival by 2.8 months as a second-line agent in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who progress on sorafenib therapy. The objective of the current study was to examine the cost effectiveness of regorafenib for the treatment of HCC. METHODS: The authors constructed a Markov simulation model of patients with unresectable HCC and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who received treatment with regorafenib versus best supportive care. Model inputs for regorafenib effectiveness and rates of adverse events in patients with HCC were based on published clinical trial data and literature review. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated along with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of regorafenib therapy. One-way sensitivity analyses also were conducted simultaneously on all model parameters and on various Monte-Carlo simulation parameters, and the regorafenib cost threshold at which cost effectiveness would be achieved was determined. RESULTS: Regorafenib provided an increase of 0.18 QALYs at a cost of $47,112. The ICER for regorafenib, compared with best supportive care, was $224,362. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, there were no scenarios in which regorafenib was cost effective. In cost threshold analysis, regorafenib would have to be priced at or below $67 per pill to be cost effective at an ICER of $100,000. CONCLUSIONS: Regorafenib is not cost effective as a second-line agent in the treatment of HCC, with a marginal increase in QALYs at a high cost. Lowering the cost of regorafenib or improving the selection of patients who can achieve maximal survival benefit would improve its value as a second-line treatment option for patients with HCC. Cancer 2017;123:3725-3731. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

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.

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.