Author(s)
Gourzoulidis G1, Koulentaki M1, Koumarianou A2, Samantas E3, Androulakis N4, Xynogalos S5, Papakotoulas P6, Boukovinas I7, Karamouzis M8, Souglakos I9, Chotzagiannoglou V10, Beletsi A11, Kourlaba G1
1Econcare LP, Athens, A1, Greece, 2Fourth Department of Internal Medicine Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece, 3Medical Oncology, "METROPOLITAN" Hospital, Piraeus, Greece, 4Medical Oncology Unit, Pananio-Venizelio General Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion, Greece, 5Medical Oncology, "Metaxas" Cancer Hospital, Piraeus, Greece, 6First Department of Clinical Oncology, Theagenio Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece, 7Bioclinic Oncology Unit of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, 8School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece, 9Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion, Greece, 10Servier Hellas Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Athens, Greece, 11Servier Hellas Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Athens, A1, Greece
OBJECTIVES : To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) compared with best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of patients with metastatic gastric cancer (mGC), including gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJ), who have received at least two prior therapies for metastatic disease and are eligible for third-line treatment, in Greece. METHODS : A partitioned survival model was locally adapted from a public payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Efficacy, safety data, and utility values were extracted from relevant clinical trials and the literature. Resource consumption data obtained from a panel of local experts using a questionnaire developed for the study was combined with unit costs obtained from official sources. All costs reflect the year 2020 (€). Primary outcomes of the model were patients’ life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALYs and LYs gained. Both cost and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per year. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact in changing input data. RESULTS : The total cost per patient was estimated to be €6,965 for FTD/TPI and €1,906 for BSC. In terms of health outcomes, FTD/TPI was associated with 0.180 and 0.107 increments in LYs and QALYs, respectively, compared with BSC, resulting in an ICER of €47,144 per QALY gained and €28,112 per LY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis reported that the most influential parameters on the model results was the FTD/TPI time on treatment data. At the defined willingness-to-pay threshold of €54,000 per QALY gained, probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that FTD/TPI was estimated to have a 64% probability of being cost-effective compared with BSC. CONCLUSIONS : The results indicated that FTD/TPI was estimated to be a cost-effective treatment option for eligible third-line mGC patients, including GEJ, who have received at least two prior therapies for metastatic disease in Greece.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2020-11, ISPOR Europe 2020, Milan, Italy
Value in Health, Volume 23, Issue S2 (December 2020)
Code
PCN94
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Oncology