Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcoma in the United kingdom.

ABSTRACT: In the phase III PALETTE trial, pazopanib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in patients with advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (mSTS) who had received prior chemotherapy. We used a multistate model to estimate expected PFS, overall survival (OS), lifetime STS treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients receiving pazopanib, placebo, trabectedin, ifosfamide, or gemcitabine plus docetaxel as second-line mSTS therapies. The cost-effectiveness of pazopanib was expressed as the incremental costs per QALY gained. Estimates of PFS/OS, adverse events, and utilities for pazopanib and placebo were from the PALETTE trial. Estimates of relative effectiveness of the other comparators were from an unadjusted indirect comparison versus pazopanib. Costs were from published sources. Pazopanib is estimated to increase QALYs by 0.128 and costs by £7,976 versus placebo; cost per QALY gained with pazopanib versus placebo is estimated to be £62,000. Compared with the other chemotherapies, pazopanib provides similar QALYs at a lower cost. Pazopanib may not be cost-effective versus placebo but may be cost-effective versus the most commonly used active treatments, although this conclusion is uncertain. Given the unmet need for effective treatments for mSTS, pazopanib may be an appropriate alternative to some currently used medications in the United Kingdom.

SUBMITTER: Amdahl J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4082932 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcoma in the United kingdom.

Amdahl Jordan J Amdahl Jordan J Manson Stephanie C SC Isbell Robert R Chit Ayman A Diaz Jose J Lewis Lily L Delea Thomas E TE

Sarcoma 20140612

In the phase III PALETTE trial, pazopanib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in patients with advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (mSTS) who had received prior chemotherapy. We used a multistate model to estimate expected PFS, overall survival (OS), lifetime STS treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients receiving pazopanib, placebo, trabectedin, ifosfamide, or gemcitabine plus docetaxel as second-line mSTS therapies. The cost-effective ...[more]

PMID: 25024640

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSunitinib and pazopanib are the only two targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) recommended by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pazopanib demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and a differentiated safety profile versus sunitinib in the phase III COMPARZ trial. The current analysis provides a direct comparison of the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from the perspective of the United Kingdom's National Health Service based on data from COMPARZ and other sources.MethodsA partitioned-survival analysis model with three health states (alive with no progression, alive with progression, or dead) was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib over five years (duration of follow-up for final survival analysis in COMPARZ). The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan-Meier distributions for progression-free and overall survival from COMPARZ. Utility values were based on EQ-5D data from the pivotal study of pazopanib versus placebo. Costs were based on medical resource utilisation data from COMPARZ and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty of model results.ResultsIn the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs (0.0565, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.0920 to 0.2126) at a lower cost (-£1,061, 95% CrI: -£4,328 to £2,067) versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib yields more QALYs than sunitinib was estimated to be 76%. For a threshold value of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 95%. Pazopanib was dominant in most scenarios examined in deterministic sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsPazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC in the United Kingdom.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is an exceedingly rare and orphan disease, without active drugs approved in the front line. Pazopanib and trabectedin are licensed for sarcoma treatment from second-line, but very little and contradictory data are available on their activity in ASPS. Lacking ongoing and/or planned clinical trials, we conducted a multi-institutional study involving the reference sites for sarcoma in Europe, U.S., and Japan, within the World Sarcoma Network, to investigate the efficacy of pazopanib and trabectedin. MATERIALS AND METHODS:From May 2007, 14 of the 27 centers that were asked to retrospectively review their databases had identified 44 advanced ASPS patients treated with pazopanib and/or trabectedin. Response was evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were computed by Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS:Among 30 patients who received pazopanib, 18 were pretreated (13 with other antiangiogenics). Response was evaluable in 29/30 patients. Best responses were 1 complete response, 7 partial response (PR), 17 stable disease (SD), and 4 progressions. At a 19-month median follow-up, median PFS was 13.6 months (range: 1.6-32.2+), with 59% of patients progression-free at 1 year. Median OS was not reached.Among 23 patients treated with trabectedin, all were pretreated and evaluable for response. Best responses were 1 PR, 13 SD, and 9 progressions. At a 27-month median follow-up, median PFS was 3.7 months (range: 0.7-109), with 13% of patients progression-free at 1 year. Median OS was 9.1 months. CONCLUSION:The value of pazopanib in advanced ASPS is confirmed, with durable responses, whereas the value of trabectedin appears limited. These results are relevant to defining the best approach to advanced ASPS. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:This retrospective study, conducted among the world reference centers for treatment of sarcoma, confirms the value of pazopanib in patients with advanced alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS), with dimensional and durable responses, whereas trabectedin shows a limited activity. Alveolar soft part sarcoma is resistant to conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy. Pazopanib and trabectedin are licensed for treatment of sarcoma from second line; in the lack of prospective clinical trials, these results are relevant to defining ASPS best management and strongly support initiatives aimed at obtaining the approval of pazopanib in the front line of the disease.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcoma in the United kingdom.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcoma in the United kingdom.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets