Sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus, or bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC): A review of health economic evaluations.
J. Norum,C. Nieder,M. Kondo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.27.15_suppl.e17539
IF: 45.3
2009-05-20
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:e17539 Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most prevalent kidney cancer and the 5-year overall survival figure in metastatic disease (mRCC) is about 10%. New targeted drugs (sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab, temsirolimus) have shown activity in the treatment of mRCC, but they are all associated with a significant burden of cost.
METHODS
To support decision makers in their allocation of resources, cost-effectiveness models are constructed to compare the costs and outcomes of anticancer therapy. The PubMed, ASCO abstracts, Google, and the Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases were searched in November 2008 with key terms: kidney, renal, cancer, cost, sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus, and bevacizumab. Seven studies reporting data on cost-effectiveness were revealed. Three of them were published in full text versions. The countries of application were United Kingdom, Canada, United States, Finland, and Japan. An analytical checklist was applied to the seven economic evaluations.
RESULTS
The review reveals figures of cost per LYG or QALY in the range €22,648 to €203,692, depending on line setting and drug focused. The results were limited by short follow up periods and the consequently fact that premature data had to be implemented in the Markov models. When compared, sunitinib has the lowest cost-effectiveness figure. Second-line therapy dose not seem to offer valid incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds. As long as cross-over to the experimental arm is allowed (based on improvement in progression free survival) overall survival data are difficult to interpret and the cost difference between the treatment and the control arm minimised.
CONCLUSIONS
The review revealed ICERs with a wide range. Sunitinib has the lowest cost-effectiveness figure. Second-line therapy does not look cost-effective. [Table: see text].