T E Delea1, J Amdahl1, H R Nakhaipour2, S C Manson3, A Wang1, N Fedor1, A Chit4. 1. Policy Analysis Inc. ( pai ), Brookline, MA, U.S.A. 2. Health Outcomes-Oncology, Medical Division, GlaxoSmithKline, Mississauga, ON. 3. Global Health Outcomes-Oncology, GlaxoSmith-Kline, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, Middlesex, U.K. 4. Health Outcomes-Oncology, Medical Division, GlaxoSmithKline, Mississauga, ON. ; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the phase iii palette trial of pazopanib compared with placebo in patients with advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (sts) who had received prior chemotherapy, pazopanib treatment was associated with improved progression-free survival (pfs). We used an economic model and data from palette and other sources to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in patients with advanced sts who had already received chemotherapy. METHODS: We developed a multistate model to estimate expected pfs, overall survival (os), lifetime sts treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) for patients receiving pazopanib or placebo as second-line therapy for advanced sts. Cost-effectiveness was calculated alternatively from the health care system and societal perspectives for the province of Quebec. Estimated pfs, os, incidence of adverse events, and utilities values for pazopanib and placebo were derived from the palette trial. Costs were obtained from published sources. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, pazopanib is estimated to increase qalys by 0.128. The incremental cost of pazopanib compared with placebo is CA$20,840 from the health care system perspective and CA$15,821 from the societal perspective. The cost per qaly gained with pazopanib in that comparison is CA$163,336 from the health care system perspective and CA$124,001 from the societal perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, pazopanib might be cost-effective from the Canadian health care system and societal perspectives depending on the threshold value used by reimbursement authorities to assess novel cancer therapies. Given the unmet need for effective treatments for advanced sts, pazopanib might nevertheless be an appropriate alternative to currently used treatments.
BACKGROUND: In the phase iii palette trial of pazopanib compared with placebo in patients with advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (sts) who had received prior chemotherapy, pazopanib treatment was associated with improved progression-free survival (pfs). We used an economic model and data from palette and other sources to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in patients with advanced sts who had already received chemotherapy. METHODS: We developed a multistate model to estimate expected pfs, overall survival (os), lifetime sts treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) for patients receiving pazopanib or placebo as second-line therapy for advanced sts. Cost-effectiveness was calculated alternatively from the health care system and societal perspectives for the province of Quebec. Estimated pfs, os, incidence of adverse events, and utilities values for pazopanib and placebo were derived from the palette trial. Costs were obtained from published sources. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, pazopanib is estimated to increase qalys by 0.128. The incremental cost of pazopanib compared with placebo is CA$20,840 from the health care system perspective and CA$15,821 from the societal perspective. The cost per qaly gained with pazopanib in that comparison is CA$163,336 from the health care system perspective and CA$124,001 from the societal perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, pazopanib might be cost-effective from the Canadian health care system and societal perspectives depending on the threshold value used by reimbursement authorities to assess novel cancer therapies. Given the unmet need for effective treatments for advanced sts, pazopanib might nevertheless be an appropriate alternative to currently used treatments.
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: 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: Marianne Ahlner Elmqvist; Marit S Jordhøy; Kristin Bjordal; Stein Kaasa; Magnus Jannert Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-06-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Raymond Ng; Baktiar Hasan; Nicole Mittmann; Marie Florescu; Frances A Shepherd; Keyue Ding; Charles Andrew Butts; Yvon Cormier; Gail Darling; Glenwood D Goss; Richard Inculet; Lesley Seymour; Timothy L Winton; William K Evans; Natasha B Leighl Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Santiago Zuluaga-Sanchez; Lisa M Hess; Sorrel E Wolowacz; Yulia D'yachkova; Emma Hawe; Adrian D Vickers; James A Kaye; David Bertwistle Journal: Sarcoma Date: 2018-03-26
Authors: Renée E Michels; Carlos H Arteaga; Michel L Peters; Ellen Kapiteijn; Carla M L Van Herpen; Marieke Krol Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 3.686