TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost effectiveness of radioembolization compared with conventional transarterial chemoembolization for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma
AU - Rostambeigi, Nassir
AU - Dekarske, Adrienne S.
AU - Austin, Erin E.
AU - Golzarian, Jafar
AU - Cressman, Erik N.
PY - 2014/7
Y1 - 2014/7
N2 - Purpose To assess cost effectiveness of radioembolization versus conventional transarterial chemoembolization. Materials and Methods The cost of radioembolization versus conventional transarterial chemoembolization was determined based on Medicare reimbursements. Three patient subgroups were defined based on the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification system (A, B, or C). Efficacy and safety outcomes after each procedure were obtained from the literature. A Monte Carlo case-based simulation was designed for 60 months in 250 patients in each subgroup. Survival was calculated based on average survival from the literature and the Monte Carlo model. The primary outcome was the cost effectiveness of radioembolization over transarterial chemoembolization by considering calculated survival. Results The costs approached $17,000 for transarterial chemoembolization versus $31,000 or $48,000 for unilobar or bilobar radioembolization, respectively. Based on the simulation, median estimated survival was greater with transarterial chemoembolization than radioembolization in BCLC-A and BCLC-B subgroups (40 months vs 30 months and 23 months vs 16 months, respectively, P =.001). However, in the BCLC-C subgroup, survival was greater with radioembolization than transarterial chemoembolization (13 months vs 17 months, P =.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of radioembolization over transarterial chemoembolization in the BCLC-C subgroup was $360 per month. The results were dependent on bilobar versus unilobar radioembolization and the total number of radioembolization procedures. Conclusions The model suggests radioembolization costs may be justified for patients with BCLC-C disease, whereas radioembolization may not be cost effective in patients with BCLC-A disease; however, many patients with BCLC-C disease have extensive disease precluding locoregional therapies. Secondary considerations may determine treatment choice in more borderline patients (BCLC-B disease) because there is no persistent survival benefit with radioembolization.
AB - Purpose To assess cost effectiveness of radioembolization versus conventional transarterial chemoembolization. Materials and Methods The cost of radioembolization versus conventional transarterial chemoembolization was determined based on Medicare reimbursements. Three patient subgroups were defined based on the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification system (A, B, or C). Efficacy and safety outcomes after each procedure were obtained from the literature. A Monte Carlo case-based simulation was designed for 60 months in 250 patients in each subgroup. Survival was calculated based on average survival from the literature and the Monte Carlo model. The primary outcome was the cost effectiveness of radioembolization over transarterial chemoembolization by considering calculated survival. Results The costs approached $17,000 for transarterial chemoembolization versus $31,000 or $48,000 for unilobar or bilobar radioembolization, respectively. Based on the simulation, median estimated survival was greater with transarterial chemoembolization than radioembolization in BCLC-A and BCLC-B subgroups (40 months vs 30 months and 23 months vs 16 months, respectively, P =.001). However, in the BCLC-C subgroup, survival was greater with radioembolization than transarterial chemoembolization (13 months vs 17 months, P =.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of radioembolization over transarterial chemoembolization in the BCLC-C subgroup was $360 per month. The results were dependent on bilobar versus unilobar radioembolization and the total number of radioembolization procedures. Conclusions The model suggests radioembolization costs may be justified for patients with BCLC-C disease, whereas radioembolization may not be cost effective in patients with BCLC-A disease; however, many patients with BCLC-C disease have extensive disease precluding locoregional therapies. Secondary considerations may determine treatment choice in more borderline patients (BCLC-B disease) because there is no persistent survival benefit with radioembolization.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903301965&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jvir.2014.04.014
DO - 10.1016/j.jvir.2014.04.014
M3 - Article
C2 - 24861664
AN - SCOPUS:84903301965
SN - 1051-0443
VL - 25
SP - 1075
EP - 1084
JO - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
JF - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
IS - 7
ER -