Target therapy versus dacarbazine in first-line treatment of advanced non-surgical and metastatic melanoma: budget impact analysis from the perspective of the Brazilian National Health System, 2018-2020. / Terapia-alvo versus dacarbazina no tratamento de primeira linha do melanoma avançado não cirúrgico e metastático: análise de impacto orçamentário na perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde, 2018-2020.

OBJECTIVE: to estimate the incremental budget impact of target therapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-surgical and metastatic melanoma compared to dacarbazine treatment. METHODS: budget impact analysis, from the Brazilian National Health System (SUS) perspective; based on demographic data and incidence estimates, the population over a three-year time horizon (2018-2020) was delimited and the direct medical costs were estimated; the reference scenario was treatment with dacarbazine, and the alternative scenarios were target therapy with vemurafenib, dabrafenib, vemurafenib + cobimetinib and dabrafenib + trametinib; uncertainty assessment was conducted through scenario analysis. RESULTS: the incremental budget impact ranged from R$ 451,867,881.00 to R$ 768,860,968.00, representing 0.70 to 1.53% of total SUS annual outpatient drugs expenditure; in best and worst scenario, results ranged from R$ 289,160,835.00 to R$ 1,107,081,926.00. CONCLUSION: the use of target therapy compared to dacarbazine implies an excessive impact on the budget, this bring unfovorable to its possible incorporation.

Tumor treating fields and maintenance temozolomide for newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a cost-effectiveness study.

Purpose: The EF-14 trial demonstrated that adding tumor treating fields (TTFields) to maintenance temozolomide (TMZ) significantly extends progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for newly-diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of TTFields and TMZ for newly-diagnosed GBM from the US healthcare system perspective. Methods and materials: Outcomes for newly-diagnosed GBM patients were estimated over a lifetime horizon using an area under the curve model with three states: stable disease, progressive disease, or death. The survival model integrated the 5-year EF-14 trial results with long-term GBM epidemiology data and US background mortality rates. Adverse event rates were derived from the EF-14 trial data. Utility values to determine quality-adjusted life-years, adverse event costs, and supportive care costs were obtained from published literature. A 3% discount rate was applied to future costs and outcomes. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess result uncertainty due to parameter variability. Results: Treatment with TTFields and TMZ was estimated to result in a mean increase in survival of 1.25 life years (95% credible range [CR] = 0.89-1.67) and 0.96 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (95% CR = 0.67-1.30) compared to treatment with TMZ alone. The incremental total cost was $188,637 (95% CR = $145,324-$225,330). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $150,452 per life year gained and $197,336 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to changes in the cost of TTFields treatment. Conclusions: Adding TTFields to maintenance TMZ resulted in a substantial increase in the estimated mean lifetime survival and quality-adjusted survival for newly-diagnosed GBM patients. Treatment with TTFields can be considered cost-effective within the reported range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the US.

Cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields added to maintenance temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma: an updated evaluation using a partitioned survival model.

PURPOSE: A first cost-effectiveness analysis has raised a strong concern regarding the cost of tumor treatment fields (TTF) added to maintenance temozolomide for patients with glioblastoma. This evaluation was based on effectiveness outcomes from an interim analysis of the pivotal trial, moreover it used a "standard" Markov model. Our objective was to update the cost-effectiveness evaluation using the more flexible potential of the "partitioned survival" model design and using the latest effectiveness data. METHODS: We developed the model with three mutually exclusive health states: stable disease, progressive disease, and dead. Good fit parametric models were developed for overall survival and progression free survival and these generated clinically plausible extrapolations beyond the observed data. We adopted the perspective of the French national health insurance and used a 20-year time horizon. Results were expressed as cost/life-years (LY) gained (LYG). RESULTS: The base case model generated incremental benefit of 0.604 LY at a cost of €453,848 which, after 4% annual discounting of benefits and costs, yielded an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €510,273/LYG. Using sensitivity analyses and bootstrapping methods results were found to be relatively robust and were only sensitive to TTF device costs and the modelling of overall survival. To achieve an ICER below €100,000/LYG would require a reduction in TTF device cost of approximately 85%. CONCLUSIONS: Using a different type of model and updated survival outcomes, our results show TTF remains an intervention that is not cost-effective, which greatly restrains its diffusion to potentially eligible patients.

Obinutuzumab with Bendamustine for Treating Follicular Lymphoma Refractory to Rituximab: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of obinutuzumab (Roche) to submit evidence on its clinical and cost effectiveness when used in combination with bendamustine in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) refractory to rituximab. The Evidence Review Group (ERG), the School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield, produced a document summarising the key points from the company submission alongside a critical review. Efficacy for progression-free survival (PFS) and safety was positively demonstrated in the pivotal GADOLIN trial, which compared obinutuzumab in combination with bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab maintenance (O-Benda+O) against bendamustine monotherapy. Data on overall survival were immature. The company submitted a model-based economic analysis, including a patient access scheme. The ERG identified a number of limitations, in particular the absence of subgroup analysis and the approach used by the company to estimate overall survival (OS), which was more favourable to the intervention arm. The key uncertainty was the duration of the treatment effect on OS. This uncertainty is expected to be reduced when the final analysis of the GADOLIN trial is reported. Consequently, the NICE appraisal committee recommended O-Benda+O in the population covered by the marketing authorisation within the Cancer Drug Fund until NICE is able to review the guidance following publication of the final analysis of GADOLIN.

Cost-effectiveness of the long-term use of temozolomide for treating newly diagnosed glioblastoma in Germany.

Concomitant radiochemotherapy followed by six cycles of temozolomide (= short term) is considered as standard therapy for adults with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. In contrast, open-end administration of temozolomide until progression (= long-term) is proposed by some authors as a viable alternative. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of long-term temozolomide therapy for patients newly diagnosed with glioblastoma compared to standard therapy. A Markov model was constructed to compare medical costs and clinical outcomes for both therapy types over a time horizon of 60 months. Transition probabilities for standard therapy were calculated from randomized controlled trial data by Stupp et al. The data for long-term temozolomide therapy was collected by matching a cohort treated in the Department of Neurosurgery at Jena University Hospital. Health utilities were obtained from a previous cost utility study. The cost perspective was based on health insurance. The base case analysis showed a median overall survival of 17.1 months and a median progression-free survival of 7.4 months for patients in the long-term temozolomide therapy arm. The cost-effectiveness analysis using all base case parameters in a time-dependent Markov model resulted in an incremental effectiveness of 0.022 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €351,909/QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed that parameters with the most influence on ICER were the health state utility of progression in both therapy arms. Although open-ended temozolomide therapy is very expensive, the ICER of this therapy is comparable to that of the standard temozolomide therapy for patients newly diagnosed with glioblastoma.

Clinical and economic evaluation of modulated electrohyperthermia concurrent to dose-dense temozolomide 21/28 days regimen in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma: a retrospective analysis of a two-centre German cohort trial with systematic comparison and effect-to-treatment analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of modulated electrohyperthermia (mEHT) concurrent to dose-dense temozolomide (ddTMZ) 21/28 days regimen versus ddTMZ 21/28 days alone in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). DESIGN: A cohort of 54 patients with recurrent GBM treated with ddTMZ+mEHT in 2000-2005 was systematically retrospectively compared with five pooled ddTMZ 21/28 days cohorts (114 patients) enrolled in 2008-2013. RESULTS: The ddTMZ+mEHT cohort had a not significantly improved mean survival time (mST) versus the comparator (p=0.531) after a significantly less mean number of cycles (1.56 vs 3.98, p<0.001). Effect-to-treatment analysis (ETA) suggests that mEHT significantly enhances the efficacy of the ddTMZ 21/28 days regimen (p=0.011), with significantly less toxicity (no grade III-IV toxicity vs 45%-92%, p<0.0001). An estimated maximal attainable median survival time is 10.10 months (9.10-11.10). Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that, unlike ddTMZ 21/28 days alone, ddTMZ+mEHT is cost-effective versus the applicable cost-effectiveness thresholds €US$25 000-50 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Budget impact analysis suggests a significant saving of €8 577 947/$11 201 761 with 29.1-38.5 QALY gained per 1000 patients per year. Cost-benefit analysis suggests that mEHT is profitable and will generate revenues between €3 124 574 and $6 458 400, with a total economic effect (saving+revenues) of €5 700 034 to $8 237 432 per mEHT device over an 8-year period. CONCLUSIONS: Our ETA suggests that mEHT significantly improves survival of patients receiving the ddTMZ 21/28 days regimen. Economic evaluation suggests that ddTMZ+mEHT is cost-effective, budget-saving and profitable. After confirmation of the results, mEHT could be recommended for the treatment of recurrent GBM as a cost-effective enhancer of ddTMZ regimens, and, probably, of the regular 5/28 days regimen. mEHT is applicable also as a single treatment if chemotherapy is impossible, and as a salvage treatment after the failure of chemotherapy.

Metronomic oral cyclosphosphamide as third-line systemic treatment or beyond in patients with inoperable locoregionally advanced recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

There is no standard third-line or further systemic treatment for patients with inoperable locoregionally advanced recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Metronomic oral cyclophosphamide provides an acceptable and cheap option for these heavily pretreated patients who had limited choices. We conducted a prospective phase II single-arm open-label study of metronomic oral cyclophosphamide. Patients with locoregionally advanced recurrent inoperable (rT3/T4, rN2-N3b) or metastatic (rM1) NPC who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) (0-2) and had progressed after at least 2 lines of palliative systemic chemotherapy were eligible. They received oral cyclophosphamide between 50 and 150 mg once daily until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), biochemical response (two consecutive declines of plasma EBV DNA after treatment), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety profiles were evaluated. A total of 56 patients were recruited. Thirty-three, 13, 6, 3, and 1 patients received cyclophosphamide as 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th line of therapy respectively. After a median follow-up of 9.95 months (range 1.76-59.51 months), the ORR was 8.9% and the DCR was 57.1%. The median PFS and OS were 4.47 and 9.20 months, respectively. Those with PS 1 had longer median PFS (5.49 months) compared to those with PS 2 (3.75 months, P = .011). Besides, those who had locoregionally recurrent disease had better PFS (8.97 months, 95% CI, 0.53-17.41 months) compared to those who had distant metastases (4.14 months, 95% CI, 2.53-5.75 months, P = .020). Multivariable analysis revealed that PS 1 (vs 2) (P = .020) and locoregional recurrence (vs metastasis) (P = .029) were the only significant independent prognostic factors of PFS. Around 16 (28.6%) patients developed grade ≥3 adverse events, including malaise (5.4%), hematological (8.9%), gastrointestinal (3.6%), feverish (3.6%), and hemorrhagic (1.8%) events. The median cost of the whole drug treatment was 51.65 US dollars (USD) (range 4.15-142.75 USD) (1 USD = 7.8 HK dollars [HKD]). Metronomic oral cyclophosphamide is an acceptable third-line or beyond systemic therapy for locoregionally advanced recurrent or metastatic NPC with acceptable toxicity and limited financial burden.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Obinutuzumab for Previously Untreated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia in Portuguese Patients who are Unsuitable for Full-Dose Fludarabine-Based Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) mostly affects patients with comorbidities and limited therapeutic options. Obinutuzumab in combination with chlorambucil (GClb) is a new therapeutic option for previously untreated CLL patients who are unsuitable for full-dose fludarabine-based therapy. This combination delays disease progression but incurs additional costs; thus, an assessment of its value for money is relevant. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio of GClb in comparison with (i) rituximab in combination with chlorambucil (RClb), and (ii) chlorambucil alone (Clb) from the perspective of the Portuguese National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A Markov model was used to predict disease progression. Pre-progression clinical data were based on the latest CLL11 trial data, and post-progression clinical data were obtained from CLL5 trial data. Utility values are from Kosmas et al. (Leuk Lymphoma 56:1320-1326, 14). Only direct medical costs were included. The resource consumption was estimated by a panel of Portuguese experts, and the unit costs were obtained from official sources. A discount rate of 5% was applied to costs and consequences. RESULTS: GClb and RClb were associated with an increase of 1.06 and 0.39 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) at an additional cost of €21,720 and €9836 when compared to Clb, respectively. The cost-utility ratio of GClb versus Clb was €20,397/QALY, while RClb was extendedly dominated. CONCLUSIONS: The use of GClb for previously untreated CLL patients who are unsuitable for full-dose fludarabine-based therapy incurs an incremental cost per QALY that is generally accepted in Portugal. Therefore, although there is some uncertainty, obinutuzumab is probably a cost-effective therapy in the Portuguese setting.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bendamustine Plus Rituximab as a First-Line Treatment for Patients with Follicular Lymphoma in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the second most common type of lymphoid cancer in Western Europe. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost utility of rituximab-bendamustine treatment compared with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) treatment as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced FL in Spain. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost effectiveness of rituximab-bendamustine compared with R-CHOP as first-line treatment for patients with advanced FL in the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Transitions between health states (progression-free, including induction and maintenance; first relapse; second relapse; and death) were allowed for the patient cohort in 4-week-long cycles. Clinical data for the extrapolation of progression-free survival curves were obtained from randomized trials. Mortality rates and utilities were obtained from the literature. Outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The total costs (€, 2013) included drug costs (ex-factory prices with mandatory deductions), disease management costs and adverse event-associated costs. Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3 % annual rate. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations to assess the model robustness. RESULTS: Treatment and administration costs during the induction phase were higher for rituximab-bendamustine (€17,671) than for R-CHOP (€11,850). At the end of the 25-year period, the rituximab-bendamustine first-line strategy had a total cost of €68,357 compared with €69,528 for R-CHOP. Health benefits were higher for rituximab-bendamustine treatment (10.31 QALYs) than for R-CHOP treatment (9.82 QALYs). In the probabilistic analysis, rituximab-bendamustine was the dominant strategy over treatment with R-CHOP in 53.4 % of the simulations. CONCLUSION: First-line therapy with rituximab-bendamustine in FL patients was the dominant strategy over treatment with R-CHOP; it showed cost savings and higher health benefits for the Spanish NHS.

Should we continue temozolomide beyond six cycles in the adjuvant treatment of glioblastoma without an evidence of clinical benefit? A cost analysis based on prescribing patterns in Spain

PURPOSE: The standard adjuvant treatment for glioblastoma is temozolomide concomitant with radiotherapy, followed by a further six cycles of temozolomide. However, due to the lack of empirical evidence and international consensus regarding the optimal duration of temozolomide treatment, it is often extended to 12 or more cycles, even in the absence of residual disease. No clinical trial has shown clear evidence of clinical benefit of this extended treatment. We have explored the economic impact of this practice in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Spanish neuro-oncologists completed a questionnaire on the clinical management of glioblastomas in their centers. Based on their responses and on available clinical and demographic data, we estimated the number of patients who receive more than six cycles of temozolomide and calculated the cost of this extended treatment. RESULTS: Temozolomide treatment is continued for more than six cycles by 80.5 % of neuro-oncologists: 44.4 % only if there is residual disease; 27.8 % for 12 cycles even in the absence of residual disease; and 8.3 % until progression. Thus, 292 patients annually will continue treatment beyond six cycles in spite of a lack of clear evidence of clinical benefit. Temozolomide is covered by the National Health Insurance System, and the additional economic burden to society of this extended treatment is nearly 1.5 million euros a year. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal duration of adjuvant temozolomide treatment merits investigation in a clinical trial due to the economic consequences of prolonged treatment without evidence of greater patient benefit (AU)

No disponible

Should we continue temozolomide beyond six cycles in the adjuvant treatment of glioblastoma without an evidence of clinical benefit? A cost analysis based on prescribing patterns in Spain.

PURPOSE: The standard adjuvant treatment for glioblastoma is temozolomide concomitant with radiotherapy, followed by a further six cycles of temozolomide. However, due to the lack of empirical evidence and international consensus regarding the optimal duration of temozolomide treatment, it is often extended to 12 or more cycles, even in the absence of residual disease. No clinical trial has shown clear evidence of clinical benefit of this extended treatment. We have explored the economic impact of this practice in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Spanish neuro-oncologists completed a questionnaire on the clinical management of glioblastomas in their centers. Based on their responses and on available clinical and demographic data, we estimated the number of patients who receive more than six cycles of temozolomide and calculated the cost of this extended treatment. RESULTS: Temozolomide treatment is continued for more than six cycles by 80.5 % of neuro-oncologists: 44.4 % only if there is residual disease; 27.8 % for 12 cycles even in the absence of residual disease; and 8.3 % until progression. Thus, 292 patients annually will continue treatment beyond six cycles in spite of a lack of clear evidence of clinical benefit. Temozolomide is covered by the National Health Insurance System, and the additional economic burden to society of this extended treatment is nearly 1.5 million euros a year. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal duration of adjuvant temozolomide treatment merits investigation in a clinical trial due to the economic consequences of prolonged treatment without evidence of greater patient benefit.

The cost-effectiveness of temozolomide in the adjuvant treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this work was to determine the cost-effectiveness of temozolomide compared with that of radiotherapy alone in the adjuvant treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Temozolomide is the only chemotherapeutic agent to have demonstrated a significant survival benefit in a randomized clinical trial. Our analysis builds on earlier work by incorporating caregiver time costs and generic temozolomide availability. It is also the first analysis applicable to the US context. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to collect relevant data. Transition probabilities were calculated from randomized controlled trial data comparing temozolomide plus radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone. Direct costs were calculated from charges reported by the Mayo Clinic. Utilities were obtained from a previous cost-utility analysis. Using these data, a Markov model with a 1-month cycle length and 5-year time horizon was constructed. RESULTS: The addition of brand Temodar and generic temozolomide to the standard radiotherapy regimen was associated with base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $102 364 and $8875, respectively, per quality-adjusted life-year. The model was most sensitive to the progression-free survival associated with the use of only radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Both the brand and generic base-case estimates are cost-effective under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. All 1-way sensitivity analyses produced incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below this threshold. We conclude that both the brand Temodar and generic temozolomide are cost-effective treatments for newly diagnosed glioblastoma within the US context. However, assuming that the generic product produces equivalent quality of life and survival benefits, it would be significantly more cost-effective than the brand option.

Trabectedin for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a NICE single technology appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of trabectedin (PharmaMar) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (aMSTS), as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The ERG produced a review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology contained within the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently modified the manufacturer's decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. The main evidence was derived from a single phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma only, in which the licensed dose of trabectedin was compared with a different dose of trabectedin. Additional data were also presented from three uncontrolled phase II trials. Supplementary studies were used to represent best supportive care (BSC). The median overall survival (OS) was 13.9 months for the licensed dose of trabectedin in the main randomized controlled trial (RCT) and ranged from 9.2 months to 12.8 months in the other studies included. Supplementary studies supplied by the manufacturer, and assumed to represent BSC, had median OS of 5.9-6.6 months. The progression-free survival (PFS) rates at 6 months for trabectedin were 35.5 % in the main RCT and 24.4-29 % in the other studies included. The PFS rates at 6 months were 8-14 % for BSC. In the manufacturer's original submission to NICE, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of trabectedin compared with BSC was approximately £44,000 per QALY gained. After amendment of errors identified by the ERG, the ICER reported by the manufacturer increased to approximately £61,000. The ERG concluded that, despite clarifications from the manufacturer and the revisions made to the model, there was still considerable uncertainty in the ICER. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) gave a negative initial recommendation, although indicated that trabectedin in aMSTS met the end-of-life criteria. Subsequently, the manufacturer submitted a patient access scheme (PAS) where any cycles beyond the fifth were provided at no cost by the manufacturer. This improved the ICER to approximately £34,000 per QALY gained. The AC gave a positive recommendation, subject to the implementation of the PAS.

Bendamustine versus chlorambucil for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in England and Wales: a cost-utility analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bendamustine compared with chlorambucil as first-line treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who would be considered unsuitable for treatment with fludarabine combination chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: A semi-Markov approach was used to estimate time in each health state. The model was parameterized primarily by using data from a phase III randomized, open-label trial comparing bendamustine with chlorambucil. It captured the increased progression-free survival and improved response rates with bendamustine, and the cost and quality of life impacts of postprogression treatments. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales. A lifetime (35-year) time horizon was used. Deterministic sensitivity analyses, probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses in older patients and patients with poor performance status were carried out. RESULTS: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £ 11,960 per quality-adjusted life-year. None of the deterministic sensitivity analyses increased the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio by more than £ 2000. Subgroup analyses showed that bendamustine remained cost-effective across different patient groups. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at the £ 20,000 threshold, bendamustine has a 90% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Bendamustine represents good value for first-line treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who are unsuitable for treatment with fludarabine combination chemotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is below the thresholds commonly applied in England and Wales (£ 20,000-£ 30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year).

Subgroup economic analysis for glioblastoma in a health resource-limited setting.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this research was to evaluate the economic outcomes of radiotherapy (RT), temozolomide (TMZ) and nitrosourea (NT) strategies for glioblastoma patients with different prognostic factors. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A Markov model was developed to track monthly patient transitions. Transition probabilities and utilities were derived primarily from published reports. Costs were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. The survival data with different prognostic factors were simulated using Weibull survival models. Costs over a 5-year period and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. Probabilistic sensitivity and one-way analyses were performed. The baseline analysis in the overall cohort showed that the TMZ strategy increased the cost and QALY relative to the RT strategy by $25,328.4 and 0.29, respectively; and the TMZ strategy increased the cost and QALY relative to the NT strategy by $23,906.5 and 0.25, respectively. Therefore, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) per additional QALY of the TMZ strategy, relative to the RT strategy and the NT strategy, amounts to $87,940.6 and $94,968.3, respectively. Subgroups with more favorable prognostic factors achieved more health benefits with improved ICERs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that the TMZ strategy was not cost-effective. In general, the results were most sensitive to the cost of TMZ, which indicates that better outcomes could be achieved by decreasing the cost of TMZ. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: In health resource-limited settings, TMZ is not a cost-effective option for glioblastoma patients. Selecting patients with more favorable prognostic factors increases the likelihood of cost-effectiveness.

Trabectedin for the treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer.

The paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of trabectedin for the treatment of relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The submission addressed only part of the decision problem and did not provide evidence to compare trabectedin (Yondelis®, PharmaMar) and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride (PLDH) (Caelyx®, Schering-Plough) with key comparators. The submission's direct comparison evidence came from one reasonable-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) of trabectedin and PLDH versus PLDH alone (ET743-OVA-301). The results of the RCT were subdivided into the entire platinum-sensitive population (> 6-month relapse after initial platinum-based chemotherapy) and partially platinum-sensitive (≥ 6- to 12-month relapse) and fully platinum-sensitive (> 12-month relapse) populations. The outcomes included were overall survival, progression-free survival measured by three types of assessor, response rates, adverse effects of treatment, health-related quality of life and cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained. A mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis comparing trabectedin and PLDH with single-agent PLDH within the entire platinum-sensitive population, with paclitaxel or with topotecan also formed part of the submission. The RCT data showed that trabectedin plus PLDH compared with PLDH monotherapy had a significant effect on overall survival only within the partially platinum-sensitive subgroup. PFS results reported by the independent radiologists showed significant effects in favour of the trabectedin and PLDH arm for the entire and partially platinum-sensitive populations only. Rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events were mostly higher in the trabectedin and PLDH arm than in the PLDH alone arm. There were several issues regarding the undertaking of the MTC, and thus the data were not considered robust. Furthermore, the ERG did not believe the MTC to be necessary to answer the decision problem. The manufacturer submitted a de novo cost-effectiveness model. The main analysis compared trabectedin in combination with PLDH versus paclitaxel, topotecan and PLDH (each as monotherapy) in the entire platinum-sensitive population, using results estimated from the MTC. Additional analyses were presented comparing trabectedin in combination with PLDH versus PLDH monotherapy using direct evidence from the OVA-301 trial for the fully, partially and entire platinum-sensitive populations. The cost per QALY gained for trabectedin in combination with PLDH versus PLDH monotherapy was estimated to be £ 70,076 in the main analysis. In the additional analyses, the cost per QALY gained for trabectedin in combination with PLDH versus PLDH monotherapy was £ 94,832, £ 43,996 and £ 31,092 for the entire, partially and fully platinum-sensitive populations, respectively. Additional work was undertaken by the ERG using patient-level data and amending some assumptions to provide a better statistical fit to the Kaplan-Meier data than the exponential distribution assumed by the manufacturer. The ERG base-case estimate of the cost per QALY of trabectedin in combination with PLDH ranged from £46,503 to £54,607 in the partially platinum-sensitive population. At the time of writing, trabectedin in combination with PLDH for the treatment of women with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer is not recommended by NICE in the final appraisal determination.