PURPOSE: To assess the efficiency of pazopanib compared with trabectedin in the treatment of adult patients with selective subtypes of advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) after chemotherapy failure. METHODS: The progression of STS was modeled using a partitioned survival analysis model. Survival curves for pazopanib and trabectedin were modeled using data from PALETTE phase III clinical trial and based on unadjusted indirect comparison. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Spanish National Health System perspective was considered over a 10-year time horizon, including direct health care costs (<euro>, 2014). A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The robustness of the results was evaluated using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: Pazopanib was associated with better health outcomes than trabectedin (0.705 versus 0.686 QALY). Pazopanib also showed lower direct health care costs (<euro>21,861 versus <euro>45,338), mainly due to lower cost of pharmacological treatment (<euro>13,762 versus <euro>33,392), administration (<euro>57 versus <euro>2,955) and AE management (<euro>658 versus <euro>1,695) costs. PSA confirmed that pazopanib was a dominant option in 71% of the simulations performed. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, and from a health economics perspective, pazopanib was the option of choice versus trabectedin in the treatment of adult patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma after chemotherapy failure.
PURPOSE: To assess the efficiency of pazopanib compared with trabectedin in the treatment of adult patients with selective subtypes of advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) after chemotherapy failure. METHODS: The progression of STS was modeled using a partitioned survival analysis model. Survival curves for pazopanib and trabectedin were modeled using data from PALETTE phase III clinical trial and based on unadjusted indirect comparison. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Spanish National Health System perspective was considered over a 10-year time horizon, including direct health care costs (<euro>, 2014). A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The robustness of the results was evaluated using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS:Pazopanib was associated with better health outcomes than trabectedin (0.705 versus 0.686 QALY). Pazopanib also showed lower direct health care costs (<euro>21,861 versus <euro>45,338), mainly due to lower cost of pharmacological treatment (<euro>13,762 versus <euro>33,392), administration (<euro>57 versus <euro>2,955) and AE management (<euro>658 versus <euro>1,695) costs. PSA confirmed that pazopanib was a dominant option in 71% of the simulations performed. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, and from a health economics perspective, pazopanib was the option of choice versus trabectedin in the treatment of adult patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma after chemotherapy failure.
Authors: Winette T A van der Graaf; Jean-Yves Blay; Sant P Chawla; Dong-Wan Kim; Binh Bui-Nguyen; Paolo G Casali; Patrick Schöffski; Massimo Aglietta; Arthur P Staddon; Yasuo Beppu; Axel Le Cesne; Hans Gelderblom; Ian R Judson; Nobuhito Araki; Monia Ouali; Sandrine Marreaud; Rachel Hodge; Mohammed R Dewji; Corneel Coens; George D Demetri; Christopher D Fletcher; Angelo Paolo Dei Tos; Peter Hohenberger Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A M Glenny; D G Altman; F Song; C Sakarovitch; J J Deeks; R D'Amico; M Bradburn; A J Eastwood Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Gemma Gatta; Jan Maarten van der Zwan; Paolo G Casali; Sabine Siesling; Angelo Paolo Dei Tos; Ian Kunkler; Renée Otter; Lisa Licitra; Sandra Mallone; Andrea Tavilla; Annalisa Trama; Riccardo Capocaccia Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2011-10-25 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Xavier García-Del-Muro; Antonio López-Pousa; Joan Maurel; Javier Martín; Javier Martínez-Trufero; Antonio Casado; Auxiliadora Gómez-España; Joaquín Fra; Josefina Cruz; Andrés Poveda; Andrés Meana; Carlos Pericay; Ricardo Cubedo; Jordi Rubió; Ana De Juan; Nuria Laínez; Juan Antonio Carrasco; Raquel de Andrés; José M Buesa Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N Fleeman; A Bagust; A Boland; R Dickson; Y Dundar; M Moonan; J Oyee; M Blundell; H Davis; A Armstrong; N Thorp Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2011 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Paul Swinburn; Andrew Lloyd; Paul Nathan; Toni K Choueiri; David Cella; Maureen P Neary Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: J M Coindre; P Terrier; L Guillou; V Le Doussal; F Collin; D Ranchère; X Sastre; M O Vilain; F Bonichon; B N'Guyen Bui Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: George D Demetri; Sant P Chawla; Margaret von Mehren; Paul Ritch; Laurence H Baker; Jean Y Blay; Kenneth R Hande; Mary L Keohan; Brian L Samuels; Scott Schuetze; Claudia Lebedinsky; Yusri A Elsayed; Miguel A Izquierdo; Javier Gómez; Youn C Park; Axel Le Cesne Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-03 Impact factor: 44.544