Economic evaluation of sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada

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.

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.

Quality of Life and Cost Considerations: Y-90 Radioembolization

Objective  Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) offers a minimally invasive and safe treatment option for primary and metastatic hepatic malignancies. The benefits of TARE are manifold including prolonged overall survival, low associated morbidities, and improved time to progression allowing prolonged treatment-free intervals. The rapid development of new systemic therapies including immunotherapy has radically changed the treatment landscape for primary and metastatic liver cancer. Given the current climate, it is critical for interventional oncologists to understand the benefits of TARE relative to these other therapies. Therefore, this report aims to review quality-of-life outcomes and the cost comparisons of TARE as compared with systemic therapies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A global economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments for advanced breast cancer in Canada

Objective Considering the increasing number of treatment options for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), it is important to develop high-quality methods to assess the cost-effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs. This study aims to develop a global economic model that could be used as a benchmark for the economic evaluation of new therapies for MBC. Methods The Global Pharmacoeconomics of Metastatic Breast Cancer (GPMBC) model is a Markov model that was constructed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of new treatments for MBC from a Canadian healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon. Specific parameters included in the model are cost of drug treatment, survival outcomes, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Global parameters are patient characteristics, health states utilities, disutilities, and costs associated with treatment-related AEs, as well as costs associated with drug administration, medical follow-up, and end-of-life care. The GPMBC model was tested and validated in a specific context, by assessing the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole compared with other widely used first-line therapies for post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) MBC. Results When tested, the GPMBC model led to incremental cost-utility ratios of CA$131 811 per QALY, CA$56 211 per QALY, and CA$102 477 per QALY for the comparison of lapatinib plus letrozole vs letrozole alone, trastuzumab plus anastrozole, and anastrozole alone, respectively. Results of the model testing were quite similar to those obtained by Delea et al., who also assessed the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in HR+/HER2 + MBC in Canada, thus suggesting that the GPMBC model can replicate results of well-conducted economic evaluations. Conclusions The GPMBC model can be very valuable as it allows a quick and valid assessment of the cost-effectiveness of any new treatments for MBC in a Canadian context.

Cost-effectiveness of using a gene expression profiling test to aid in identifying the primary tumour in patients with cancer of unknown primary

We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a 2000-gene-expression profiling (GEP) test to help identify the primary tumor site when clinicopathological diagnostic evaluation was inconclusive in patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP). We built a decision-analytic-model to project the lifetime clinical and economic consequences of different clinical management strategies for CUP. The model was parameterized using follow-up data from the Manitoba Cancer Registry, cost data from Manitoba Health administrative databases and secondary sources. The 2000-GEP-based strategy compared to current clinical practice resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $44,151 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. The total annual-budget impact was $36.2 million per year. A value-of-information analysis revealed that the expected value of perfect information about the test's clinical impact was $4.2 million per year. The 2000-GEP test should be considered for adoption in CUP. Field evaluations of the test are associated with a large societal benefit.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted oral anti-cancer drugs: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Over the last 15 years, a paradigm shift in oncology has led to the approval of dozens of targeted oral anti-cancer medications (OAMs), which have become the standard of care for certain cancers. While more convenient for patients than infused drugs, the possibility of non-adherence and the frequently high costs of targeted OAMs have proven controversial.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to perform the first comprehensive review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of targeted OAMs.

METHODS

A literature search in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports published by the National Institute for Health Research HTA Programme in the UK was performed, covering articles published in the 5 years prior to 30 September 2013. Our inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed English-language full-text original research articles with a primary focus on CEA related to targeted OAMs. We categorized these articles by treatment setting (i.e. cancer site/type, line of therapy, and treatment and comparator) and synthesized information from the articles into summary tables.

RESULTS

We identified 41 CEAs covering nine of the 18 targeted OAMs approved by the US FDA as of December 2012. These medications were studied in seven cancers, most often as second-line therapy for advanced-stage patients. In over half of treatment settings where a targeted OAM was compared with treatment that was not a targeted OAM, targeted OAMs were considered cost effective. Limitations in interpreting these findings include the risk of bias due to author conflicts of interest, cross-country variation, and difficulties in generalizing clinical trial evidence to community practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Several types of cost-effectiveness studies remain under-represented in the literature on targeted OAMs, including those for follow-on indications approved after the initial indication for a drug and for off-label indications, head-to-head comparisons of targeted OAMs with other targeted OAMs and targeted intravenous therapies, and studies that adopt a perspective other than the payer's. Keeping up with the increasing number of approved targeted OAMs will also prove an important challenge for economic evaluation.

Best supportive care from the conservative/non-surgical perspective and its costs in the treatment of patients with advanced medullary thyroid cancer: results of a Delphi panel

BACKGROUND

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) is a rare tumor entity. The contents of best supportive care (BSC) have not been defined in advanced MTC. The objective of this work is to describe the epidemiology, the treatment patterns with respect to symptom management, as well as palliative treatment and associated costs.

METHOD

A Delphi panel with 9 clinical experts experienced in treating MTC was conducted to obtain details on the epidemiology of MTC and to gain insights into the therapeutic options considered for BSC in advanced MTC in Germany. Unit costs were applied to the described resources from the perspective of the German National Healthcare System in 2011.

RESULTS

The annual incidence of MTC in Germany was estimated at about 220. 32% of all patients were estimated to have aggressive/symptomatic MTC, with an estimated mean survival of 36.7 months (median: 36 months). The core element of BSC is relief of symptoms to maintain quality of life. The total mean cost of BSC per patient/year was estimated at € 9,248, lifetime cost at € 28,283.

CONCLUSION

There was consistent agreement within the panel on the epidemiology of MTC and on the structure of the provided therapeutic measures for BSC in advanced MTC, also defining the management of symptoms as a crucial goal of treatment.

Cost effectiveness of a 21-gene recurrence score assay versus Canadian clinical practice in post-menopausal women with early-stage estrogen or progesterone-receptor-positive, axillary lymph-node positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

A 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay provides a method of guiding treatment decisions in women with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). We investigated the cost effectiveness of using the RS assay versus current clinical practice (CCP) in post-menopausal women with estrogen- or progesterone-receptor-positive, one to three positive axillary lymph-node ESBC from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system.

METHODS

We developed a decision analytic model to project the lifetime clinical and economic consequences of ESBC. We assumed that the RS assay would classify patients among risk levels (low, intermediate and high) and corresponding adjuvant treatment regimens. The model was parameterized using 7-year follow-up data from the Manitoba Cancer Registry, cost data from Manitoba Health administrative databases and secondary sources. Costs are presented in 2012 Canadian dollars, and future costs and benefits were discounted at 5 %.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, the RS assay compared with CCP led to an increase of 0.08 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and an increase in cost of Can$36.2 per person, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Can$464/QALY gained. The ICER was most sensitive to the proportion of women classified to intermediate risk by the RS assay who received adjuvant chemotherapy, and absolute risk of relapse among patients receiving the RS assay.

CONCLUSIONS

The RS assay is likely to be cost effective in the Canadian healthcare system. Field evaluations of the assay in this patient population will help reduce uncertainty in clinical guidelines for intermediate-range RS-assay values and specific disease outcomes by the RS assay, which are important drivers of ICER.

Cost-effectiveness of a 21-gene recurrence score assay versus Canadian clinical practice in women with early-stage estrogen- or progesterone-receptor-positive, axillary lymph-node negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

A 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay may inform adjuvant systematic treatment decisions in women with early stage breast cancer. We sought to investigate the cost effectiveness of using the RS-assay versus current clinical practice (CCP) in women with early-stage estrogen- or progesterone-receptor-positive, axilliary lymph-node negative breast cancer (ER+/ PR + LN- ESBC) from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to project the lifetime clinical and economic consequences of ESBC. We evaluated adjuvant therapy separately in post- and pre-menopausal women with ER+/ PR + LN- ESBC. We assumed that the RS-assay would reclassify pre- and post-menopausal women among risk levels (low, intermediate and high) and guide adjuvant systematic treatment decisions. The model was parameterized using 7 year follow up data from the Manitoba Cancer Registry, cost data from Manitoba administrative databases, and secondary sources. Costs are presented in 2010 CAD. Future costs and benefits were discounted at 5%.

RESULTS

The RS-assay compared to CCP generated cost-savings in pre-menopausal women and had an ICER of $60,000 per QALY gained in post-menopausal women. The cost effectiveness was most sensitive to the proportion of women classified as intermediate risk by the RS-assay who receive adjuvant chemotherapy and the risk of relapse in the RS-assay model.

CONCLUSIONS

The RS-assay is likely to be cost effective in the Canadian healthcare system and should be considered for adoption in women with ER+/ PR + LN- ESBC. However, ongoing assessment and validation of the assay in real-world clinical practice is warranted.

Modelling survival in hepatocellular carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To identify the pattern of the risk of death over long-term in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma by determining the appropriate distribution to extrapolate overall survival and to assess the role of the Weibull distribution as the standard survival model in oncology.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

To select the appropriate distribution, three types of data sources have been analysed. Patient level data from two randomized controlled trials and published Kaplan-Meier curves from a systematic literature review provided short term follow-up data. They were supplemented with patient level data, with long-term follow-up from the Cancer Institute New South Wales, Australia. Published Kaplan-Meier curves were read in and a time-to-event dataset was created. Distributions were fitted to the data from the different sources separately. Their fit was assessed visually and compared using statistical criteria based on log-likelihood, the Akaike information criterion (AIC), and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC).

RESULTS

Based on both published and patient-level, and both short- and long-term follow-up data, the Weibull distribution, used very often in cost-effectiveness models in oncology, does not seem to offer a good fit in hepatocellular carcinoma among the different survival models. The best fitting distribution appears to be the lognormal, with loglogistic as the second-best fitting function. Results were consistent between the different sources of data.

CONCLUSIONS

In unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, the Weibull model, which is often treated at the gold standard, does not appear to be appropriate based on different sources of data (two clinical trials, a retrospective database and published Kaplan-Meier curves). Lognormal distribution seems to be the most appropriate distribution for extrapolating overall survival.

Radiofrequency ablation or percutaneous ethanol injection for the treatment of liver tumors

The liver is a common location of both primary and secondary malignancies. For unresectable liver cancer, many local ablative therapies have been developed. These include e.g., percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), percutaneous acetic acid injection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cryoablation, microwave ablation, laser-induced thermotherapy, and high-intensity focused ultrasound. RFA has recently gained interest and is the most widely applied thermoablative technique. RFA allows more effective tumor control in fewer treatment sessions compared with PEI, but with a higher rate of complications. However, there are certain circumstances where PEI therapy represents a better strategy to control liver tumors than RFA, especially in situations where RFA is difficult, for example when large vessels surround the tumor. In the context of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), both RFA and PEI are feasible and of benefit in non-operable patients. RFA seems superior to PEI in HCC > 2 cm, and the combination of interventions may be of benefit in selected patients. Liver resection is superior to RFA for patients with HCC meeting the Milan criteria, but RFA can be employed in tumors ≤ 3 cm and where there is an increased expected operative mortality. In addition, some lines of evidence indicate that RFA and PEI can be employed as a bridge to liver transplantation. The use of RFA in colorectal liver metastases is currently limited to unresectable disease and for patients unfit for surgery. The aim of this article is to summarize the current status of RFA in the management of liver tumors and compare it to the cheap and readily available technique of PEI.

Targeted therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma

Unlike most solid tumors, the incidence and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have increased in the United States and Europe in the past decade. Most patients are diagnosed at advanced stages, so there is an urgent need for new systemic therapies. Sorafenib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), has shown clinical efficacy in patients with HCC. Studies in patients with lung, breast, or colorectal cancers have indicated that the genetic heterogeneity of cancer cells within a tumor affect its response to therapeutics designed to target specific molecules. When tumor progression requires alterations in specific oncogenes (oncogene addiction), drugs that selectively block their products might slow tumor growth. However, no specific oncogene addictions are yet known to be implicated in HCC progression, so it is important to improve our understanding of its molecular pathogenesis. There are currently many clinical trials evaluating TKIs for HCC, including those tested in combination with (eg, erlotinib) or compared with (eg, linifanib) sorafenib as a first-line therapy. For patients who do not respond or are intolerant to sorafenib, TKIs such as brivanib, everolimus, and monoclonal antibodies (eg, ramucirumab) are being tested as second-line therapies. There are early stage trials investigating the efficacy for up to 60 reagents for HCC. Together, these studies might change the management strategy for HCC, and combination therapies might be developed for patients with advanced HCC. Identification of oncogenes that mediate tumor progression, and trials that monitor their products as biomarkers, might lead to personalized therapy; reagents that interfere with signaling pathways required for HCC progression might be used to treat selected populations, and thereby maximize the efficacy and cost benefit.

Economic evaluation of sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A double-blind, randomized phase III trial of sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma demonstrated that sorafenib significantly prolonged overall survival compared to placebo (median overall survival = 10.7 months vs 7.9 months, P < 0.001). Sorafenib is the first and only systemic agent demonstrating survival benefit in these patients. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of sorafenib versus best supportive care in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the USA.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed following time-to-progression and survival using phase III trial data. Health effects are expressed as life-years gained. Resource utilization included drugs, physician visits, laboratory tests, scans, and hospitalizations. Unit costs, expressed in 2007 $US, came from diagnosis-related groupings, fee schedules, and the Red Book. Costs and effects were evaluated over a patient's lifetime and discounted at 3%.

RESULTS

Results are presented as incremental cost/life-year gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Life-years gained were increased for sorafenib compared to best supportive care (mean ± standard deviation: 1.58 ± 0.17 vs 1.05 ± 0.10 life-years gained/sorafenib patient and best supportive care, respectively). Lifetime total costs were $US40,639 ± $US3052 for sorafenib and $US7, 804 ± $US1349 for best supportive care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $US62,473/life-year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

  The economic evaluation indicates that sorafenib is cost-effective compared to best supportive care, with a cost-effectiveness ratio within the established threshold that US society is willing to pay (i.e. $US50,000-$US100,000) and significantly lower than alternative thresholds suggested in recent years ($US183,000-$US264,000/life-year gained, or $US300,000/quality-adjusted life-year) in oncology.

Sorafenib: a review of its use in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Sorafenib (Nexavar) is an orally active multikinase inhibitor that is approved in the EU for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Monotherapy with sorafenib prolongs overall survival and delays the time to progression in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who are not candidates for potentially curative treatment or transarterial chemoembolization. Sorafenib is generally well tolerated in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, sorafenib represents an important advance in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and is the new standard of care for this condition. The bi-aryl urea sorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that inhibits cell surface tyrosine kinase receptors (e.g. vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptor-beta) and downstream intracellular serine/threonine kinases (e.g. Raf-1, wild-type B-Raf and mutant B-Raf); these kinases are involved in tumour cell proliferation and tumour angiogenesis. In vitro, dose-dependent inhibition of cell proliferation and induction of apoptosis was seen with sorafenib in human hepatocellular carcinoma cells lines. Sorafenib demonstrated dose-dependent antitumour activity in a murine xenograft model of human hepatocellular carcinoma. Steady-state plasma concentrations were reached within 7 days in patients with advanced, refractory solid tumours who received twice-daily oral sorafenib. Metabolism of sorafenib occurs primarily in the liver and is mediated via cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A9. In advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, differences in sorafenib pharmacokinetics between Child-Pugh A and B patients were not considered clinically significant. Sorafenib may be associated with drug interactions. For example, sorafenib exposure was reduced by an average 37% with concomitant administration of the CYP3A4 inducer rifampicin (rifampin); sorafenib concentrations may also be decreased by other CYP3A4 inducers. Monotherapy with oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily prolonged median overall survival and delayed the median time to progression in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, according to the results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase III trials (the SHARP trial and the Asia-Pacific trial). There was no significant difference between sorafenib and placebo recipients in the median time to symptomatic progression in either trial. The vast majority of patients included in these trials were Child-Pugh A. Combination therapy with sorafenib plus doxorubicin did not delay the median time to progression to a significant extent compared with doxorubicin alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, according to the results of a randomized, double-blind, phase II trial. However, the median durations of overall survival and progression-free survival were significantly longer in patients receiving sorafenib plus doxorubicin than in those receiving doxorubicin alone. Combination therapy with sorafenib plus tegafur/uracil or mitomycin also showed potential in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, according to the results of noncomparative trials. Monotherapy with oral sorafenib was generally well tolerated in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, with a manageable adverse effect profile; diarrhoea and hand-foot skin reaction were consistently the most commonly occurring drug-related adverse events in clinical trials. In the SHARP trial, drug-related adverse events of any grade occurring in significantly more sorafenib than placebo recipients included diarrhoea, hand-foot skin reaction, anorexia, alopecia, weight loss, dry skin, abdominal pain, voice changes and 'other' dermatological events. A similar tolerability profile was seen in the Asia-Pacific trial. As expected given the addition of a chemotherapy agent, the adverse event profile in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who received combination therapy with sorafenib plus doxorubicin differed somewhat to that seen with sorafenib monotherapy in the SHARP trial. In patients receiving sorafenib plus doxorubicin, the most commonly occurring all-cause adverse events (all grades) included fatigue, neutropenia, diarrhoea, elevated bilirubin levels, abdominal pain, hand-foot skin reaction, left ventricular dysfunction, hypertension and febrile neutropenia.

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Most cases of hepatocellular carcinoma occur in the Asia-Pacific region, where chronic hepatitis B infection is an important aetiological factor. Assessing the efficacy and safety of new therapeutic options in an Asia-Pacific population is thus important. We did a multinational phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients from the Asia-Pacific region with advanced (unresectable or metastatic) hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

Between Sept 20, 2005, and Jan 31, 2007, patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic therapy and had Child-Pugh liver function class A, were randomly assigned to receive either oral sorafenib (400 mg) or placebo twice daily in 6-week cycles, with efficacy measured at the end of each 6-week period. Eligible patients were stratified by the presence or absence of macroscopic vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (or both), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and geographical region. Randomisation was done centrally and in a 2:1 ratio by means of an interactive voice-response system. There was no predefined primary endpoint; overall survival, time to progression (TTP), time to symptomatic progression (TTSP), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were assessed. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00492752.

FINDINGS

271 patients from 23 centres in China, South Korea, and Taiwan were enrolled in the study. Of these, 226 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n=150) or to the placebo group (n=76). Median overall survival was 6.5 months (95% CI 5.56-7.56) in patients treated with sorafenib, compared with 4.2 months (3.75-5.46) in those who received placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68 [95% CI 0.50-0.93]; p=0.014). Median TTP was 2.8 months (2.63-3.58) in the sorafenib group compared with 1.4 months (1.35-1.55) in the placebo group (HR 0.57 [0.42-0.79]; p=0.0005). The most frequently reported grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events in the 149 assessable patients treated with sorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR; 16 patients [10.7%]), diarrhoea (nine patients [6.0%]), and fatigue (five patients [3.4%]). The most common adverse events resulting in dose reductions were HFSR (17 patients [11.4%]) and diarrhoea (11 patients [7.4%]); these adverse events rarely led to discontinuation.

INTERPRETATION

Sorafenib is effective for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in patients from the Asia-Pacific region, and is well tolerated. Taken together with data from the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomised Protocol (SHARP) trial, sorafenib seems to be an appropriate option for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.