Comparative study of efficacy, rapidity of detection, and cost-effectiveness of potassium hydroxide, calcofluor white, and Chicago sky blue stains in the diagnosis of dermatophytoses.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of superficial mycosis such as dermatophytosis is often done clinically. However, in difficult cases, a rapid test with high sensitivity and specificity helps in the immediate confirmation and administration of treatment. METHODS: The efficacy, rapidity of detection, and cost-effectiveness of KOH preparation, calcofluor white (CW) stain, and Chicago sky blue (CSB) stain in the identification of fungal elements were assessed in patients with dermatophytoses attending the dermatology clinic of a tertiary care hospital. All three tests were performed on each sample collected from 73 patients according to standard procedure. The slides were examined after 5 and 30 minutes in × 10 and × 40 magnifications. The sensitivity and specificity of CW and CSB at 5 and 30 minutes were calculated using KOH preparation as the standard test. RESULTS: CSB stain showed highest positivity (94.5%) within 5 minutes when compared to KOH (75.3%) and CW (83.5%). After 30 minutes, positivity increased in KOH (84.9%) and CW stains (89%), but it remained the same in CSB stain. Both CW and CSB stains when compared to 10% KOH are equally sensitive (100%), but CW was more specific (72.7%), particularly at 30 minutes. When cost of performing tests on 100 specimens is considered, KOH, CW, and CSB stains cost Rs 5, 100, and 15, respectively. CONCLUSION: CSB stain is a better stain for rapid diagnosis of dermatophytoses because of ease of performance, rapidity of detection, better appreciation of morphology of fungal elements, and cost effectiveness.

Use of eriochrome cyanine R in routine histology and histopathology: is it time to say goodbye to hematoxylin?

Eriochrome cyanine R (ECR) is a synthetic anionic dye that forms complexes with cations such as iron. We found that an iron-ECR (Fe-ECR) mixture provided either nuclear or myelin staining depending on the differentiator used. Selective nuclear staining was obtained by differentiation in an aqueous HCl solution, pH 0.95, followed by a wash in slightly alkaline tap water; the pH difference facilitated control of differentiation. When used with an eosin B counterstain, results were nearly indistinguishable from standard hematoxylin and eosin (H & E) staining. Nuclear staining with Fe-ECR provides tinctorial features similar to regressive aluminum-hemateins as well as resistance to acidic solutions such as those of iron hemateins. Fe-ECR also stained selectively intestinal cells of the diffuse neuroendocrine system (DNES). In addition to its use as an H & E substitute, acid differentiated Fe-ECR produced acid-resistant and selective nuclear counterstaining in combination with Alcian blue, and in the Papanicolaou and van Gieson techniques. With alkali differentiation, Fe-ECR produced selective myelin staining, which was compatible with neutral red counterstaining. Myelin sheaths were stained aqua blue. Fe-ECR could be used for both cytological and histological samples, and was suitable for use in automated tissue stainers. ECR also is less expensive than hematoxylin. Hematoxylin still may be preferred as a nuclear counterstain for some immunostaining methods for which Fe-ECR mixtures probably are too acidic.

Impact of restricting access to high-cost medications for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer death globally, and its incidence is increasing in the West, including the UK, with the increasing burden of chronic liver disease. Until recently, systemic treatment options for advanced disease were limited. However, randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib prolongs survival in appropriately selected patients, and this drug has become the standard of care for patients with advanced HCC. However, a single-technology appraisal by the NICE recommended that the UK National Health Service should not fund sorafenib on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. A number of other novel agents and combinations are currently in clinical trials, the results of which may further expand the treatment options and indications for systemic therapy in HCC. This review discusses the impact of restricting access to high-cost medications for patients with HCC in the UK, and describes potential strategies and future directions that may improve the cost-effectiveness of such drugs. It also describes the potential impact, pending national guidance, of variations in local funding decision-making on patient outcomes.

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)

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma accounts for 2-3% of all adult malignancies worldwide, and around 30% of patients with the condition present with advanced or metastatic disease.1,2 Until recently, cytokine therapy (e.g. interleukin-2 or interferon-alfa) was the standard treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma but provided only a small survival advantage (e.g. extending life by a median of 2.5 months).3 A key development has been the introduction of drugs known as receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which include ▾sunitinib (Sutent-Pfizer), ▾sorafenib (Nexavar-Bayer) and ▾pazopanib (Votrient-GlaxoSmithKline). Here we review the evidence on the efficacy, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of these treatments in renal cell carcinoma.

Economic evaluation of everolimus versus sorafenib for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of first-line sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: A recent indirect comparison study showed that sunitinib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with everolimus are expected to have improved overall survival outcomes compared to patients treated with sorafenib. This analysis examines the likely cost-effectiveness of everolimus versus sorafenib in this setting from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of sunitinib-refractory mRCC patients and to estimate the cost per incremental life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Markov states included are stable disease without adverse events, stable disease with adverse events, disease progression, and death. Transition probabilities were estimated using a subset of the RECORD-1 patient population receiving everolimus after sunitinib, and a comparable population receiving sorafenib in a single-arm phase II study. Costs of antitumor therapies were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Health state costs accounted for physician visits, tests, adverse events, postprogression therapy, and end-of-life care. The model extrapolated beyond the trial time horizon for up to 6 years based on published trial data. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The estimated gain over sorafenib treatment was 1.273 LYs (0.916 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $81,643. The deterministic analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $64,155/LYG ($89,160/QALY). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that results were highly consistent across simulations. CONCLUSIONS: As the ICER fell within the cost per QALY range for many other widely used oncology medicines, everolimus is projected to be a cost-effective treatment relative to sorafenib for sunitinib-refractory mRCC.

Cautions regarding the fitting and interpretation of survival curves: examples from NICE single technology appraisals of drugs for cancer.

The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has used its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) programme to assess several drugs for cancer. Typically, the evidence submitted by the manufacturer comes from one short-term randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrating improvement in overall survival and/or in delay of disease progression, and these are the pre-eminent drivers of cost effectiveness. We draw attention to key issues encountered in assessing the quality and rigour of the manufacturers' modelling of overall survival and disease progression. Our examples are two recent STAs: sorafenib (Nexavar®) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, and azacitidine (Vidaza®) for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The choice of parametric model had a large effect on the predicted treatment-dependent survival gain. Logarithmic models (log-Normal and log-logistic) delivered double the survival advantage that was derived from Weibull models. Both submissions selected the logarithmic fits for their base-case economic analyses and justified selection solely on Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) scores. AIC scores in the azacitidine submission failed to match the choice of the log-logistic over Weibull or exponential models, and the modelled survival in the intervention arm lacked face validity. AIC scores for sorafenib models favoured log-Normal fits; however, since there is no statistical method for comparing AIC scores, and differences may be trivial, it is generally advised that the plausibility of competing models should be tested against external data and explored in diagnostic plots. Function fitting to observed data should not be a mechanical process validated by a single crude indicator (AIC). Projective models should show clear plausibility for the patients concerned and should be consistent with other published information. Multiple rather than single parametric functions should be explored and tested with diagnostic plots. When trials have survival curves with long tails exhibiting few events then the robustness of extrapolations using information in such tails should be tested.

Economic evaluation of new targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: • To assess the economic value of targeted therapies as first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment in the US and Sweden by indirect comparison of survival data. METHODS: • A Markov model simulated disease progression, adverse events and survival with sunitinib vs sorafenib in the US and bevacizumab plus interferon-α (IFN-α) in both countries. • Results, in life-years (LYs), progression-free LYs (PFLYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) gained and treatment costs (2008 USD) were obtained through deterministic and probabilistic analyses over the patient's lifetime. RESULTS: • Sunitinib was more effective and less costly than sorafenib (gains of 0.52 PFLYs, 0.16 LYs and 0.17 QALYs and savings/patient of $13,576 in the US) and bevacizumab plus IFN-α (gains of 0.19 PFLYs, 0.23 LYs and 0.16 QALYs in both countries and savings/patient of $67,798 and $47,264 in the US and Sweden, respectively). • Results were most influenced by hazard ratios for progression-free and overall survival and treatment costs, making results generalizable across other countries if relative costs were to fall within the ranges of those in the US and Sweden. CONCLUSION: • The present analyses suggest that first-line mRCC treatment with sunitinib is a cost-effective alternative to sorafenib and bevacizumab plus IFN-α.

Treatment with sorafenib in advanced thyroid cancer - a case report.

Papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) usually has a good prognosis. The treatment, including total thyroidectomy and complementary radioiodine (RAI) therapy, gives complete remission in 90% of patients. However, in 10% of subjects with metastatic disease, the prognosis is poor. In the group of patients with disease progression and no 131I uptake, searching for new therapeutic modalities before all tyrosine kinase inhibitors and other antiangiogenic agents is necessary. The study presents the case of a 55-year-old male with advanced PTC /pT3mNxMo/ diagnosed in 1993. Primary treatment by total thyroidectomy and 131I ablation led to complete remission. In 2000 local as well as lymph node recurrence was diagnosed and successively treated by surgery. In 2006 an increasing serum thyroglobulin level was noted and a single lung metastasis was diagnosed and operated on. In 2007 new foci in CNS and vertebral column with no 131I uptake were stated. Further progression (bones, CNS, and pterygoid muscle) was confirmed by PET-CT. The patient underwent neurosurgical metastasectomy twice and palliative CNS and vertebra's radiotherapy. Liver metastases were diagnosed in 2009. Treatment with increasing doses of thalidomide (up to 800 mg/d) was administered for 3 months with a good tolerance; however, the therapy was withdrawn due to cancer progression. Next, sorafenib (800 mg/d) was given for 16 weeks. Radiological examination performed after 16 weeks confirmed stable disease, whereas 2 months later, after sorafenib withdrawal due to lack of treatment possibility, further progression was observed. Metronomic chemotherapy with Adriamycin was instituted which gave disease stabilization for 6 months. The patient died with advanced disseminated disease due to pulmonary embolism. We present this case to document no adverse effects of therapy with sorafenib in a patient with brain DTC metastases. Sorafenib therapy was only short-term, but no progression occurred in this time.

Economic evaluation of sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: A double-blind, randomized phase III trial of sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma demonstrated that sorafenib significantly prolonged overall survival compared to placebo (median overall survival = 10.7 months vs 7.9 months, P < 0.001). Sorafenib is the first and only systemic agent demonstrating survival benefit in these patients. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of sorafenib versus best supportive care in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the USA. METHODS: A Markov model was developed following time-to-progression and survival using phase III trial data. Health effects are expressed as life-years gained. Resource utilization included drugs, physician visits, laboratory tests, scans, and hospitalizations. Unit costs, expressed in 2007 $US, came from diagnosis-related groupings, fee schedules, and the Red Book. Costs and effects were evaluated over a patient's lifetime and discounted at 3%. RESULTS: Results are presented as incremental cost/life-year gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Life-years gained were increased for sorafenib compared to best supportive care (mean ± standard deviation: 1.58 ± 0.17 vs 1.05 ± 0.10 life-years gained/sorafenib patient and best supportive care, respectively). Lifetime total costs were $US40,639 ± $US3052 for sorafenib and $US7, 804 ± $US1349 for best supportive care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $US62,473/life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: The economic evaluation indicates that sorafenib is cost-effective compared to best supportive care, with a cost-effectiveness ratio within the established threshold that US society is willing to pay (i.e. $US50,000-$US100,000) and significantly lower than alternative thresholds suggested in recent years ($US183,000-$US264,000/life-year gained, or $US300,000/quality-adjusted life-year) in oncology.

Sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus or bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a review of health economic evaluations.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most prevalent kidney cancer and the 5-year overall survival figure in metastatic disease (mRCC) is about 10%. New targeted drugs (sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab, temsirolimus) have shown activity in the treatment of mRCC, but they are all associated with a significant burden of cost. To support decision makers in their allocation of resources, costeffectiveness models are constructed to compare the costs and outcomes of anticancer therapy. This survey focuses on studies since 2003 exploring health economics in the treatment of metastatic and/or advanced RCC employing these new drugs. This paper summarizes the results, focuses on the level of evidence of these studies, compares the calculated cost-effectiveness ratios and makes suggestions for future studies. This review reveals costs per life years gained (LYG) or quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in the range of euro 22,648 to euro203,692, depending on whether the setting is first-line or second-line and drug used. When compared to the other agents, sunitinib has the best cost-effectiveness figure. Second-line therapy does not offer valid incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sorafenib according to its licensed indication for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The ERG report was based on the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The licensed indication for sorafenib specifies advanced HCC patients for whom locoregional intervention and surgery are unsuitable or had been unsuccessful. The clinical evidence came from a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Sorafenib HCC Assessment Randomized Protocol; SHARP) of sorafenib plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care, with 602 participants of a predominantly European ethnicity broadly comparable to the UK population. The submitted evidence indicated that for advanced HCC patients with Child-Pugh grade A liver function and relatively good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, sorafenib on average improves overall survival by 83 days relative to placebo, and also increases time-to-radiological disease progression. Sorafenib therapy had little or no effect on time-to-symptom progression or on quality of life as measured using a disease-specific questionnaire. Sorafenib treatment was associated with increased incidence of hypertension and of gastrointestinal and dermatological problems. However, the therapy was reasonably well tolerated and, in SHARP, withdrawals from treatment due to adverse events were similar in the sorafenib and placebo arms, although more temporary reductions in dose were required in the sorafenib than in the placebo group. In the base case, the manufacturer's submitted economic analysis generated a deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 64,754 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The ERG extracted individual patient data for overall survival and disease progression, reran the economic model to check the submitted cost-effectiveness results, and performed new analyses which the ERG considered relevant to the decision problem; these analyses delivered ICERs between 76,000 pounds/QALY and 86,000 pounds/QALY. The guidance issued by NICE (7 May 2009) stated that sorafenib, within its licensed indication, is not recommended for the treatment of advanced (Barcelona-Clínic Liver Cancer stage C) HCC patients for whom surgical or locoregional therapies have failed or are not suitable, and people currently receiving sorafenib for the treatment of HCC should have the option to continue treatment until they and their clinician consider it appropriate to stop. Subsequently the manufacturer submitted a patient access scheme to the Department of Health. The base-case ICER submitted by the manufacturer for this scheme was 51,899 pounds/QALY. When the ERG reran the model with inputs considered relevant to the decision problem the ICER estimates ranged between 53,000 pounds to 58,000 pounds/QALY and substantially higher values depending on the nature of the sensitivity analyses. NICE considered the impact of the patient access scheme and determined that it was not sufficient to alter the guidance.

[Economic evaluation of targeted biologic therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma]. / Analýza nákladu na cílenou biologickou lécbu pacientu s metastatickým karcinomem ledviny.

BACKGROUND: Targeted biologic therapy has been proven to be effective compared to the current therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in clinical studies as well as in actual clinical practice, but its high cost is a potentially limiting factor. Since the local cost-effectiveness analysis is missing, we assessed the cost of sunitinib and sorafenib in the treatment of mRCC in a comprehensive cancer centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 31 patients were treated with sunitinib and/or sorafenib between 06/2006 and 09/2009 and then followed for at least 12 months. Clinical (disease progression, adverse events, dose reduction) and cost data (medication, examination, hospitalization) were assessed in the comprehensive cancer centre (1 Euro = 25.78 CZK). RESULTS: The multikinase inhibitors were the second line treatment for most patients after INF-alpha therapy failure (86.7%). The mean cost per month to progression (PD) was 94,141.8 CZK/3651.7 Euro (sunitinib: 11 months to PD, cost to PD 1,267,648.5 CZK/49,171.8 Euro; sorafenib: 8 months to PD, cost to PD 896,670.1 CZK / 34,781.6 Euro). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 123,659.5 CZK / 4796.7 Euro per progression-free month in sunitinib vs sorafenib patients. The mean cost per month after PD was 45,767.0 CZK/1775.3 Euro with sequential therapy (sorafenib after sunitinib failure and vice-versa in more than half of patients) or best supportive care. 16 patients died during the study period with mean cost of 1,180,795.4CZK/45,802.8 Euro per 12 months (median between treatment initiation with sunitinib or sorafenib and death). 8 patients (26%) did not achieve progression (median progression-free survival to 09/2009: sunitinib 18 months, sorafenib 14 months). CONCLUSION: The cost of medication made up more than 95% of total costs to PD and more than 90% after PD. The cost per progression-free month was 123,659.5 CZK/4796.7 Euro in mRCC patients treated with sunitinib vs sorafenib.

Bevacizumab, sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, combined with interferon (IFN), sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus in the treatment of people with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, were searched up to September/October 2007 (and again in February 2008). REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews and randomised clinical trials comparing any of the interventions with any of the comparators in participants with advanced and/or metastatic RCC were included, also phase II studies and conference abstracts if there was sufficient detail to adequately assess quality. Results were synthesised narratively and a decision-analytic Markov-type model was developed to simulate disease progression and estimate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions under consideration. RESULTS: A total of 888 titles and abstracts were retrieved in the clinical effectiveness review, including reports of eight clinical trials. Treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN or sunitinib had clinically relevant and statistically significant advantages over treatment with IFN alone, in terms of progression-free survival and tumour response, doubling median progression-free survival from approximately 5 months to 10 months. Temsirolimus had similar advantages over treatment with IFN in terms of progression-free and overall survival, increasing median overall survival from 7.3 to 10.9 months [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.92)], as did sorafenib in comparison with best supportive care in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival and tumour response, with a doubling of progression-free survival (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60). However, the last was associated with an increased frequency of hypertension and hand-foot skin reaction compared with placebo. No fully published economic evaluations of any of the interventions could be located. However, estimates from the PenTAG model suggested that none of the interventions would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Estimates of cost per QALY ranged from 71,462 pounds for sunitinib to 171,301 pounds for bevacizumab plus IFN. Although there are many similarities in the methodology and structural assumptions employed by PenTAG and the manufacturers of the interventions, in all cases the cost-effectiveness estimates from the PenTAG model were higher than those presented in the manufacturers' submissions. Cost-effectiveness estimates were particularly sensitive to variations in the estimates of treatment effectiveness, drug pricing (including dose intensity data), and health-state utility input parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN and sunitinib has clinically relevant and statistically significant advantages over treatment with IFN alone in patients with metastatic RCC. In people with three of six risk factors for poor prognosis, temsirolimus had clinically relevant advantages over treatment with IFN, and sorafenib tosylate was superior to best supportive care as second-line therapy. The frequency of adverse events associated with bevacizumab plus IFN, sunitinib and temsirolimus was comparable with that seen with IFN, although the adverse event profile is different. Treatment with sorafenib was associated with a significantly increased frequency of hypertension and hand-foot syndrome. Estimates from the PenTAG model suggested that none of the interventions would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 pounds per QALY.