Cost-effectiveness of Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) for Heavily Pretreated Metastatic Gastric Cancer

K. Zhou,J. Zhou,M. Zhang,W. Liao,Q. Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-019-02127-6
2020-01-01
Abstract:BACKGROUND AND AIM:Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102), a novel oral cytotoxic chemotherapy, significantly improved overall survival compared with placebo in heavily pretreated advanced gastric cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAS102 in the third-line or later treatment for this population from the US payer perspective.METHODS:A Markov model was developed to simulate advanced gastric cancer, including three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death. Model inputs were derived from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TAGS trial, NCT02500043). Utilities were extracted from public resources. Costs were calculated from an American payer perspective. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainty.RESULTS:From the US payer perspective, treatment with TAS102 for patients with heavily pretreated advanced gastric cancer was estimated to increase costs by $59,180 compared with the placebo, with a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $986,333 per QALY. The costs for progression-free survival of TAS102 group had the greatest impact on the ICERs, as well as the cost of TAS102.CONCLUSION:Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) is not a cost-effective choice for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer from an American payer perspective.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?