scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Selective Internal Radiotherapy With Yttrium-90 Versus Sorafenib in Locally Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.20.00443
Author(s):  
Kathryn E. Marqueen ◽  
Edward Kim ◽  
Celina Ang ◽  
Madhu Mazumdar ◽  
Michael Buckstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Selective Internal Radiotherapy ◽  
Internal Radiotherapy ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Significant Difference

PURPOSE: The recent sorafenib versus radioembolization in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH) and selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SIRveNIB) trials showed no statistically significant difference in overall survival for randomization to selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) versus sorafenib for locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, although SIRT was better tolerated. Given the high cost of both treatments, we investigated their comparative cost-effectiveness from a US healthcare sector perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We constructed a state-transition microsimulation model to simulate patients allocated to SIRT versus sorafenib according to an intention-to-treat principle. Hazard rates of disease progression and death were based on pooled individual patient data generated from the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials’ Kaplan-Meier curves. Inputs for adverse events, treatment adherence, and quality of life utility weights were derived from trial data as well. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates and literature. We performed probabilistic sensitivity analysis and estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 5-year time horizon. We evaluated sensitivity to uncertainty of key model parameters. RESULTS: Costs were $78,859 v $58,397 (difference $20,462; 95% uncertainty interval $14,444 to 27,205) and QALYs were 0.88 v 0.87 (difference 0.02, −0.02 to 0.05) for sorafenib versus SIRT, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of sorafenib was $1,280,224/QALY. The likelihood that sorafenib would be cost effective did not exceed 1%, assuming cost-effectiveness thresholds up to $200k/QALY. If the monthly price of sorafenib decreased from $16,390 to below $7,000, the ICER of sorafenib fell below $200k/QALY, and an ICER < $100k/QALY was reached if the monthly price fell below $6,600. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib is unlikely to provide a gain in quality-adjusted survival compared with SIRT at an acceptable cost for the US healthcare sector. Only if the current price decreased by more than 50% would sorafenib be considered economically attractive.

scholarly journals A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab Verses Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meiyue Li ◽  
Peili Lin ◽  
Shaohong Luo ◽  
Xiaoting Huang ◽  
Xiaojia Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Life Time ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health State ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background: Several studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the economics of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Ate plus Beva) remains unclear. Method: A three-state Markov model was established to simulate the life-time cost and effectiveness of advanced liver cancer, which included costs and health outcomes. Medical costs were sourced from Red Book, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and literatures. Also, the utility values of health state were deprived from references. The primary outcomes were measured by life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). The robustness of the model was verified by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: Ate plus Beva generated a gain of 0.84 QALYs (1.17 LYs ), an additional incremental cost of $242,447.40 per patient as compared with sorafenib, which resulted in the ICER of $288,663.09/QALY ($206,906.76/LY) at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, and the INHB was -0.78/QALY. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICER was most affected by the price of atezolizumab.Conclusion: From the U.S. health care payer perspective, compare with sorafenib, Ate plus Beva regimen seems unlikely to be cost-effective in advanced HCC patients at a WTP threshold of 150,000 /QALY. If the price of atezolizumab was reduced by 75%, the probability of atezolizumab being cost-effective was over 50% at the WTP threshold.

scholarly journals Cabozantinib for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175628481987830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir Shlomai ◽  
Moshe Leshno ◽  
Daniel A. Goldstein
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Prior Systemic Therapy

Background and aims: The multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib is a first-line drug for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Treatment options for patients whose disease has progressed on sorafenib are limited. In a recent randomized controlled trial (CELESTIAL trial), patients with advanced HCC who had failed prior systemic therapy had moderate progression-free survival and overall survival advantages when treated with the multi-kinase inhibitor cabozantinib. However, since this treatment is costly and is accompanied by significant adverse events in a large proportion of patients, its cost-effectiveness in these patients should be determined. Methods: We developed a Markov model incorporating health outcomes, measured by life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with placebo in patients who have failed prior systemic therapy. Results: Treatment with cabozantinib results in a mean gain of 11.6 weeks of life (0.22 life-years) as compared with placebo. When quality of life was incorporated, treatment with cabozantinib produced a gain of 0.16 QALYs. The total mean incremental cost of cabozantinib was US$76,406 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for cabozantinib compared with best supportive care was US$469,374/QALY using the recommended dose of 60 mg cabozantinib daily. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the use of cabozantinib in patients with advanced HCC who have progressed on prior treatment, results in a modest incremental benefit with high incremental costs, suggesting that it is not cost-effective at conventional willingness to pay thresholds.

scholarly journals En bloc transdiaphragmatic lung resection for locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a case report

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kit-fai Lee ◽  
Randolph H L Wong ◽  
Howard H W Leung ◽  
Eugene Y J Lo ◽  
Charing C N Chong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Left Lung ◽  
Lower Lobe ◽  
Uneventful Recovery ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Right Hepatectomy ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Liver Recurrence ◽  
Lung Base

Abstract A 56-year-old man presented with an 11-cm hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at segment 7 of liver. To induce left liver hypertrophy, a sequential transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and portal vein embolization before right hepatectomy were adopted. However, the tumor further increased in size despite TACE and invaded through the diaphragm to the right lung base. Anterior approach right hepatectomy with en bloc wedge resection of the involved right lower lobe of lung by endovascular staplers via transdiaphragmatic approach was performed. The diaphragmatic defect was closed with Goretex mesh. Patient made an uneventful recovery. Pathology confirmed a 12.5 cm poorly differentiated HCC invading through diaphragm to lung. During follow-up, patient developed a 6 cm recurrence at left lung base 17 months after surgery for which he received sorafenib therapy. However, the lung mass further increased in size with new liver recurrence at segment 3 despite treatment. He succumbed 2 years and 3 months after surgery.

scholarly journals Chemoembolization Plus Radiotherapy versus Chemoembolization Plus Sorafenib for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Invading the Portal Vein: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hee Ho Chu ◽  
Jin Hyoung Kim ◽  
Ju Hyun Shim ◽  
Sang Min Yoon ◽  
Pyeong Hwa Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Portal Vein ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Correct Selection ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Entire Study ◽  
Treatment Type ◽  
Significant Difference

A combination of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus sorafenib or radiotherapy (RT) has demonstrated efficacy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Here, the two combined treatment approaches were compared in patients with HCC and portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT). Data from 307 patients treated with TACE plus RT (n = 203) or TACE plus sorafenib (n = 104) as first-line treatment for HCC with PVTT were retrospectively evaluated. Using the propensity model to correct selection bias, 87 patients were included from each treatment group. During follow up (median, 12 months) in the entire study population, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in the TACE plus RT group than in the TACE plus sorafenib group (6.5 vs. 4.3 months, respectively; p = 0.017 and 16.4 vs. 12 months, respectively; p = 0.007). Following propensity score matching, the median PFS and OS in the two groups showed no statistically significant difference. Multivariable analysis found no significant association between PFS or OS and the treatment type. In conclusion, this retrospective study of data from patients with advanced HCC with PVTT shows that PFS and OS did not differ significantly in patients treated with TACE plus RT and TACE plus sorafenib.

scholarly journals Impact of Extrahepatic Metastases on Overall Survival in Patients with Advanced Liver Dominant Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Subanalysis of the SORAMIC Trial

Liver Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 771-786
Author(s):  
Kerstin Schütte ◽  
Regina Schinner ◽  
Mathias P. Fabritius ◽  
Melina Möller ◽  
Christiane Kuhl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Pulmonary Metastases ◽  
Study Entry ◽  
Extrahepatic Disease ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Distant Organ ◽  
Extrahepatic Metastases ◽  
The Impact

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Extrahepatic spread is reported as a prognostic factor in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receiving systemic therapy. However, clinical studies have reported conflicting results for the clinical impact of the pattern of tumor progression during treatment and the role of new extrahepatic metastases in length of survival. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> To evaluate the impact of extrahepatic metastases on survival in patients with HCC treated with sorafenib or with a combination of sorafenib and selective internal radiation treatment (SIRT). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> SORAMIC is a randomized, controlled trial comprising diagnostic, local ablation, and palliative cohorts. In the palliative cohort, patients not eligible for transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) were randomized 11:10 to SIRT plus sorafenib (SIRT + sorafenib) or sorafenib alone. This exploratory subanalysis evaluated the impact of extrahepatic metastases on survival. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In the intent-to-treat cohort, 216 patients were randomized to SIRT + sorafenib and 208 to sorafenib alone. Seventeen patients with distant organ metastases (bone, <i>n</i> = 11; adrenal glands, <i>n</i> = 5; peritoneum, <i>n</i> = 1) and 262 without distant metastases at study entry were analyzed in this substudy. Patients with (Group A) and without (Group B) distant organ metastases at study entry presented with a median survival of 11.3 and 14.8 months, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.2807). During follow-up of patients with no organ metastases at baseline, extrahepatic disease progression occurred in 50 patients (19.1%). No statistically significant difference in survival was observed between patients without extrahepatic progression and those with new extrahepatic disease during treatment (14.8 vs. 14.9 months; <i>p</i> = 0.6483). Development of new pulmonary metastases during treatment significantly shortened median survival (7.6 vs. 15.0 months, <i>p</i> = 0.0060). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> This subanalysis of the SORAMIC trial suggests that in patients with liver-dominant advanced HCC, metastases to distant organs with the exception of pulmonary metastases do not in general exert a negative impact on patient prognosis. The choice of palliative treatment should incorporate a personalized analysis of the pattern of tumor distribution.

scholarly journals First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 931
Author(s):  
Chi-Leung Chiang ◽  
Sik-Kwan Chan ◽  
Shing-Fung Lee ◽  
Horace Cheuk-Wai Choi
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Using Data

Background: The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo–bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo–bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo–bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Atezo–bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo–bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo–bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo–bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo–bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo–bev cost-effective. Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness of atezo–bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document