Premium
Use of sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation: A cost‐benefit analysis while awaiting data on sorafenib safety
Author(s) -
Vitale Alessandro,
Volk Michael L.,
Pastorelli Davide,
Lonardi Sara,
Farinati Fabio,
Burra Patrizia,
Angeli Paolo,
Cillo Umberto
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
hepatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 5.488
H-Index - 361
eISSN - 1527-3350
pISSN - 0270-9139
DOI - 10.1002/hep.23260
Subject(s) - sorafenib , medicine , hepatocellular carcinoma , hazard ratio , oncology , liver transplantation , cirrhosis , surgery , transplantation , urology , confidence interval
The role of bridging therapies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on the waiting list for liver transplantation (LT) remains controversial. There is strong evidence to support the effectiveness of sorafenib in extending the time to progression of HCC. Using a Markov model, we compared two strategies: one using sorafenib as neoadjuvant therapy before LT (Strategy A), and the other using no bridging therapy in the first 6 months (Strategy B). Reference case: T2 HCC patient with compensated cirrhosis. The benefit of sorafenib in delaying time to HCC progression was expressed as the hazard ratio (HR) and taken from recently published randomized trials. The endpoints considered were: survival benefit measured in quality‐adjusted life days (QALDs), transplant probability, costs (C) in €, willingness to pay (WTP), and net health benefit (NHB), where NHB = survival benefit − C/WTP. The calculated WTP of sorafenib in Italy was 346 € per QALD. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a median survival benefit of 94 QALDs (10% percentile = 38, 90% percentile = 210). In the base‐case scenario (HR = 0.47, monthly dropout probability = 5%, median time to LT = 3 months), the gain in LT probability due to sorafenib was 5% and it increased proportionally with increasing median times to LT and decreasing HR. In the cost‐benefit analysis, the incremental NHB of Strategy A versus Strategy B was 37 QALDs; it increased as sorafenib HR decreased and when median times to LT were shorter than 6 months, whereas for longer times it gradually dropped, particularly when Strategy B included effective locoregional treatments. Conclusion: Sorafenib neoadjuvant therapy is cost‐effective by comparison with no therapy for T2‐HCC patients waiting for LT, particularly for median times to LT under 6 months. (H EPATOLOGY 2009.)