Kathryn E Marqueen1, Edward Kim2, Celina Ang3, Madhu Mazumdar4, Michael Buckstein1, Bart S Ferket4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 2. Department of Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 4. Institute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The recent sorafenib versus radioembolization in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH) and selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SIRveNIB) trials showed no statistically significant difference in overall survival for randomization to selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) versus sorafenib for locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, although SIRT was better tolerated. Given the high cost of both treatments, we investigated their comparative cost-effectiveness from a US healthcare sector perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We constructed a state-transition microsimulation model to simulate patients allocated to SIRT versus sorafenib according to an intention-to-treat principle. Hazard rates of disease progression and death were based on pooled individual patient data generated from the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials' Kaplan-Meier curves. Inputs for adverse events, treatment adherence, and quality of life utility weights were derived from trial data as well. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates and literature. We performed probabilistic sensitivity analysis and estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 5-year time horizon. We evaluated sensitivity to uncertainty of key model parameters. RESULTS: Costs were $78,859 v $58,397 (difference $20,462; 95% uncertainty interval $14,444 to 27,205) and QALYs were 0.88 v 0.87 (difference 0.02, -0.02 to 0.05) for sorafenib versus SIRT, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of sorafenib was $1,280,224/QALY. The likelihood that sorafenib would be cost effective did not exceed 1%, assuming cost-effectiveness thresholds up to $200k/QALY. If the monthly price of sorafenib decreased from $16,390 to below $7,000, the ICER of sorafenib fell below $200k/QALY, and an ICER < $100k/QALY was reached if the monthly price fell below $6,600. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib is unlikely to provide a gain in quality-adjusted survival compared with SIRT at an acceptable cost for the US healthcare sector. Only if the current price decreased by more than 50% would sorafenib be considered economically attractive.
PURPOSE: The recent sorafenib versus radioembolization in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH) and selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SIRveNIB) trials showed no statistically significant difference in overall survival for randomization to selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) versus sorafenib for locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, although SIRT was better tolerated. Given the high cost of both treatments, we investigated their comparative cost-effectiveness from a US healthcare sector perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We constructed a state-transition microsimulation model to simulate patients allocated to SIRT versus sorafenib according to an intention-to-treat principle. Hazard rates of disease progression and death were based on pooled individual patient data generated from the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials' Kaplan-Meier curves. Inputs for adverse events, treatment adherence, and quality of life utility weights were derived from trial data as well. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates and literature. We performed probabilistic sensitivity analysis and estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 5-year time horizon. We evaluated sensitivity to uncertainty of key model parameters. RESULTS: Costs were $78,859 v $58,397 (difference $20,462; 95% uncertainty interval $14,444 to 27,205) and QALYs were 0.88 v 0.87 (difference 0.02, -0.02 to 0.05) for sorafenib versus SIRT, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of sorafenib was $1,280,224/QALY. The likelihood that sorafenib would be cost effective did not exceed 1%, assuming cost-effectiveness thresholds up to $200k/QALY. If the monthly price of sorafenib decreased from $16,390 to below $7,000, the ICER of sorafenib fell below $200k/QALY, and an ICER < $100k/QALY was reached if the monthly price fell below $6,600. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib is unlikely to provide a gain in quality-adjusted survival compared with SIRT at an acceptable cost for the US healthcare sector. Only if the current price decreased by more than 50% would sorafenib be considered economically attractive.
Authors: Mercedes Iñarrairaegui; Kenneth G Thurston; Jose I Bilbao; Delia D'Avola; Macarena Rodriguez; Javier Arbizu; Antonio Martinez-Cuesta; Bruno Sangro Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2010-07-03 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Pierce K H Chow; Mihir Gandhi; Say-Beng Tan; Maung Win Khin; Ariunaa Khasbazar; Janus Ong; Su Pin Choo; Peng Chung Cheow; Chanisa Chotipanich; Kieron Lim; Laurentius A Lesmana; Tjakra W Manuaba; Boon Koon Yoong; Aloysius Raj; Chiong Soon Law; Ian H Y Cua; Rolley R Lobo; Catherine S C Teh; Yun Hwan Kim; Yun Won Jong; Ho-Seong Han; Si-Hyun Bae; Hyun-Ki Yoon; Rheun-Chuan Lee; Chien-Fu Hung; Cheng-Yuan Peng; Po-Chin Liang; Adam Bartlett; Kenneth Y Y Kok; Choon-Hua Thng; Albert Su-Chong Low; Anthony S W Goh; Kiang Hiong Tay; Richard H G Lo; Brian K P Goh; David C E Ng; Ganesh Lekurwale; Wei Ming Liew; Val Gebski; Kenneth S W Mak; Khee Chee Soo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ghassan K Abou-Alfa; Tim Meyer; Ann-Lii Cheng; Anthony B El-Khoueiry; Lorenza Rimassa; Baek-Yeol Ryoo; Irfan Cicin; Philippe Merle; YenHsun Chen; Joong-Won Park; Jean-Frederic Blanc; Luigi Bolondi; Heinz-Josef Klümpen; Stephen L Chan; Vittorina Zagonel; Tiziana Pressiani; Min-Hee Ryu; Alan P Venook; Colin Hessel; Anne E Borgman-Hagey; Gisela Schwab; Robin K Kelley Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Josep M Llovet; Sergio Ricci; Vincenzo Mazzaferro; Philip Hilgard; Edward Gane; Jean-Frédéric Blanc; Andre Cosme de Oliveira; Armando Santoro; Jean-Luc Raoul; Alejandro Forner; Myron Schwartz; Camillo Porta; Stefan Zeuzem; Luigi Bolondi; Tim F Greten; Peter R Galle; Jean-François Seitz; Ivan Borbath; Dieter Häussinger; Tom Giannaris; Minghua Shan; Marius Moscovici; Dimitris Voliotis; Jordi Bruix Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-07-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gillian D Sanders; Peter J Neumann; Anirban Basu; Dan W Brock; David Feeny; Murray Krahn; Karen M Kuntz; David O Meltzer; Douglas K Owens; Lisa A Prosser; Joshua A Salomon; Mark J Sculpher; Thomas A Trikalinos; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J C Alonso; I Casans; F M González; D Fuster; A Rodríguez; N Sánchez; I Oyagüez; R Burgos; A O Williams; N Espinoza Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2022-07-02 Impact factor: 2.847