Cost-effectiveness evaluation of sunitinib as first-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Spain.

INTRODUCTION Sunitinib, an oral, multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, delays disease progression, with a median overall survival (OS) of more than 2 years, improves quality of life and is becoming the first-line standard of care for metastatic renal carcinoma (mRCC). PURPOSE To assess the economic value of sunitinib as fi rst-line therapy in mRCC within the Spanish healthcare system. METHODS An adapted Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used to analyse the cost effectiveness of sunitinib vs. sorafenib (SFN) and bevacizumab/interferon-α (BEV/IFN) as first-line mRCC therapy from the Spanish third-party payer perspective. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS data from sunitinib, SFN and BEV/IFN pivotal trials were extrapolated to project survival and costs in 6-week cycles. Results, in progression-free life-years (PFLY), life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) with costs and benefits discounted annually at 3%, were obtained using deterministic and probabilistic analyses. RESULTS Sunitinib was more effective and less costly than both SFN (gains of 0.52 PFLY, 0.16 LY, 0.17 QALY) and BEV/IFN (gains of 0.19 PFLY, 0.23 LY, 0.16 QALY) with average cost savings/patients of €1,124 and €23,218, respectively. Using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €50,000/QALY, sunitinib achieved an incremental net benefit (INB) of €9,717 and €31,211 compared with SFN and BEV/IFN, respectively. At this WTP, the probability of sunitinib providing the highest INB was 75%. CONCLUSION Our analysis suggests that sunitinib is a costeffective alternative to other targeted therapies as first-line mRCC therapy in the Spanish healthcare setting.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of sunitinib as first-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Spain

INTRODUCTION Sunitinib, an oral, multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, delays disease progression, with a median overall survival (OS) of more than 2 years, improves quality of life and is becoming the first-line standard of care for metastatic renal carcinoma (mRCC). PURPOSE To assess the economic value of sunitinib as fi rst-line therapy in mRCC within the Spanish healthcare system. METHODS An adapted Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used to analyse the cost effectiveness of sunitinib vs. sorafenib (SFN) and bevacizumab/interferon-α (BEV/IFN) as first-line mRCC therapy from the Spanish third-party payer perspective. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS data from sunitinib, SFN and BEV/IFN pivotal trials were extrapolated to project survival and costs in 6-week cycles. Results, in progression-free life-years (PFLY), life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) with costs and benefits discounted annually at 3%, were obtained using deterministic and probabilistic analyses. RESULTS Sunitinib was more effective and less costly than both SFN (gains of 0.52 PFLY, 0.16 LY, 0.17 QALY) and BEV/IFN (gains of 0.19 PFLY, 0.23 LY, 0.16 QALY) with average cost savings/patients of €1,124 and €23,218, respectively. Using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €50,000/QALY, sunitinib achieved an incremental net benefit (INB) of €9,717 and €31,211 compared with SFN and BEV/IFN, respectively. At this WTP, the probability of sunitinib providing the highest INB was 75%. CONCLUSION Our analysis suggests that sunitinib is a costeffective alternative to other targeted therapies as first-line mRCC therapy in the Spanish healthcare setting (AU)

Induction platinum-based chemotherapy followed by radical hyperfractionated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced non-small-cell carcinoma of the lung.

This study evaluated tolerance, local control, and short-term survival in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma treated with induction chemotherapy followed by radical hyperfractionated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy. Thirty-one patients with stage IIIa (N2) or IIIb tumors were treated with cis-platinum-based induction chemotherapy for 1 to 4 courses followed by radical hyperfractionated radiotherapy (69.6 Gy) with concurrent chemotherapy given at the beginning and end of radiotherapy. Induction chemotherapy produced no complete responses and 18 (58%) partial responses. After completion of radiotherapy, 4 patients had complete response (13%) and 23 patients (74%) partial response. The patterns of failure were as follows: intrathoracic, 6 patients (22%); intrathoracic + distant metastasis, 6 patients (22%); distant metastasis without thoracic failure, 5 patients (19%). Six patients of the 12 with intrathoracic failure experienced in-field radiotherapy pure local failure. At the time of this analysis, 10 patients were alive and well (4 complete and 6 partial responders). Actuarial survival projected at 39 months is 35%. No benefit was observed for those patients responding to induction chemotherapy. Toxicity was as follows: grade III neutropenic fever in 4 patients (13%), grade IV neutropenia in 13 patients (42%), pneumonia in 6 patients (19%), grade III esophagitis in 4 patients (13%) and severe clinical pneumonitis in 1 patient (3%). Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy is feasible, and the preliminary results are encouraging. Complete response after radiotherapy appeared to be related to short-term disease-free survival, and decisions based on the response to chemotherapy may be equivocal.