M Duong1, E Wright2, L Yin1, I Martin-Nunez1, P Ghatage3, M Fung-Kee-Fung4. 1. Hoffmann-La Roche, Mississauga, ON. 2. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB. 4. The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The overall survival (os) analysis of the icon7 trial demonstrated that frontline ovarian cancer patients with a high risk of progression (stage iii suboptimally debulked, and stage iii or iv with unresectable disease) benefited from the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy compared with standard chemotherapy alone. The objective of the present study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness, from a Canadian publicly funded perspective, of adding bevacizumab to frontline treatment of ovarian cancer at high risk of progression. METHODS: An area-under-the-curve, Markov-structured model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments. Long-term progression-free survival (pfs) and os were extracted from the icon7 trial (subgroup at high risk of relapse) and extrapolated by parametric time-to-event functions over a time horizon of 10 years. Canadian pfs health state utility values were obtained from the EQ-5D (EuroQoL Group, Rotterdam, Netherlands) questionnaires in the icon7 high-risk patient population. Canadian post-progression utility values were consistent with those for other gynecologic cancers. Cost inputs were informed by public sources. An annual 5% efficacy and cost discount rate was applied. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Ovarian cancer patients at high risk of progression receiving bevacizumab plus standard chemotherapy experienced a mean incremental quality-adjusted life year (qaly) gain of 0.374 years. At an additional cost of $35,901.54, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) for the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy, relative to standard chemotherapy alone, was $95,942 per qaly. CONCLUSIONS: No formal health technology assessment willingness-to-pay threshold exists in Canada. However, at a threshold of $100,000 per qaly, bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy is a cost-effective alternative for ovarian cancer patients who are at high risk of progression (stage iii suboptimally debulked, and stage iii or iv with unresectable disease). Using the $100,000 per qaly threshold in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, it was determined that, compared with standard chemotherapy, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy is cost-effective in 56% of tested scenarios.
BACKGROUND: The overall survival (os) analysis of the icon7 trial demonstrated that frontline ovarian cancerpatients with a high risk of progression (stage iii suboptimally debulked, and stage iii or iv with unresectable disease) benefited from the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy compared with standard chemotherapy alone. The objective of the present study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness, from a Canadian publicly funded perspective, of adding bevacizumab to frontline treatment of ovarian cancer at high risk of progression. METHODS: An area-under-the-curve, Markov-structured model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments. Long-term progression-free survival (pfs) and os were extracted from the icon7 trial (subgroup at high risk of relapse) and extrapolated by parametric time-to-event functions over a time horizon of 10 years. Canadian pfs health state utility values were obtained from the EQ-5D (EuroQoL Group, Rotterdam, Netherlands) questionnaires in the icon7 high-risk patient population. Canadian post-progression utility values were consistent with those for other gynecologic cancers. Cost inputs were informed by public sources. An annual 5% efficacy and cost discount rate was applied. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS:Ovarian cancerpatients at high risk of progression receiving bevacizumab plus standard chemotherapy experienced a mean incremental quality-adjusted life year (qaly) gain of 0.374 years. At an additional cost of $35,901.54, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) for the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy, relative to standard chemotherapy alone, was $95,942 per qaly. CONCLUSIONS: No formal health technology assessment willingness-to-pay threshold exists in Canada. However, at a threshold of $100,000 per qaly, bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy is a cost-effective alternative for ovarian cancerpatients who are at high risk of progression (stage iii suboptimally debulked, and stage iii or iv with unresectable disease). Using the $100,000 per qaly threshold in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, it was determined that, compared with standard chemotherapy, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy is cost-effective in 56% of tested scenarios.
Entities:
Keywords:
Canada; Ovarian cancer; bevacizumab; cost-effectiveness; decision-making; health economics; health technology assessments; high-risk disease
Authors: A P M Heintz; F Odicino; P Maisonneuve; M A Quinn; J L Benedet; W T Creasman; H Y S Ngan; S Pecorelli; U Beller Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Gavin C E Stuart; Henry Kitchener; Monica Bacon; Andreas duBois; Michael Friedlander; Jonathan Ledermann; Christian Marth; Tate Thigpen; Edward Trimble Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Sebastian Hinde; David Epstein; Adrian Cook; Andrew Embleton; Timothy Perren; Mark Sculpher Journal: Value Health Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Timothy J Perren; Ann Marie Swart; Jacobus Pfisterer; Jonathan A Ledermann; Eric Pujade-Lauraine; Gunnar Kristensen; Mark S Carey; Philip Beale; Andrés Cervantes; Christian Kurzeder; Andreas du Bois; Jalid Sehouli; Rainer Kimmig; Anne Stähle; Fiona Collinson; Sharadah Essapen; Charlie Gourley; Alain Lortholary; Frédéric Selle; Mansoor R Mirza; Arto Leminen; Marie Plante; Dan Stark; Wendi Qian; Mahesh K B Parmar; Amit M Oza Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert A Burger; Mark F Brady; Michael A Bookman; Gini F Fleming; Bradley J Monk; Helen Huang; Robert S Mannel; Howard D Homesley; Jeffrey Fowler; Benjamin E Greer; Matthew Boente; Michael J Birrer; Sharon X Liang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andreas du Bois; Alexander Reuss; Eric Pujade-Lauraine; Philipp Harter; Isabelle Ray-Coquard; Jacobus Pfisterer Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: John K Chan; Thomas J Herzog; Lilian Hu; Bradley J Monk; Tuyen Kiet; Kevin Blansit; Daniel S Kapp; Xinhua Yu Journal: Oncologist Date: 2014-04-10
Authors: Amit M Oza; Adrian D Cook; Jacobus Pfisterer; Andrew Embleton; Jonathan A Ledermann; Eric Pujade-Lauraine; Gunnar Kristensen; Mark S Carey; Philip Beale; Andrés Cervantes; Tjoung-Won Park-Simon; Gordon Rustin; Florence Joly; Mansoor R Mirza; Marie Plante; Michael Quinn; Andrés Poveda; Gordon C Jayson; Dan Stark; Ann Marie Swart; Laura Farrelly; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K B Parmar; Timothy J Perren Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Gursharan K Sohi; Jordan Levy; Victoria Delibasic; Laura E Davis; Alyson L Mahar; Elmira Amirazodi; Craig C Earle; Julie Hallet; Ahmed Hammad; Rajan Shah; Nicole Mittmann; Natalie G Coburn Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2021-03-09
Authors: Alexander J Cortez; Patrycja Tudrej; Katarzyna A Kujawa; Katarzyna M Lisowska Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2017-12-16 Impact factor: 3.333