Hong-Dou Chen1,2, Jing Zhou1,2, Feng Wen1,2, Peng-Fei Zhang1,2, Ke-Xun Zhou1,2, Han-Rui Zheng2,3, Yu Yang4,5, Qiu Li6,7. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. West China Biostatistics and Cost-Benefit Analysis Center, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. yangyuflying@hotmail.com. 5. West China Biostatistics and Cost-Benefit Analysis Center, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. yangyuflying@hotmail.com. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. fbqiu9@163.com. 7. West China Biostatistics and Cost-Benefit Analysis Center, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. fbqiu9@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Apatinib, a third-line or later treatment for advanced gastric cancer (aGC), was shown to improve overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in the phase III trial. Given the modest benefit with high costs, we further evaluated the cost-effectiveness of apatinib for patients with chemotherapy-refractory aGC. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the disease process of aGC (PFS, progressive disease, and death) and estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of apatinib to placebo. The health outcomes and utility scores were derived from the phase III trial and previously published sources, respectively. Total costs were calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health-care payer. Sensitivity analysis was used to explore model uncertainties. RESULTS: Treatment with apatinib was estimated to provide an incremental 0.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $8113.86 compared with placebo, which resulted in an ICER of $90,154.00 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that across the wide variation of parameters, the ICER exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of $23,700.00 per QALY which was three times the Gross Domestic Product per Capita in China. CONCLUSIONS: Apatinib is not a cost-effective option for patients with aGC who experienced failure of at least two lines chemotherapy in China. However, for its positive clinical value and subliminal demand, apatinib can provide a new therapeutic option.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Apatinib, a third-line or later treatment for advanced gastric cancer (aGC), was shown to improve overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in the phase III trial. Given the modest benefit with high costs, we further evaluated the cost-effectiveness of apatinib for patients with chemotherapy-refractory aGC. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the disease process of aGC (PFS, progressive disease, and death) and estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of apatinib to placebo. The health outcomes and utility scores were derived from the phase III trial and previously published sources, respectively. Total costs were calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health-care payer. Sensitivity analysis was used to explore model uncertainties. RESULTS: Treatment with apatinib was estimated to provide an incremental 0.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $8113.86 compared with placebo, which resulted in an ICER of $90,154.00 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that across the wide variation of parameters, the ICER exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of $23,700.00 per QALY which was three times the Gross Domestic Product per Capita in China. CONCLUSIONS:Apatinib is not a cost-effective option for patients with aGC who experienced failure of at least two lines chemotherapy in China. However, for its positive clinical value and subliminal demand, apatinib can provide a new therapeutic option.
Authors: Steven C Cunningham; Farin Kamangar; Min P Kim; Sommer Hammoud; Raqeeb Haque; Anirban Maitra; Elizabeth Montgomery; Richard E Heitmiller; Michael A Choti; Keith D Lillemoe; John L Cameron; Charles J Yeo; Richard D Schulick Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Charles S Fuchs; Jiri Tomasek; Cho Jae Yong; Filip Dumitru; Rodolfo Passalacqua; Chanchal Goswami; Howard Safran; Lucas Vieira Dos Santos; Giuseppe Aprile; David R Ferry; Bohuslav Melichar; Mustapha Tehfe; Eldar Topuzov; John Raymond Zalcberg; Ian Chau; William Campbell; Choondal Sivanandan; Joanna Pikiel; Minori Koshiji; Yanzhi Hsu; Astra M Liepa; Ling Gao; Jonathan D Schwartz; Josep Tabernero Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Eric Van Cutsem; Vladimir M Moiseyenko; Sergei Tjulandin; Alejandro Majlis; Manuel Constenla; Corrado Boni; Adriano Rodrigues; Miguel Fodor; Yee Chao; Edouard Voznyi; Marie-Laure Risse; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel A Goldstein; Bilal B Ahmad; Qiushi Chen; Turgay Ayer; David H Howard; Joseph Lipscomb; Bassel F El-Rayes; Christopher R Flowers Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Giandomenico Roviello; Andrea Ravelli; Karol Polom; Roberto Petrioli; Luigi Marano; Daniele Marrelli; Franco Roviello; Daniele Generali Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: Axel Grothey; Eric Van Cutsem; Alberto Sobrero; Salvatore Siena; Alfredo Falcone; Marc Ychou; Yves Humblet; Olivier Bouché; Laurent Mineur; Carlo Barone; Antoine Adenis; Josep Tabernero; Takayuki Yoshino; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Richard M Goldberg; Daniel J Sargent; Frank Cihon; Lisa Cupit; Andrea Wagner; Dirk Laurent Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396