Additional Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy to Sorafenib Was Cost-Effective for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Major Portal Vein Tumor Thrombosis

Qi-Feng Chen,1,* Xiong-Ying Jiang,1,2,* Yue Hu,1,* Song Chen,1 Jun-Zhe Yi,1 Sui-Xing Zhong,1 Jiong-Liang Wang,1 Ning Lyu,1 Ming Zhao1 1Department of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, Liver Cancer Study and Service Group, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510210, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Ming Zhao, Department of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, Liver Cancer Study and Service Group Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng East Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510060, People’s Republic of China, Tel +862087343272, Email zhaoming@mail.sysu.edu.cnPurpose: The combination of sorafenib and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (SoHAIC) has shown to enhance overall survival rates in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and major portal vein tumor thrombosis (HCC-Vp3-4) compared to sorafenib alone. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SoHAIC versus sorafenib for the treatment of HCC-Vp3-4, taking into account the viewpoint of Chinese healthcare payers.Methods: This pharmacoeconomic study employed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of treating HCC-Vp3-4 with SoHAIC in comparison to sorafenib. The patient characteristics were drawn from individuals from the trial conducted between June 2017 and November 2019, with cost and health value data sourced from published literature. The primary outcome measure in this research was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which indicates the additional cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per QALY was set at $30,492.00. Furthermore, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to validate the consistency of the results.Results: In the baseline scenario, sorafenib resulted in 0.42 QALY at a cost of $10,507.89, while SoHAIC generated 1.66 QALY at a cost of $32,971.56. When comparing SoHAIC to sorafenib, the ICER was $18,237.20 per QALY, which was below the WTP threshold per QALY. Furthermore, the 1-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICER remained within the WTP threshold despite fluctuations in variables. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, SoHAIC had a 98.8% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold, considering a wide range of parameters.Conclusion: In this cost-effectiveness evaluation, SoHAIC demonstrated cost-effectiveness over sorafenib for HCC with major portal vein tumor thrombosis, as observed from the perspective of a Chinese payer.Keywords: HCC, portal vein tumor thrombosis, sorafenib, HAIC, Cost-effectiveness