F Bernard-Arnoux1, M Lamure1, F Ducray1, G Aulagner1, J Honnorat1, X Armoiry1. 1. Université de Lyon, Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France (F.B.-A., M.L.); Neuro-oncology Department, Hôpital Neurologique Pierre Wertheimer, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Institut NeuroMyoGene INSERM U1217/CNRS UMR 5310, University of Lyon, University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France (F.D., J.H.); Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Pharmacy Department/UMR CNRS 5510 MATEIS, University of Lyon, University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Bron, France (G.A.); Hospices Civils de Lyon, Délégation à la Recherche Clinique et à l'Innovation, Cellule Innovation/UMR CNRS 5510 MATEIS, Bron, France (X.A.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is strong concern about the costs associated with adding tumor-treating fields (TTF) therapy to standard first-line treatment for glioblastoma (GBM). Hence, we aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of TTF therapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with GBM. METHODS: We developed a 3-health-state Markov model. The perspective was that of the French Health Insurance, and the horizon was lifetime. We calculated the transition probabilities from the survival parameters reported in the EF-14 trial. The main outcome measure was incremental effectiveness expressed as life-years gained (LYG). Input costs were derived from the literature. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/LYG. We used 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate the model uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, adding TTF therapy to standard of care resulted in increases of life expectancy of 4.08 months (0.34 LYG) and €185 476 per patient. The ICER was €549 909/LYG. The discounted ICER was €596 411/LYG. Parameters with the most influence on ICER were the cost of TTF therapy, followed equally by overall survival and progression-free survival in both arms. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 95% confidence interval of the ICER of €447 017/LYG to €745 805/LYG with 0% chance to be cost-effective at a threshold of €100 000/LYG. CONCLUSION: The ICER of TTF therapy at first-line treatment is far beyond conventional thresholds due to the prohibitive announced cost of the device. Strong price regulation by health authorities could make this technology more affordable and consequently accessible to patients.
BACKGROUND: There is strong concern about the costs associated with adding tumor-treating fields (TTF) therapy to standard first-line treatment for glioblastoma (GBM). Hence, we aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of TTF therapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with GBM. METHODS: We developed a 3-health-state Markov model. The perspective was that of the French Health Insurance, and the horizon was lifetime. We calculated the transition probabilities from the survival parameters reported in the EF-14 trial. The main outcome measure was incremental effectiveness expressed as life-years gained (LYG). Input costs were derived from the literature. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/LYG. We used 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate the model uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, adding TTF therapy to standard of care resulted in increases of life expectancy of 4.08 months (0.34 LYG) and €185 476 per patient. The ICER was €549 909/LYG. The discounted ICER was €596 411/LYG. Parameters with the most influence on ICER were the cost of TTF therapy, followed equally by overall survival and progression-free survival in both arms. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 95% confidence interval of the ICER of €447 017/LYG to €745 805/LYG with 0% chance to be cost-effective at a threshold of €100 000/LYG. CONCLUSION: The ICER of TTF therapy at first-line treatment is far beyond conventional thresholds due to the prohibitive announced cost of the device. Strong price regulation by health authorities could make this technology more affordable and consequently accessible to patients.
Authors: Victor Barzey; Michael B Atkins; Louis P Garrison; Yumi Asukai; Srividya Kotapati; John R Penrod Journal: J Med Econ Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: Daniel A Goldstein; Qiushi Chen; Turgay Ayer; David H Howard; Joseph Lipscomb; Bassel F El-Rayes; Christopher R Flowers Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Olivier L Chinot; Wolfgang Wick; Warren Mason; Roger Henriksson; Frank Saran; Ryo Nishikawa; Antoine F Carpentier; Khe Hoang-Xuan; Petr Kavan; Dana Cernea; Alba A Brandes; Magalie Hilton; Lauren Abrey; Timothy Cloughesy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark R Gilbert; James J Dignam; Terri S Armstrong; Jeffrey S Wefel; Deborah T Blumenthal; Michael A Vogelbaum; Howard Colman; Arnab Chakravarti; Stephanie Pugh; Minhee Won; Robert Jeraj; Paul D Brown; Kurt A Jaeckle; David Schiff; Volker W Stieber; David G Brachman; Maria Werner-Wasik; Ivo W Tremont-Lukats; Erik P Sulman; Kenneth D Aldape; Walter J Curran; Minesh P Mehta Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A M Henaine; N Paubel; F Ducray; G Diebold; D Frappaz; J Guyotat; S Cartalat-Carel; G Aulagner; D Hartmann; J Honnorat; X Armoiry Journal: J Clin Pharm Ther Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: G Diebold; F Ducray; A-M Henaine; D Frappaz; J Guyotat; S Cartalat-Carel; V Breant; A Fouquet; G Aulagner; J Honnorat; X Armoiry Journal: J Clin Pharm Ther Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Matthias Preusser; Michael Lim; David A Hafler; David A Reardon; John H Sampson Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Sandeep Mittal; Neil V Klinger; Sharon K Michelhaugh; Geoffrey R Barger; Susan C Pannullo; Csaba Juhász Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Jacob J Mandel; Shlomit Yust-Katz; Akash J Patel; David Cachia; Diane Liu; Minjeong Park; Ying Yuan; Thomas A Kent; John F de Groot Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 12.300