Search

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an increasingly common cancer with a persistently poor prognosis, and only approximately 20% of patients are clearly anatomically resectable at diagnosis. Historically, a paucity of effective therapy made it inappropriate to forego the traditional gold standard of upfront surgery in favour of neoadjuvant treatment; however, modern combination chemotherapy regimens have made neoadjuvant therapy increasingly viable. As its use has expanded, the rationale for neoadjuvant therapy has evolved from one of 'downstaging' to one of early treatment of micro-metastases and selection of patients with favourable tumour biology for resection. Defining resectability in PDAC is problematic; multiple differing definitions exist. Multidisciplinary input, both in initial assessment of resectability and in supervision of multimodality therapy, is therefore advised. European and North American guidelines recommend the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in borderline resectable (BR)-PDAC. Similar regimens may be applied in locally advanced (LA)-PDAC with the aim of improving potential access to curative-intent resection, but appropriate patient selection is key due to significant rates of recurrence after excision of LA disease. Upfront surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy remain standard-of-care in clearly resectable PDAC, but multiple trials evaluating the use of neoadjuvant therapy in this and other localised settings are ongoing.

Introduction The aim of the study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of TheraSphere against other embolic treatments in a population with early to intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are unresectable at presentation and are eligible for transarterial embolization (TAE), conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) or drug-eluting bead TACE (DEB-TACE). Materials and methods A Markov model was constructed using a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective, a 20-year time horizon, and four-week cycles. The eight health states included ‘watch and wait’, ‘transplantation’ (pre-, post and post (No HCC)), ‘resection’, ‘no HCC other’, ‘pharmacological management’ and ‘death’. Clinical data were sourced from literature and expert opinion. Resource use and costs were reflective of the NHS, and benefits were quantified using Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), with utility weights sourced from literature. Comparators were TAE, cTACE and DEB-TACE. The primary output was the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per QALY gained. An ICER of under £20,000/QALY gained for an intervention is cost-effective and represents efficient use of healthcare resources. Extensive deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Results TheraSphere patients were predicted to gain 0.7 additional QALYs compared to all other treatments. The base case ICERs for TheraSphere were £17,300, £17,279 and £23,020 per QALY gained compared to TAE, cTACE and DEB-TACE, respectively. In the TheraSphere cohort, 87% more patients were predicted to achieve downstaging compared to all other treatment options. Conclusions This study indicates that treatment with TheraSphere is a potentially cost-effective option for patients with early to intermediate stage HCC.