Martin Connock1, Peter Auguste1, Claude Dussart2, Jacques Guyotat3, Xavier Armoiry4,5,6. 1. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry, CV47AL, UK. 2. University of Lyon, EA 4129 P2S (Parcours, Santé, Systémique), Lyon, France. 3. Pierre Wertheimer Hospital, Neurosurgery Department, Lyon, France. 4. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry, CV47AL, UK. xavier.armoiry@univ-lyon1.fr. 5. Pharmacy Department, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France. xavier.armoiry@univ-lyon1.fr. 6. Public Health Department, School of Pharmacy (ISPB)/ UMR CNRS MATEIS, Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, University of Lyon, 8 Avenue Rockefeller, 69008, Lyon, France. xavier.armoiry@univ-lyon1.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A first cost-effectiveness analysis has raised a strong concern regarding the cost of tumor treatment fields (TTF) added to maintenance temozolomide for patients with glioblastoma. This evaluation was based on effectiveness outcomes from an interim analysis of the pivotal trial, moreover it used a "standard" Markov model. Our objective was to update the cost-effectiveness evaluation using the more flexible potential of the "partitioned survival" model design and using the latest effectiveness data. METHODS: We developed the model with three mutually exclusive health states: stable disease, progressive disease, and dead. Good fit parametric models were developed for overall survival and progression free survival and these generated clinically plausible extrapolations beyond the observed data. We adopted the perspective of the French national health insurance and used a 20-year time horizon. Results were expressed as cost/life-years (LY) gained (LYG). RESULTS: The base case model generated incremental benefit of 0.604 LY at a cost of €453,848 which, after 4% annual discounting of benefits and costs, yielded an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €510,273/LYG. Using sensitivity analyses and bootstrapping methods results were found to be relatively robust and were only sensitive to TTF device costs and the modelling of overall survival. To achieve an ICER below €100,000/LYG would require a reduction in TTF device cost of approximately 85%. CONCLUSIONS: Using a different type of model and updated survival outcomes, our results show TTF remains an intervention that is not cost-effective, which greatly restrains its diffusion to potentially eligible patients.
PURPOSE: A first cost-effectiveness analysis has raised a strong concern regarding the cost of tumor treatment fields (TTF) added to maintenance temozolomide for patients with glioblastoma. This evaluation was based on effectiveness outcomes from an interim analysis of the pivotal trial, moreover it used a "standard" Markov model. Our objective was to update the cost-effectiveness evaluation using the more flexible potential of the "partitioned survival" model design and using the latest effectiveness data. METHODS: We developed the model with three mutually exclusive health states: stable disease, progressive disease, and dead. Good fit parametric models were developed for overall survival and progression free survival and these generated clinically plausible extrapolations beyond the observed data. We adopted the perspective of the French national health insurance and used a 20-year time horizon. Results were expressed as cost/life-years (LY) gained (LYG). RESULTS: The base case model generated incremental benefit of 0.604 LY at a cost of €453,848 which, after 4% annual discounting of benefits and costs, yielded an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €510,273/LYG. Using sensitivity analyses and bootstrapping methods results were found to be relatively robust and were only sensitive to TTF device costs and the modelling of overall survival. To achieve an ICER below €100,000/LYG would require a reduction in TTF device cost of approximately 85%. CONCLUSIONS: Using a different type of model and updated survival outcomes, our results show TTF remains an intervention that is not cost-effective, which greatly restrains its diffusion to potentially eligible patients.
Authors: Marcel Seiz; Ulrich Krafft; Christian F Freyschlag; Christel Weiss; Kirsten Schmieder; Frank Lohr; Frederik Wenz; Claudius Thomé; Jochen Tuettenberg Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: R Garside; M Pitt; R Anderson; G Rogers; M Dyer; S Mealing; M Somerville; A Price; K Stein Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Leida M Lamers; Roger Stupp; Martin J van den Bent; Maiwenn J Al; Thierry Gorlia; Jean-Blaise Wasserfallen; Nicole Mittmann; Soo Jin Seung; Ralph Crott; Carin A Uyl-de Groot Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Martin J B Taphoorn; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Anouk Allgeier; Barbara Fisher; Karl Belanger; Peter Hau; Alba A Brandes; Johanna Gijtenbeek; Christine Marosi; Charles J Vecht; Karima Mokhtari; Pieter Wesseling; Salvador Villa; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Thierry Gorlia; Michael Weller; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; René-Olivier Mirimanoff Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Roger Stupp; Sophie Taillibert; Andrew Kanner; William Read; David Steinberg; Benoit Lhermitte; Steven Toms; Ahmed Idbaih; Manmeet S. Ahluwalia; Karen Fink; Francesco Di Meco; Frank Lieberman; Jay-Jiguang Zhu; Giuseppe Stragliotto; David Tran; Steven Brem; Andreas Hottinger; Eilon D. Kirson; Gitit Lavy-Shahaf; Uri Weinberg; Chae-Yong Kim; Sun-Ha Paek; Garth Nicholas; Jordi Bruna; Hal Hirte; Michael Weller; Yoram Palti; Monika E. Hegi; Zvi Ram Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Aleksandrs Krigers; Daniel Pinggera; Matthias Demetz; Lisa-Marie Kornberger; Johannes Kerschbaumer; Claudius Thomé; Christian F Freyschlag Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.086