Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib treatment in field practice for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Cost Effectiveness of Tremelimumab Plus Durvalumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the USA

BACKGROUND

Treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is challenging. Clinical trials have shown that Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab (STRIDE) offers clinical benefits as a first-line treatment for uHCC, but its cost effectiveness remains unknown in the USA.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of STRIDE (tremelimumab plus durvalumab) versus sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy as the first-line treatment for uHCC in the USA.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was constructed to assess the cost effectiveness of STRIDE compared to sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy as the first-line treatment for uHCC from the US societal perspective. The time horizon was 48 months with 1-month cycles. Seven parametric survival functions replicated survival curves from clinical trials, with the best-fitting model used to calculate survival probabilities. Costs, health utilities, and adverse events were included, with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the primary effectiveness measure. Both costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3%. In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, STRIDE was cost effective compared to sorafenib, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,995.51 per QALY gained, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. However, STRIDE was not cost effective compared to durvalumab monotherapy at the same threshold, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $754,408.92 per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that STRIDE was more likely to be cost effective than sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy when the willingness-to-pay exceeded $101,000 and $713,000, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The STRIDE regimen appears to be cost effective compared to sorafenib but not compared to durvalumab for first-line uHCC treatment in the USA. However, durvalumab has not yet been approved for uHCC in the USA. Future research should focus on long-term data and economic evaluations of other recommended biologics.

Recommended 10-Year Follow-Up Strategy for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Radiofrequency Ablation: A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

An optimal follow-up schedule for small (≤3-cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) remains unclear in clinical guidelines. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies in patients with small HCC after RFA.

METHODS

In total, 11,243 patients were collected from global institutions to calculate recurrence rates. Subsequently, a Markov model covering a 10-year period was developed to compare 25 surveillance strategies involving different surveillance techniques (computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography [US], and α-fetoprotein [AFP]) and intervals (3 or 6 months). The study endpoint was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which represented additional cost per incremental quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying the values of input parameters to observe the ICER.

RESULTS

In a base case analysis, the dominant strategy was CT every 3 months during an initial 2 years, followed by semiannual CT, and then switch to biannual the combination of US screening and AFP testing after 5 years (m3_CT-m6_CT-m6_USAFP), with an ICER of $68,570.92 compared with the "not followed" strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the ICER consistently remained below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.00. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, m3_CT-m6_CT-m6_USAFP was the most cost-effective approach in 95.6% of simulated scenarios at a willingness-to-pay threshold.

DISCUSSION

For small HCC after RFA, the recommended follow-up strategy is CT, with scans scheduled every 3 months for the first 2 years, every 6 months thereafter, and transition to biannual the combination of US screening and AFP testing after 5 years.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab plus tremelimumab as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

The HIMALAYA trial found that durvalumab plus tremelimumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with sorafenib.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus tremelimumab compared with sorafenib in the first-line HCC setting.

Design

A Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods

We created a Markov model to compare healthcare costs and clinical outcomes of HCC patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab in the first-line setting compared with sorafenib. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials. Lifetime direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab compared with sorafenib from a US payer's perspective.

Results

In the base case, first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab was associated with an improvement of 0.29 QALYs compared with sorafenib. While both treatment strategies were associated with considerable lifetime expenditures, first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab was less expensive than sorafenib ($188,405 vs $218,584). The incremental net monetary benefit for durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus sorafenib was $72,762 (valuing QALYs at $150,000 each). The results of durvalumab plus tremelimumab were better in terms of costs and health outcomes in patients with HBV-related HCC and high alpha-fetoprotein levels.

Conclusion

First-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab was estimated to be dominant for the treatment of unresectable HCC compared with sorafenib from a US payer's perspective.

Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance Strategies in Patients With Compensated Liver Cirrhosis in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of 4 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance strategies in the United Kingdom, the GAAD algorithm, which combines Gender (biological sex) and Age with Elecsys® biomarker assays, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and protein induced by vitamin K absence-II (previously Des-γ-carboxy prothrombin); ultrasound (US); US + AFP and GAAD + US.

METHODS

A de novo microsimulation state-transition Markov model was developed in Microsoft Excel® from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Service to calculate life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, incremental CE ratios, and net monetary benefits. Parameters were sourced from peer-reviewed published literature, national guidelines, and public cost databases. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of parameter and structural uncertainty on the results.

RESULTS

In a simulated cohort of 100 000 patients, discounted costs and QALYs per patient were £8663 and 6·066 for US, £9095 and 6·076 for US + AFP, £8719 and 6·078 for GAAD alone, and £9114 and 6·086 for GAAD + US. At a CE threshold of £20 000/QALY, GAAD was the most cost-effective strategy; however, although most costly, GAAD + US was the most clinically effective. Sensitivity and scenario analyses indicated that HCC incidence along with costs associated with diagnostic performance influence CE.

CONCLUSION

Considering the cost of US and low incidence of HCC in the United Kingdom, this study suggests that GAAD alone or in combination with US are cost-effective surveillance strategies compared with US and US + AFP. Although GAAD + US showed the highest QALY increase, GAAD alone is considered preferable regarding CE; however, better performance estimates for GAAD + US are needed to confirm.

Promising first-line immuno-combination therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death all over the world, and brings a heavy social economic burden especially in China. Several immuno-combination therapies have shown promising efficacy in the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC and are widely used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, which combination is the most affordable one is unknown. Our study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the immuno-combinations as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC from the perspective of Chinese payers.

METHODS

A Markov model was built according to five multicenter, phase III, open-label, randomized trials (Himalaya, IMbrave150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, LEAP-002) to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tremelimumab plus durvalumab (STRIDE), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B), sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) (S + B), camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (C + R), and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (P + L). Three disease states were included: progression free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) as well as death. Medical costs were searched from West China Hospital, published literatures or the Red Book. Cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated to compare costs among different combinations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robust of the model.

RESULTS

The total cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of C + R, S + B, P + L, A + B and STRIDE were $12,109.27 and 0.91, $26,961.60 and 1.12, $55,382.53 and 0.83, $70,985.06 and 0.90, $84,589.01 and 0.73, respectively, resulting in the most cost-effective strategy of C + R with CER of $13,306.89 per QALY followed by S + B with CER of $24,072.86 per QALY. Compared with C + R, the ICER of S + B strategy was $70,725.38 per QALY, which would become the most cost-effective when the willing-to-pay threshold exceeded $73,500/QALY. In the subgroup analysis, with the application of Asia results in Leap-002 trial, the model results were the same as global data. In the sensitivity analysis, with the variation of parameters, the results were robust.

CONCLUSION

As one of the promising immuno-combination therapies in the first-line systemic treatment of HCC, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib demonstrated the potential to be the most cost-effective strategy, which warranted further studies to best inform the real-world clinical practices.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors as first-line therapy in advanced biliary tract cancer

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatments for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC).Methods: This pharmacoeconomic evaluation employed the fractional polynomial network meta-analysis and partitioned survival model. Costs and utilities were collected from the literature and databases. Sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainties.Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of first-line treatment strategies were $761,371.37 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or $206,222.53/QALY in the US and $354,678.79 /QALY or $213,874.22/QALY in China, respectively. The sensitivity analysis results were largely consistent with the base case.Conclusion: From the US and Chinese payer perspectives, adding durvalumab or pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is unlikely to be cost effective in the first-line setting for advanced BTC.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update an evidence-based guideline to assist in clinical decision-making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to update the 2020 guideline on systemic therapy for HCC. The panel updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through October 2023 and updated recommendations.

RESULTS

Ten new RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were added to the evidence base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) or durvalumab + tremelimumab (durva + treme) may be offered first-line for patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Where there are contraindications to these therapies, sorafenib, lenvatinib, or durvalumab may be offered first-line. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), ramucirumab (for patients with alpha-fetoprotein [AFP] ≥400 ng/mL), durva + treme, or nivolumab + ipilimumab (nivo + ipi) may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with durva + treme, second-line therapy with a TKI is recommended. Following first-line treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, ramucirumab (AFP ≥400 ng/mL), nivo + ipi, or durvalumab; atezo + bev or durva + treme may be considered for patients who did not have access to these therapies in the first-line setting, and do not have contraindications. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Third-line therapy may be considered in Child-Pugh class A patients with good PS, using one of the agents listed previously that has a nonidentical mechanism of action with previously received therapy. A cautious approach to systemic therapy is recommended for patients with Child-Pugh class B advanced HCC. Further guidance on choosing between options is included within the guideline.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Carbon-Ion Radiation Therapy and Transarterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Purpose

Carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) is a treatment option for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that results in better outcomes with fewer side effects despite its high cost. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CIRT for HCC from medical and economic perspectives by comparing CIRT and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with localized HCC who were ineligible for surgery or radiofrequency ablation.

Methods and Materials

This study included 34 patients with HCC who underwent either CIRT or TACE at Gunma University between 2007 and 2016. Patient characteristics were employed to select each treatment group using the propensity score matching method. Life years were used as the outcome indicator. The CIRT technical fee was ¥3,140,000; however, a second CIRT treatment on the same organ within 2 years was performed for free.

Results

Our study showed that CIRT was dominant over TACE, as the CIRT group had a higher life year (point estimate, 2.75 vs 2.41) and lower total cost (mean, ¥4,974,278 vs ¥5,284,524). We conducted a sensitivity analysis to validate the results because of the higher variance in medical costs in the TACE group, which demonstrated that CIRT maintained its cost effectiveness with a high acceptability rate.

Conclusions

CIRT is a cost-effective treatment option for localized HCC cases unsuitable for surgical resection.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the perspective of the Chinese health service system.

METHODS

A lifetime partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed to cost-effectively analyze Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC. The clinical and safety data were derived from a recently randomized clinical trial (RATIONALE-301). Utilities were collected from the published literature. Costs were obtained from an open-access database (http://www.yaozh.com) and previous studies. The model cycle was 21 days, according to the RATIONALE-301 study, and the simulation period was patients' lifetime. Long-term direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were determined. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation index. one-way sensitivity analysis (OSWA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to analyze the uncertainty of parameters and to adjust and verify the stability of the baseline results.

RESULTS

The Tislelizumab group generated a cost of $39,746.34 and brought health benefits to 2.146 QALYs, while the cost and utility of the Sorafenib group were $26750.95 and 1.578 QALYs, respectively. The Tislelizumab group increased QALYs by 0.568, the incremental cost was $12995.39, and the ICER was $22869.64/QALY, lower than the willingness to pay threshold (WTP). OSWA results showed that the utility of progressed disease (PD), cost of Camrelizumab, and cost of Tislelizumab were the main factors affecting the ICER. PSA results showed that, within 1000 times the Monte Carlo simulation, the cost of the Tislelizumab group was lower than three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China ($37653/QALY). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) revealed that when WTP was no less than $12251.00, the Tislelizumab group was the dominant scheme, and the economic advantage grew with an increasing WTP. When WTP ≥ $19000.00, the Tislelizumab group became the absolute economic advantage.

CONCLUSION

Under the current economic conditions in China, the Tislelizumab therapeutic scheme is more cost-effective than the Sorafenib therapeutic scheme for treating patients with unresectable HCC.

Multidisciplinary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2023: Italian practice Treatment Guidelines of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery (AICEP), Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO), Italian Association of Radiology and Clinical Oncology (AIRO), Italian Society of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnostic Cytology (SIAPeC-IAP), Italian Society of Surgery (SIC), Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), Italian Organ Transplant Society (SITO), and Association of Patients with Hepatitis and Liver Disease (EpaC) - Part II - Non-surgical treatments

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of its management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the second part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and non-surgical treatments of HCC.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Non-Contrast Abbreviated Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance in Cirrhosis

Background/Aims

Ultrasonography has a low sensitivity for detecting early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhotic patients. Non-contrast abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (aMRI) demonstrated a comparable performance to that of magnetic resonance imaging without the risk of contrast media exposure and at a lower cost than that of full diagnostic MRI. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of non-contrast aMRI for HCC surveillance in cirrhotic patients, using ultrasonography with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) as a reference.

Methods

Cost-utility analysis was performed using a Markov model in Thailand and the United States. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated using the total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained in each strategy. Surveillance protocols were considered cost-effective based on a willingness-to-pay value of $4,665 (160,000 Thai Baht) in Thailand and $50,000 in the United States.

Results

aMRI was cost-effective in both countries with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $3,667/QALY in Thailand and $37,062/QALY in the United States. Patient-level microsimulations showed consistent findings that aMRI was cost-effective in both countries. By probabilistic sensitivity analysis, aMRI was found to be more cost-effective than combined ultrasonography and AFP with a probability of 0.77 in Thailand and 0.98 in the United States. By sensitivity analyses, annual HCC incidence was revealed as the most influential factor affecting cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of aMRI increased in settings with a higher HCC incidence. At a higher HCC incidence, aMRI would remain cost-effective at a higher aMRI-to-ultrasonography with AFP cost ratio.

Conclusions

Compared to ultrasonography with AFP, non-contrast aMRI is a cost-effective strategy for HCC surveillance and may be useful for such surveillance in cirrhotic patients, especially in those with high HCC risks.

Comparative analysis of disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to systematically analyse methodological and structural assumptions utilised in model-based health economic evaluations of systemic advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) therapies, discuss the existing challenges, and develop methodological recommendations for future models in advanced HCC.

METHODS

We performed literature searches using five databases (Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Econlit, and CNKI) up to December 4, 2022. Technology appraisals from Canada, England, Australia, and the United States were also considered. Model-based full economic evaluations of systemic advanced HCC therapies in English or Chinese met the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist.

RESULTS

Of 12,863 records retrieved, 55 were eligible for inclusion. Markov model (n = 29, 53%) and partitioned survival model (n = 27, 49%) were the most commonly used modelling techniques. Most studies were based on health-state-driven structure (n = 51, 93%), followed by treatment-line-driven structure (n = 2, 4%) and combination structure (n = 1, 2%). Only three studies (5%) adopted external real-world data to extrapolate the overall survival or calibrate the extrapolation. Few studies reported the assumptions of transition probabilities. Utility modelling approaches were state-based (n = 51, 93%) and time-to-death (n = 1, 2%). Only 13 studies (24%) reported five types of model validation. Economic evaluation results of specific treatment strategies varied among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced HCC has adopted various modelling approaches and assumptions, leading to marked uncertainties in results. By proposing methodological recommendations, we suggest that future model-based studies for health economic evaluation of HCC therapies should follow good modelling practice guidelines and improve modelling methods to generate reliable health and economic evidence.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of transarterial chemoembolization combined with lenvatinib as the first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Purpose: Results from the LAUNCH trial suggest transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in combination with lenvatinib is significantly more effective than lenvatinib as a first-line treatment option for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the cost of TACE is substantial. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of TACE in combination with lenvatinib (TACE-LEN) with that of lenvatinib alone as the first-line treatment for advanced HCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: Markov models of different health states were constructed to simulate first-line treatment, disease progression, and survival in patients with advanced HCC. Clinical efficacy was obtained from the LAUNCH trial. The cost of drugs was sourced from national tender prices, and the treatment cost of weight-decreased was obtained from the Fujian Provincial Bureau of Prices. Other costs and utility values were based on the published literature. Total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comprised the model output. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate model robustness and subgroup analyses were also conducted. Results: Analysis of the model showed that compared to lenvatinib, TACE-LEN improved effectiveness by 1.60 QALYs at a total cost increase of $48,874.69, with an ICER value of $30,482.13/QALY. A one-way sensitivity analysis found that the progression-free survival utility value per year had the greatest impact on the model. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that TACE-LEN had a 97.9% probability of being cost-effective as the first-line treatment option for advanced HCC compared to lenvatinib when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) value was $38,201/QALY (three times the Chinese GDP per capita in 2022). Subgroup analysis showed that all subgroups of patients preferred TACE-LEN. However, when the WTP threshold was below $30,300/QALY, TACE-LEN is no longer cost-effective. Conclusion: Our study found TACE-LEN to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with advanced HCC compared to lenvatinib from a Chinese healthcare system perspective, but not so in low-income provinces in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of personalised versus standard dosimetry for selective internal radiation therapy with TheraSphere in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Aims

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing personalised dosimetry with standard dosimetry in the context of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with TheraSphere for the management of adult patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the Italian Healthcare Service perspective.

Materials and methods

A partition survival model was developed to project costs and the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were retrieved from a published randomised controlled trial. Health resource utilisation inputs were extracted from the questionnaires administered to clinicians in three oncology centres in Italy, respectively. Cost parameters were based on Italian official tariffs.

Results

Over a lifetime horizon, the model estimated the average QALYs of 1.292 and 0.578, respectively, for patients undergoing personalised and standard dosimetry approaches. The estimated mean costs per patient were €23,487 and €19,877, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of personalised versus standard dosimetry approaches was €5,056/QALY.

Conclusions

Personalised dosimetry may be considered a cost-effective option compared to standard dosimetry for patients undergoing SIRT for HCC in Italy. These findings provide evidence for clinicians and payers on the value of personalised dosimetry as a treatment option for patients with HCC.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with significant financial burden for patients and payers. The objective of this study was to review economic models to identify, evaluate, and compare cost-effectiveness estimates for HCC treatments.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify economic evaluations was performed and studies that modeled treatments for HCC reporting costs and cost effectiveness were included. Risk of bias was assessed qualitatively, considering costing approach, reported study perspective, and funding received. Intervention costs were adjusted to 2021 US dollars for comparison. For studies reporting quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), we conducted analyses stratified by comparison type to assess cost effectiveness at the time of the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies were included. Non-curative versus non-curative therapy comparisons were used in 20 (74.1%) studies, curative versus curative comparisons were used in 5 (18.5%) studies, and curative versus non-curative comparisons were used in 2 (7.4%) studies. Therapy effectiveness was estimated using a QALY measure in 20 (74.1%) studies, while 7 (25.9%) studies only assessed life-years gained (LYG). A health sector perspective was used in 26 (96.3%) of the evaluations, with only 1 study including costs beyond this perspective. Median intervention cost was $53,954 (range $4550-$4,760,835), with a median incremental cost of $6546 (range - $72,441 to $1,279,764). In cost-utility analyses, 11 (55%) studies found the intervention cost effective using a $100,000/QALY threshold at the time of the study, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging from - $1,176,091 to $1,152,440 when inflated to 2021 US dollars.

CONCLUSION

The majority of HCC treatments were found to be cost effective, but with significant variation and with few studies considering indirect costs. Standards for value assessment for HCC treatments may help improve consistency and comparability.

A Nomogram-Based Prognostic Model for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Sorafenib: A Multicenter Study

Among scores and staging systems used for HCC, none showed a good prognostic ability in patients with advanced HCC treated with Sorafenib. We aimed to evaluate predictive factors of overall survival (OS) and drug response in HCC patients undergoing Sorafenib included in the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA.) multicenter cohort. Patients in the ITA.LI.CA database treated with Sorafenib and updated on 30 June 2019 were included. Demographic and clinical data before starting Sorafenib treatment were considered. For the evaluation of predictive factors for OS, a time-dependent Cox proportional hazard model was used. A total of 1107 patients were included in our analysis. The mean age was 64.3 years and 81.7% were male. Most patients were staged as BCLC B (205, 18.9%) or C (706, 65.1%). The median time of Sorafenib administration was 4 months (interquartile range (IQR) 2-12), and the median OS was 10 months (IQR: 4-20). A total of 263 patients (33.8%) out of 780 with available evaluation experienced objective tumoral response to Sorafenib. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.284), maximum tumoral diameter (HR 1.100), plasma total bilirubin (HR 1.119), aspartate amino transferase assessed as multiple of the upper normal value (HR 1.032), alpha-fetoprotein ≥200 ng/mL (HR 1.342), hemoglobin (HR 0.903) and platelet count (HR 1.002) were associated with OS at multivariate Cox regression analysis. Drug response was predicted by maximum tumoral diameter and platelet count. A novel prognostic nomogram for patients undergoing Sorafenib is hereby proposed. The novelty introduced is the comprehensive patient's assessment using common markers of patient's general status, liver damage and function and HCC biology. Further studies are required to test its accuracy and provide external validation.

Atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination compared with sorafenib as the first-line systemic treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis in China and the United states

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with sorafenib in the IMbrave150 trial. However, whether the price of the combination could be affordable is unknown. The current study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab as first-line systemic therapy for patients with unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was built based on a global, multicentre, open-label, phase III randomized trial (IMbrave150, NCT03434379) that included three states of the patient's health: stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD) and death. Data for all medical costs were acquired from the Red Book, published literature and West China Hospital. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the primary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty.

RESULTS

The treatment consisting of a combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab yielded an additional 0.53 QALYs compared with sorafenib alone, leading to an ICER of $145,546.21 per QALY in China and $168,030.21 per QALY in the USA, both beyond the willing-to-pay threshold ($28,527.00/QALY in China and $150,000.00 /QALY in the USA). The utility of the PD state was the most influential factor in the Chinese model, and the American model was the most sensitive to the price of sorafenib. The results of the models were robust across sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was not a cost-effective strategy for the first-line systemic treatment of unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sorafenib for Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma has been shown to improve overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, assessment of its value by considering both efficacy and cost is needed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation was performed from June through September 2020, with a 6-year investment time period. Hypothetical patients were male and female adults 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by histologic or clinical features.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Health care costs (adjusted to 2020 US dollars), life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib were examined using a partitioned survival model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. The model was also used to estimate price reductions of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab that would achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 424 patients, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with an increase of 0.623 life-years (1.840 vs 1.218 life-years) and 0.484 QALYs (1.412 vs 0.928 QALYs) and with an incremental cost of $156 210 per patient compared with sorafenib. The ICER was $322 500 per QALY (5th to 95th percentile, $149 364-$683 744 per QALY), with 0.6% and 5.1% chance of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never decreased below $150 000 per QALY in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. To achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness under the thresholds of $150 000 to $100 000 per QALY, the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 37% to 47%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this economic evaluation, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with clinical benefit but was not cost-effective compared with sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. A substantial reduction in price for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness for this new therapy.

First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Simple Summary

There is a growing body of literature demonstrating high cancer drug costs relative to the benefits provided to patients treated on a large scale. We examined the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab–bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, based on the results of the pivotal phase 3 trial IMbrave 150. Our model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. We found that atezolizumab–bevacizumab was cost-effective if we assumed all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of hepatocellular carcinoma. Otherwise, atezolizumab–bevacizumab was not cost-effective. We concluded that price reduction, duration of therapy capped to ≤12 months, or dosage of bevacizumab reduced to ≤10 mg/kg would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical benefits were modest. The long-term effectiveness of atezolizumab–bevacizumab is a critical factor of its cost-effectiveness. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Abstract

Background: The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo–bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo–bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo–bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Atezo–bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo–bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo–bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo–bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo–bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo–bev cost-effective. Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness of atezo–bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Sorafenib reduces steatosis-induced fibrogenesis in a human 3D co-culture model of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) affects around 25% of the worldwide population. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), the more progressive variant of NAFLD, is characterized by steatosis, cellular ballooning, lobular inflammation, and may culminate on hepatic stellate cell (HSC) activation, thus increasing the risk for fibrosis, cirrhosis, and HCC development. Conversely, the antifibrotic effects of sorafenib, an FDA-approved drug for HCC treatment, have been demonstrated in 2D cell cultures and animal models, but its mechanisms in a NAFLD-related microenvironment in vitro requires further investigation. Thus, a human 3D co-culture model of fatty hepatocytes and HSC was established by culturing hepatoma C3A cells, pre-treated with 1.32 mM oleic acid, with HSC LX-2 cells. The fatty C3A/LX-2 spheroids showed morphological and molecular hallmarks of altered lipid metabolism and steatosis-induced fibrogenesis, similarly to the human disease. Sorafenib (15 μM) for 72 hours reduced fatty spheroid viability, and upregulated the expression of lipid oxidation- and hydrolysis-related genes, CPT1 and LIPC, respectively. Sorafenib also inhibited steatosis-induced fibrogenesis by downregulating COL1A1, TGFB1, PDGF, and TIMP1 and by decreasing protein levels of IL-6, TGF-β1, and TNF-α in fatty spheroids. The demonstration of the antifibrotic properties of sorafenib on steatosis-induced fibrogenesis in a 3D in vitro model of NAFLD supports its clinical use as a therapeutic agent for the treatment of NAFLD/NASH patients.

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab as a Second-Line Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for use as a second-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who previously received sorafenib. Pembrolizumab has shown substantial antitumor activity and a favorable toxicity profile as a second-line treatment of HCC. However, considering the high cost of pembrolizumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both the clinical efficacy and cost.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs placebo as second-line therapy in patients with HCC from the US payer perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of pembrolizumab as a second-line treatment of HCC with those of placebo using outcome data from the KEYNOTE-240 randomized placebo-controlled trial, which included 413 patients with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib and randomized patients to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care in a 2:1 ratio.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for the parameter of uncertainty. A cost-threshold analysis was also performed. The study was conducted from January 31 to July 29, 2020.

RESULTS

The base-case model found that treatment with pembrolizumab was associated with increased overall cost by $47 057 and improved effectiveness by 0.138 QALYs compared with placebo, leading to an ICER of $340 409 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival (range, 0.61-1.00), health utility of placebo (range, 0.59-0.93), price of pembrolizumab (range, $5531-$8297), and price of postprogression therapies (range, $5596-$7944 for pembrolizumab and $4770-$7156 for placebo). The ICER of pembrolizumab was larger than $150 000 per QALY in most of the sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The price of pembrolizumab needed to be reduced by 57.7% to $2925 per cycle to achieve cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that, at its current price, pembrolizumab is not a cost-effective second-line therapy for HCC in the US, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of published phase III randomized controlled trials (2007-2020) on systemic therapy for advanced HCC and provide recommended care options for this patient population.

RESULTS

Nine phase III randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) may be offered as first-line treatment of most patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, and following management of esophageal varices, when present, according to institutional guidelines. Where there are contraindications to atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or lenvatinib may be offered as first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and ECOG PS 0-1. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, and until better data are available, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options for appropriate candidates include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, or ramucirumab (for patients with α-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL), or atezo + bev where patients did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also reasonable options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Consideration of nivolumab + ipilimumab as an option for second-line therapy and third-line therapy is discussed. Further guidance on choosing between therapy options is included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

The value of sorafenib trough levels in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma - a substudy of the SORAMIC trial

Background: Sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is dose adjusted by toxicity. Preliminary studies have suggested an association between plasma concentrations of sorafenib and its main metabolite (M2) and clinical outcomes. This study aimed to validate these findings and establish target values for sorafenib trough concentrations.Methods: Patients with advanced HCC were prospectively recruited within a multicenter phase II study (SORAMIC). Patients with blood samples available at trough level were included for this pharmacokinetic (PK) substudy. Trough plasma concentrations of sorafenib and its main metabolite (M2) were associated with sorafenib-related toxicity and overall survival (OS).Results: Seventy-four patients were included with a median OS of 19.7 months (95% CI 16.1-23.3). Patients received sorafenib for a median of 51 weeks (IQR 27-62) and blood samples were drawn after a median of 25 weeks (IQR 10-42). Patients had a median trough concentration of 3217 ng/ml (IQR 2166-4526) and 360 ng/ml (IQR 190-593) with coefficients of variation of 65% and 146% for sorafenib and M2, respectively. Patients who experienced severe sorafenib-related toxicity received a lower average daily dose (551 vs 730 mg/day, p = .003), but showed no significant differences in sorafenib (3298 vs 2915 ng/ml, p = .442) or M2 trough levels (428 vs 283 ng/ml, p = .159). Trough levels of sorafenib or M2 showed no significant association with OS.Conclusions: In patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib, the administered dose, trough levels of sorafenib or M2, and clinical outcomes were poorly correlated. Toxicity-adjusted dosing remains the standard for sorafenib treatment.

Sorafenib Plus Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The clinical utility of sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (SoraHAIC) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients remains unclear. We, therefore, conducted the current meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of SoraHAIC therapy on major outcomes with advanced HCC patients.

METHODS

A systematic search of The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases was performed. The major outcomes in patients with advanced HCC were divided into SoraHAIC group and sorafenib group, which included overall response rate, overall survival, progressive disease, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Involving a total of 726 patients from 5 included studies, our meta-analysis demonstrated that SoraHAIC showed significantly more improvement than sorafenib alone in overall response rate [risk ratio=3.08; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.38-6.89; P=0.006] and complete response (risk ratio=5.84; 95% CI, 1.85-18.45; P=0.003). With regard to survival outcome, the combination therapy also significantly prolongs the median overall survival than sorafenib monotherapy (hazard ratio=0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-1.00; P=0.05). In addition, the risk of adverse events such as anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia was significantly greater in the combination group than in the sorafenib group (P<0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicated that SoraHAIC seems to be efficient and safe for advanced HCC patients. However, additional large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to further investigate the clinical benefit.

Optimizing Sequential Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Decision Analysis

Background: An optimal sequential systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has not been discovered. We developed a decision model based on available clinical trials to identify an optimal risk/benefit strategy for sequences of novel systemic agents. Methods: A Markov model was built to simulate overall survival (OS) among patients with advanced HCC. Three first-line (single-agent Sorafenib or Lenvatinib, and combination of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab) followed by five second-line treatments (Regorafenib, Cabozantinib, Ramucirumab, Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab) were compared in fifteen sequential strategies. The likelihood of transition between states (initial treatment, cancer progression, death) was derived from clinical trials. Life-year gained (LYG) was the main outcome. Rates of severe adverse events (SAEs) (≥grade 3) were calculated. The innovative measure, called incremental safety-effectiveness ratio (ISER), of the two best sequential treatments was calculated as the difference in probability of SAEs divided by LYG. Results: Lenvatinib followed by Nivolumab (median OS, 27 months) was the most effective sequence, producing a LYG of 0.75, while Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab followed by Nivolumab was the safest sequence (SAEs 40%). Accordingly, the net health benefit assessed by ISER favored Lenvatinib followed by Nivolumab, compared to Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab, followed by Nivolumab in 52% of cases. Conclusion: Further sequential clinical trials or large-scale real-world studies may prove useful to evaluate the net health benefit of the best sequential treatment for advanced HCC.

Homcology: home chemotherapy delivery in a simultaneous care project for frail advanced cancer patients

Homcology is a project that represents both an opportunity for patients who may benefit from chemotherapy so far, but present physical and social problems that prevent day-hospital access, and a model of "no-profit" contribution to the Public Health System. Our medical oncology department conducted the project from May 2014 to January 2019. We included frail patients (G-8 < 14), with advanced disease, treated with oral, subcutaneous, or parenteral biological agents, with limitations to day-hospital access, comorbidities, and at least 6-month life expectancy. A multidisciplinary team included three oncologists, four nurses, an anesthetist, a psychologist, and a physiotherapist. Satisfaction was evaluated with FAMCARE scale. A total of 188 patients (median age of 73 years, 38-87) were enrolled. Ninety percent of patients presented with metastatic disease and a median G-8 score of 8.8 (3-13.5). All of them received anticancer treatment and concomitant supportive care; 24 patients received two or more lines of treatment. The median duration of taking care was 175 days (7-1200). A median number of 254 (195-325) nursing and 164 (139-190) medical visits were performed a year, with an average of 1.9 and 1.2 visits a month per patient respectively. The median number of in-line patients was 20 (17-25). Hospitalization occurred in 18% of cases. One-third of them died at home. The others were referred to hospice. Our experience shows that the integration of home cancer treatment and supportive care is effective. Hospitalization rate is lower than data reported in the literature. Results need to be confirmed in prospective pharmacoeconomics studies.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib as second-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Germany and the United States

BACKGROUND

Cabozantinib was approved by the European Medicines Agency and the Federal Drug Administration as an option for sorafenib-resistant advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, increasing overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib in the second-line setting for patients with an advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from the German statutory health insurance perspective compared with an US scenario using US prices.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of cabozantinib with best supportive care in the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma over a lifetime horizon. Health outcomes were measured in discounted life years and discounted quality-adjusted life years. Survival probabilities were estimated using parametric survival distributions based on CELESTIAL trial data. Utilities were derived from the literature. Costs contained drugs, monitoring and adverse events measured in US Dollars. Model robustness was addressed in univariable, scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Cabozantinib generated a gain of 0.18 life years (0.15 quality-adjusted life years) compared with best supportive care. The total mean cost per patient was $56,621 for cabozantinib and $2064 for best supportive care in the German model resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cabozantinib of $306,778/life year and $375,470/quality-adjusted life year. Using US prices generated costs of $177,496 for cabozantinib and $4630 for best supportive care and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $972,049/life year and $1,189,706/quality-adjusted life year.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis established that assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $163,371/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the German model and $188,559/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the US model, cabozantinib is not cost-effective compared with best supportive care. Sensitivity analyses showed that cabozantinib was not cost-effective in almost all our scenarios.

Improved survival prediction and comparison of prognostic models for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib

BACKGROUND

The 'Prediction Of Survival in Advanced Sorafenib-treated HCC' (PROSASH) model addressed the heterogeneous survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib in clinical trials but requires validation in daily clinical practice. This study aimed to validate, compare and optimize this model for survival prediction.

METHODS

Patients treated with sorafenib for HCC at five tertiary European centres were retrospectively staged according to the PROSASH model. In addition, the optimized PROSASH-II model was developed using the data of four centres (training set) and tested in an independent dataset. These models for overall survival (OS) were then compared with existing prognostic models.

RESULTS

The PROSASH model was validated in 445 patients, showing clear differences between the four risk groups (OS 16.9-4.6 months). A total of 920 patients (n = 615 in training set, n = 305 in validation set) were available to develop PROSASH-II. This optimized model incorporated fewer and less subjective parameters: the serum albumin, bilirubin and alpha-foetoprotein, and macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread and largest tumour size on imaging. Both PROSASH and PROSASH-II showed improved discrimination (C-index 0.62 and 0.63, respectively) compared with existing prognostic scores (C-index ≤0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

In HCC patients treated with sorafenib, individualized prediction of survival and risk group stratification using baseline prognostic and predictive parameters with the PROSASH model was validated. The refined PROSASH-II model performed at least as good with fewer and more objective parameters. PROSASH-II can be used as a tool for tailored treatment of HCC in daily practice and to define pre-planned subgroups for future studies.

Economic Implications of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance and Treatment: A Guide for Clinicians

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing worldwide, with significant morbidity and associated costs. Treatment allocation depends on the stage of diagnosis; however, resource utilization can be significant across all stages. We aimed to summarize the available data on the cost effectiveness of surveillance of and treatments for HCC in the context of current treatment guidelines. We performed a focused review of studies investigating the economic burden and cost effectiveness of HCC surveillance treatment modalities published between January 2000 and January 2019. The overall economic burden of HCC is increasing in the USA and in several countries worldwide due to its rising incidence and the proliferation of therapies. Liver transplantation is a cost-effective strategy for early-stage HCC treatment in selected patients. In settings where liver transplantation is not available or in patients awaiting transplant, ablative or locoregional therapies are cost effective with increases in quality-adjusted life-years. First-line therapy with sorafenib for advanced stage HCC is cost effective in the treatment of compensated cirrhosis. The cost effectiveness of recently approved systemic therapies for advanced HCC require further investigation. Existing studies have shown that guideline-recommended surveillance techniques and several available therapies for the treatment of HCC are cost effective; however, there are limitations in the literature, including reliance on suboptimal modeling with incomplete/simplified model structure or inadequate inputs. With increasing therapeutic options in patients with HCC, understanding their relative value is critical in designing HCC treatment algorithms.

Outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib: a meta-analysis of Phase III trials

Aim: To benchmark overall survival (OS) and time to radiological progression (TTP) of patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma using individual participant survival data, and to meta-analyze prognostic factors for OS and TTP. Methods: RCTs were identified through literature search until December 2018. Individual participant survival was reconstructed with an algorithm from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: Ten RCTs were included. Median OS was 10.0 months (95% CI: 9.6-10.5), and median TTP was 4.1 months (95% CI: 3.8-4.3). Multivariable analyses showed HCV positivity, absence of macrovascular invasion and extra-hepatic disease as predictors of longer OS. Conclusion: We provided a benchmark for future studies on sorafenib. The present results can be used in the decision making for the early shift to second-line strategy.

Cost Effectiveness of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance After a Sustained Virologic Response to Therapy in Patients With Hepatitis C Virus Infection and Advanced Fibrosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis increases the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). After a sustained virologic response (SVR) to anti-HCV therapy, the risk of HCC is reduced but not eliminated. Recent developments in antiviral therapy have increased rates of SVR markedly. Guidelines recommend indefinite biannual ultrasound surveillance after SVR for patients with advanced fibrosis before treatment. Surveillance for HCC is cost effective before anti-HCV treatment; we investigated whether it remains so after SVR.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of biannual or annual HCC ultrasound surveillance vs no surveillance in 50-year-old patients with advanced fibrosis after an SVR to anti-HCV therapy. Parameter values were obtained from publications and expert opinions. Primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

With a constant 0.5% annual incidence of HCC, biannual and annual surveillance resulted in ICERs of $106,792 and $72,105 per QALY, respectively, with high false-positive rates. When surveillance was limited to patients with cirrhosis, but not F3 fibrosis, biannual surveillance likely was cost effective, with ICERs of $48,729 and $43,229 per QALY after treatment with interferon and direct-acting antiviral agents, respectively. In patients with F3 fibrosis, the incidence of HCC was 0.3% to 0.4% per year, leading to an ICER of $188,157 per QALY for biannual surveillance. If HCC incidence increases with age, surveillance becomes more cost effective but remains below willingness-to-pay thresholds only for patients with cirrhosis or with pretreatment aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index greater than 2.0 or FIB-4 measurements greater than 3.25. Sensitivity analyses identified HCC incidence and transition rate to symptomatic disease without surveillance as factors that affect cost effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Markov model, we found HCC surveillance after an SVR to HCV treatment to be cost effective for patients with cirrhosis, but not for patients with F3 fibrosis.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Imaging for Surveillance and Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to compare imaging-based surveillance and diagnostic strategies in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) while taking into account technically inadequate examinations and patient compliance. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A Markov model simulated seven strategies for HCC surveillance and diagnosis in patients with cirrhosis: strategy A, ultrasound (US) for surveillance and CT for diagnosis; strategy B, US for surveillance and complete MRI for diagnosis; strategy C, US for surveillance and CT for inadequate or positive surveillance; strategy D, US for surveillance and complete MRI for inadequate or positive surveillance; strategy E, surveillance and diagnosis with CT followed by complete MRI for inadequate surveillance; strategy F, surveillance and diagnosis with complete MRI followed by CT for inadequate surveillance; and strategy G, surveillance with abbreviated MRI followed by CT for inadequate surveillance or complete MRI for positive surveillance. Two compliance scenarios were evaluated: optimal and conservative. For each scenario, the most cost-effective strategy was based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 (Canadian) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS. Base-case analysis revealed that strategy E was the most cost-effective when compliance was optimal ($13,631/QALY), and strategy G was the most cost-effective when compliance was conservative ($39,681/QALY). Sensitivity analyses supported the base-case analysis in the optimal compliance scenario, but several parameters altered the most cost-effective strategy in the conservative compliance scenario. CONCLUSION. In an optimal compliance scenario, CT for HCC surveillance and diagnosis and complete MRI for inadequate CT was most cost-effective. In a conservative compliance scenario, abbreviated MRI may be an alternative to US-based surveillance.

Cost-effectiveness of Sorafenib for Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in India

BACKGROUND

Majority of patients of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in India present in advanced stages, when curative treatment options are limited. We undertook this study to assess the cost-effectiveness of treating advanced HCC patients with sorafenib compared with best supportive care (BSC).

METHODS

A Markov model was parameterized to model the lifetime costs and consequences of treating advanced HCC patients with sorafenib versus BSC using a societal perspective. Cost of routine care, diagnostics, management of complications in both the arms and management of adverse effects of sorafenib treatment were considered. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the effect of parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

The incremental cost and benefit gained by treating HCC using sorafenib was Indian rupees 94,182 ($1459) and 0.19 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient, implying an incremental cost of Indian rupees 507,520 ($7861) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Sorafenib is not cost-effective for use in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treatment in India.

Regorafenib treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib-A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer related deaths. Patients with advanced HCC are treated with sorafenib. A recent randomized controlled trial demonstrated a survival benefit for regorafenib treatment in patients with advanced HCC who had progressed on sorafenib. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this approach.

METHODS

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of regorafenib, we used a Markov model that incorporates health outcomes, measured by life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were based on 2017 discounted prices. Model robustness was validated by probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulations.

RESULTS

The use of regorafenib results in a gain of 19.76 weeks of life (0.38 Life Years) as compared to placebo. When adjusted for quality of life, using regorafenib produced a gain of 0.25 quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for regorafenib compared with best supportive care was between $201,797 and $268,506 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

The modest incremental benefit at a relatively high incremental cost of regorafenib treatment suggests that it is not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness to pay thresholds.

Are we SHARP enough? The importance of adequate patient selection in sorafenib treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Upon FDA/EMEA registration for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), sorafenib received a broader therapeutic indication than the eligibility criteria of the landmark SHARP trial. This allowed treatment of SHARP non-eligible patients in daily clinical practice.

AIM

To assess sorafenib efficacy and safety in SHARP eligible and non-eligible patients, and determine the validity of the current therapeutic indication as described by the FDA/EMEA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients treated with sorafenib for advanced HCC at two Dutch tertiary referral centers between 2007 and 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were time to progression (TTP), response rate, adverse events and reasons for discontinuation. Outcomes were compared between SHARP eligible and non-eligible patients.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-three of 257 (75%) patients were SHARP eligible. SHARP eligible patients (9.5 months, 95% CI 7.7-11.3) had a longer median OS than non-eligible patients (5.4 months, 95% CI 3.6-7.1) (log-rank p < .001). SHARP non-eligible patients were more often Child-Pugh B, had higher AST and ALT levels and developed more grade 3-4 liver dysfunction (44 versus 23%, p < .001) during treatment. SHARP ineligibility remained the strongest predictor of OS (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.32-2.41) and an independent predictor of TTP (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05-2.00) in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Landmark trial outcomes of sorafenib for HCC are reproducible in daily practice, provided that the SHARP eligibility criteria are respected. Based on the findings of this and previous studies, sorafenib usage should be restricted to Child-Pugh A patients.

Efficacy of sequential sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B and C hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective single-institution study

AIM OF THE STUDY

To evaluate the efficacy of sequential combination therapy using sorafenib and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) in patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B/C hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We recruited 98 BCLC stage B/C HCC patients at our institute, who received either sorafenib monotherapy or planned sequential sorafenib-HAIC combination therapy. A total of 26 patients (combination group) received sorafenib for one or two months, followed by HAIC with a single dose of cisplatin-lipiodol suspension and a continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil. Sorafenib-HAIC cycles were repeated every 2-3 months. The remaining 72 patients (control group) were treated with sorafenib alone. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were compared between the groups. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) using propensity scores was applied to adjust for the between-group differences in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

The combination group had a significantly lower frequency of extrahepatic metastasis and BCLC stage C disease compared with the control group but had more intrahepatic lesions. The crude median overall survival (OS) was 17.1 months in the combination group compared with 9.7 months in the control group (p = 0.01). The objective response rate was 23.1% in the combination group vs. 6.9% in the control group (p = 0.06). Multivariate analysis identified receipt of sorafenib-HAIC combination (HR: 0.521, 95% CI: 0.297-0.915, p = 0.02) and α-fetoprotein (≥ 400 ng/ml) at baseline as independent factors associated with OS. After adjustment with IPW the combination group still had significantly better OS than the control group (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The sequential sorafenib-HAIC combination can be an effective and promising treatment option for selected patients with BCLC stage B/C HCC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFOX4 and sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China

Objectives

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. In China, sorafenib and oxaliplatin plus infusional-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFOX4) are approved for the systemic treatment of advanced HCC. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of these therapies from a healthcare system perspective and a patient perspectives.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed using overall and progression-free survival rates and adverse event (AE) rate from two randomized controlled studies of advanced HCC patients from Asia: EACH for FOLFOX4 and ORIENTAL for sorafenib. The patients in the Markov model were followed until death, the length of each Markov cycle was 1 month, and the survival was adjusted for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Direct medical costs included costs of therapies, AE treatment, general ward and tests. Costs were derived from published sources, interviews with oncologists and hospital data from China. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to test the robustness of the results.

Results

From the healthcare system perspective, FOLFOX4 dominated sorafenib with lower therapy costs (FOLFOX4: US$ 6972; sorafenib: US$ 12,289), lower direct medical costs (FOLFOX4: US$ 8428; sorafenib: US$ 12,798), and higher QALYs (FOLFOX4: 0.42; sorafenib: 0.38) per patient. This result was robust according to comprehensive one-way sensitivity analyses. According to the PSA, at the cost-effectiveness threshold for China (3 × GDP, US$ 22,073), FOLFOX4 should be chosen in 63.9% of simulations. From the patient perspective, FOLFOX4 also dominated sorafenib.

Conclusions

The study results indicate that FOLFOX4 dominates sorafenib because it appears to provide higher effectiveness with significantly lower costs in treating Chinese advanced HCC patients.

Network meta-analysis of treatment regimens for inoperable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein invasion

Purpose

We assessed the efficacy and safety of different modalities using the network meta-analysis for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein invasion. The interested modalities included stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) combined with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), three-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-RT) combined with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) or TACE, TACE plus sorafenib, and use of SBRT, HAIC, sorafenib, and TACE alone.

Methods

PubMed and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched for eligible studies published up to June 2017. We used network meta-analysis to compare the disease control rate (DCR) and severe adverse events for the eight interested regimens included in this analysis. Study quality was assessed following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations method.

Results

Fifteen studies published between 2010 and 2016 involving a total of 2,359 patients were enrolled in this network meta-analysis. With indirect comparison of DCR and overall safety, the pooled results showed that RT plus HAIC was the most effective regimen in treating advanced HCC with portal vein tumor thrombosis, followed by RT plus TACE. HAIC alone and sorafenib combined with HAIC appeared least effective intervention regimens. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred less in the patients who received SBRT alone compared with other interested regimens.

Conclusion

3D-RT combined with HAIC or TACE showed more favorable treatment responses compared with other regimens in advanced HCC patients with portal vein tumor thrombosis.

Genome-wide CRISPR screen reveals SGOL1 as a druggable target of sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma

The genome-wide clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) screen is a powerful tool used to identify therapeutic targets that can be harnessed for cancer treatment. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of genome-wide CRISPR screening to identify druggable genes associated with sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A genome-scale CRISPR knockout (GeCKO v2) library containing 123,411 single guide RNAs (sgRNAs) was used to identify loss-of-function mutations conferring sorafenib resistance upon HCC cells. Resistance gene screens identified SGOL1 as an indicator of prognosis of patients treated with sorafenib. Of the 19,050 genes tested, the knockout screen identified inhibition of SGOL1 expression as the most-effective genetic suppressor of sorafenib activity. Analysis of the survival of 210 patients with HCC after hepatic resection revealed that high SGOL1 expression shortened overall survival (P = 0.021). Further, matched pairs analysis of the TCGA database revealed that SGOL1 is differentially expressed. When we used a lentivirus Cas9 vector to determine the effect of targeting SGOL1 with a specific sgRNA in HCC cells, we found that SGOL1 expression was efficiently inhibited and that loss of SGOL1 was associated with sorafenib resistance. Further, loss of SGOL1 from HCC cell decreased the cytotoxicity of sorafenib in vivo. We conclude that the CRISPR screen is a powerful tool for therapeutic target analysis of sorafenib treatment and that SGOL1 serves as a druggable target for HCC treated with sorafenib and an indicator of prognosis.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sorafenib Monotherapy and Selected Combination Therapy with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sorafenib treatment in combination with other therapies versus sorafenib monotherapy among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are enrolled in Taiwan's National Health Insurance.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to simulate treatment outcomes and direct medical costs of sorafenib combination therapy and monotherapy from the perspective of the healthcare payer in Taiwan. Both life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to measure treatment outcomes, and all costs were expressed in 2014 New Taiwan dollars (NT$). Model parameters were acquired primarily using data from population-based administrative databases: the Cancer Registry, National Health Insurance Research Database, and the Death Registry. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times the per capita gross domestic product at NT$2,133,930. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

For advanced HCC patients, sorafenib combined with other treatments might not be a cost-effective option when compared with sorafenib therapy alone. In the base-case analysis, combination treatment with sorafenib was estimated to increase costs by NT$434,788 compared with monotherapy, with a gain of 0.1595 QALYs. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was NT$2,725,943 per QALY gained. Results were sensitive to health utility values and monthly costs accrued in the progression-free survival state of the combination therapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our evidence from Taiwan demonstrated that while sorafenib in combination with other therapeutic approaches might improve treatment outcome when compared with sorafenib monotherapy, its ICER exceeded the WTP threshold and was considered not cost-effective.

Sorafenib versus Transarterial chemoembolization for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Sorafenib and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) might both provide survival benefit for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Adopting either as a first-line therapy carries major cost and resource implications. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sorafenib and TACE in advanced HCC.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed in a hypothetical cohort of patients aged 60 years with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh A/B cirrhosis over a 2-year time frame. Three strategies (full or dose-adjusted sorafenib and TACE) were compared in two cost settings: China and the USA. Transition probabilities, utility and costs were extracted from systematic review of 27 articles. Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo analysis were conducted.

Results

Full and dose-adjusted sorafenib respectively produced 0.435 and 0.482 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) while TACE produced 0.375 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of full-dose sorafenib versus TACE was $101,028.83/QALY in China whereas full-dose sorafenib is a dominant strategy (ICER of -$1,014,507.20/ QALY) compared with TACE in the USA. Compared to full-dose sorafenib, dose-adjusted sorafenib was the dominant strategy with the negative ICERs in both China (−$132,238.94/QALY) and the USA (−$230,058.09/QALY). However, dose-adjusted sorafenib is not available currently, so full-dose sorafenib should be compared with TACE. As the acceptability curves shown, full-dose sorafenib was the optimal strategy at the accepted thresholds of WTP in these two countries. Specifically, full-dose sorafenib was the cost-effective treatment compared with TACE if a WTP was set above $21,670 in the USA, whereas in China, TACE could be more favorable than full-dose sorafenib if a WTP was set below $10,473.

Conclusions

Dose-adjusted sorafenib may be cost-effective compared to full-dose sorafenib or TACE for advanced HCC patients. However, when confining the comparisons between full-dose sorafenib and TACE, full-dose sorafenib was cost-effective for these patients, under the accepted thresholds of WTP.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4308-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Integration of the cancer-related inflammatory response as a stratifying biomarker of survival in hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib

Background and Aims

Response to sorafenib is highly variable in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Baseline inflammatory parameters and treatment toxicities may improve survival prediction in patients on sorafenib therapy.

Results

442 patients with advanced stage HCC on sorafenib were recruited (follow-up 5096 person-months at risk). 88% had BCLC stage B or greater HCC and 72.3% had Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. On Cox multivariate regression, previously-treated HCC (HR 0.579, 95% CI 0.385-0.872, p=0.009), Cancer of Liver Italian Program (CLIP) score (HR 1.723, 95% CI 1.462-2.047, p<0.0001), baseline red cell distribution width (RDW; HR 1.234, 95% CI 1.115-1.290, p<0.0001) and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR; HR 1.218, 95% CI 1.108-1.322, p<0.0001) were significant independent risks for shorter survival, whilst sorafenib-related diarrhoea was associated with prolonged survival (HR 0.533, 95% CI 0.373-0.763, p=0.001). The combination of RD-CLIP score (CLIP score multiplied by RDW) ≥ 70 and no treatment-related diarrhoea had good utility for predicting 3-month survival (AUC of 0.808 (95% CI 0.734-0.882), positive predictive value of 86.4% and negative predictive value of 83.3%), compared with CLIP (AUC=0.642) or BCLC score alone (AUC=0.579). RD-CLIP score ≥ 35 and no treatment-related diarrhoea had an AUC of 0.787 for predicting 12-month survival.

Methods

Patients with HCC were consecutively recruited from three tertiary centres (Japan, Italy and UK) and clinical data were prospectively collected. The primary study endpoint was overall survival (OS) after commencing sorafenib.

Conclusion

The novel prognostic index of CLIP score combined with inflammatory marker RDW and treatment-related diarrhoea has good accuracy for predicting overall, 3 month and 12 month survival in patients on sorafenib.

Outcomes of treatment with sorafenib in Egyptian patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Sorafenib is the standard of care, first line treatment for advanced HCC. This study aims to evaluate real-life efficacy and safety of sorafenib in Egyptian patients with Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in the medical oncology department at Maadi Armed Forces Medical Compound. Patients with advanced HCC who received sorafenib between January and December 2015 were included (130 patients).

RESULTS

The median overall survival of patients with HCC treated with sorafenib was 5 months (CI: 4.166-5.834), and progression free survival was 4 months (CI: 3.479-4.521). Disease control rate was 45.44% with 2 patients experiencing complete remission (1.2%). The adverse events rate was 76.1% for toxicities of all grades; with hand and foot syndrome being the most common (32.3% of any grade) and liver dysfunction the most common grade III toxicity (13.8%). Treatment was stopped for radiological progression based on modified RECIST criteria in 47 patients (36.3%), 18 patients stopped the treatment for intolerable toxicity. At the end of treatment upon radiological progression, 51 patients (39.2%) were still classified as Child A class of cirrhosis.

CONCLUSION

Sorafenib use should be limited to patients with Child A, PS 0-1, and low disease burden.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization with or without sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) and TACE in combination with sorafenib (TACE-sorafenib) have shown a significant survival benefit for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Adopting either as a first-line therapy carries major cost and resource implications. The objective of this study was to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of TACE against TACE-sorafenib for unresectable HCC using a decision analytic model.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model was developed to compare TACE and TACE-sorafenib. Transition probabilities and utilities were obtained from systematic literature reviews, and costs were obtained from West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China. Survival benefits were reported in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Sensitive analysis was performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters of the model.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis showed that TACE cost $26 951 and yielded survival of 0.71 QALYs, and TACE-sorafenib cost $44 542 and yielded survival of 1.02 QALYs in the entire treatment. The ICER of TACE-sorafenib versus TACE was $56 745 per QALY gained, which was above threshold for cost-effectiveness in China. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the major driver of ICER was the cost post TACE-sorafenib therapy with stable state.

CONCLUSION

TACE is a more cost-effective strategy than TACE-sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable HCC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with non-curative or palliative intent for hepatocellular carcinoma in the real-world setting

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) presentation is heterogeneous necessitating a variety of therapeutic interventions with varying efficacies and associated prognoses. Poor prognostic patients often undergo non-curative palliative interventions including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), sorafenib, chemotherapy, or purely supportive care. The decision to pursue one of many palliative interventions for HCC is complex and an economic evaluation comparing these interventions has not been done. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of non-curative palliative treatment strategies such as TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, sorafenib alone, and non-sorafenib chemotherapy compared with no treatment or best supportive care (BSC) among patients diagnosed with HCC between 2007 and 2010 in a Canadian setting. Using person-level data, we estimated effectiveness in life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) along with total health care costs (2013 US dollars) from the health care payer’s perspective (3% annual discount). A net benefit regression approach accounting for baseline covariates with propensity score adjustment was used to calculate incremental net benefit to generate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and uncertainty measures. Among 1,172 identified patients diagnosed with HCC, 4.5%, 7.9%, and 5.6%, received TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, sorafenib, and non-sorafenib chemotherapy clone, respectively. Compared with no treatment or BSC (81.9%), ICER estimates for TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib was $6,665/QALY (additional QALY: 0.47, additional cost: $3,120; 95% CI: -$18,800-$34,500/QALY). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve demonstrated that if the relevant threshold was $50,000/QALY, TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, non-sorafenib chemotherapy, and sorafenib alone, would have a cost-effectiveness probability of 99.7%, 46.6%, and 5.5%, respectively. Covariates associated with the incremental net benefit of treatments are age, sex, comorbidity, and cancer stage. Findings suggest that TACE with or without sorafenib is currently the most cost-effective active non-curative palliative treatment approach to HCC. Further research into new combination treatment strategies that afford the best tumor response is needed.

Precision medicine for hepatocellular carcinoma: driver mutations and targeted therapy

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most frequent cause of tumor-related mortality and there are an estimated approximately 850,000 new cases annually. Most HCC patients are diagnosed at middle or advanced stage, losing the opportunity of surgery. The development of HCC is promoted by accumulated diverse genetic mutations, which confer selective growth advantages to tumor cells and are called "driver mutations". The discovery of driver mutations provides a novel precision medicine strategy for late stage HCC, called targeted therapy. In this review, we summarized currently discovered driver mutations and corresponding signaling pathways, made an overview of identification methods of driver mutations and genes, and classified targeted drugs for HCC. The knowledge of mutational landscape deepen our understanding of carcinogenesis and promise future precision medicine for HCC patients.

Early stage hepatocellular carcinoma in the elderly: A SEER database analysis

BACKGROUND

Scarce evidence exists regarding the management of elderly patients (≥70years) with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study assessed the presentation and outcomes of elderly patients with early stage HCC.

METHODS

Patient with early stage HCC (T1/T2N0M0), ≥70years, diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 were identified from the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database. Propensity score matching (for receipt of localized treatment) was performed considering baseline characteristics (age, gender, race, tumor (T) stage, tumor size, fibrosis score, alpha fetoprotein level and histological subtype).

RESULTS

A total of 6693 patients were identified. The median age group was 75-80years, and 2457 patients received local treatment (either surgical or non-surgical treatment). Both before and after propensity score matching, cancer-specific and overall survival (P<0.0001 for all) were better in the local treatment group. When stratifying the overall survival according to age group (70-80years vs. >80years) in the post matching cohort, patients treated with local treatment have better overall survival than those not treated regardless of the age group (P<0.0001 for both groups). In multivariate analysis of the matched population: local treatment, normal AFP and age (70-80years) were associated with better overall survival (P<0.0001, P<0.0001, P=0.047; respectively).

CONCLUSION

Within the known limitations of the current SEER analysis, it may be cautiously suggested that elderly patients with early HCC should be properly selected for potentially curative local therapies. Prospective confirmation of these results should be conducted.

Real-World Data for the Evaluation of Transarterial Radioembolization versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with that of sorafenib in the treatment of patients with intermediate or advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system.

METHODS

Patient-level data were consecutively recorded and collected at three oncology centers in Italy. A propensity score matching was performed to compare patients with similar clinical characteristics who underwent TARE or sorafenib treatment. Clinical data from the matched cohorts were used to populate a Markov model to project, on a lifetime horizon, life years, quality-adjusted life years, and economic outcomes associated with TARE and sorafenib for both intermediate and advanced HCC stages.

RESULTS

Starting from data covering 389 and 241 patients who underwent TARE and sorafenib treatment, respectively, the propensity score matching yielded a total of 308 matched patients. For intermediate-stage patients, the model estimated for TARE versus sorafenib an incremental cost-utility ratio of €3,302/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €1,865 per life year gained), whereas for patients in advanced stage TARE dominated (lower costs and greater health improvements) compared with sorafenib.

CONCLUSIONS

From an Italian health care service perspective, TARE could be a cost-effective strategy in comparison with sorafenib for patients with intermediate or advanced HCC. The results from forthcoming randomized controlled trials comparing TARE with sorafenib will be able to confirm or reject the validity of this preliminary evaluation. In the meantime, decision makers can use these results to control and coordinate the diffusion of the technology.