Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFOX4 and sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China

Authors: Shukui Qin, Eliza Kruger, Seng Chuen Tan, Shuqun Cheng, Nanya Wang, Jun Liang

Published in: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. In China, sorafenib and oxaliplatin plus infusional-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFOX4) are approved for the systemic treatment of advanced HCC. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of these therapies from a healthcare system perspective and a patient perspectives.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed using overall and progression-free survival rates and adverse event (AE) rate from two randomized controlled studies of advanced HCC patients from Asia: EACH for FOLFOX4 and ORIENTAL for sorafenib. The patients in the Markov model were followed until death, the length of each Markov cycle was 1 month, and the survival was adjusted for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Direct medical costs included costs of therapies, AE treatment, general ward and tests. Costs were derived from published sources, interviews with oncologists and hospital data from China. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to test the robustness of the results.

Results

From the healthcare system perspective, FOLFOX4 dominated sorafenib with lower therapy costs (FOLFOX4: US$ 6972; sorafenib: US$ 12,289), lower direct medical costs (FOLFOX4: US$ 8428; sorafenib: US$ 12,798), and higher QALYs (FOLFOX4: 0.42; sorafenib: 0.38) per patient. This result was robust according to comprehensive one-way sensitivity analyses. According to the PSA, at the cost-effectiveness threshold for China (3 × GDP, US$ 22,073), FOLFOX4 should be chosen in 63.9% of simulations. From the patient perspective, FOLFOX4 also dominated sorafenib.

Conclusions

The study results indicate that FOLFOX4 dominates sorafenib because it appears to provide higher effectiveness with significantly lower costs in treating Chinese advanced HCC patients.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Zhu AX. Systemic therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: how hopeful should we be? Oncologist. 2006;11:790–800.CrossRefPubMed Zhu AX. Systemic therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: how hopeful should we be? Oncologist. 2006;11:790–800.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
go back to reference Yang T, Lu J, Wu M. Hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Stud BMJ. 2010;18:c1026. Yang T, Lu J, Wu M. Hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Stud BMJ. 2010;18:c1026.
5.
go back to reference Ministry of Health China. Diagnosis and treatment guidelines for primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Chin J Clin Onocol. 2011;16:929–46. Ministry of Health China. Diagnosis and treatment guidelines for primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Chin J Clin Onocol. 2011;16:929–46.
6.
go back to reference NICE. NICE technology appraisal guidance 189-sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. London: NICE; 2010. NICE. NICE technology appraisal guidance 189-sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. London: NICE; 2010.
7.
go back to reference Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:378–90.CrossRefPubMed Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:378–90.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Cheng A-L, Kang Y-K, Chen Z, et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:25–34.CrossRefPubMed Cheng A-L, Kang Y-K, Chen Z, et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:25–34.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference NICE. NICE technology appraisal guidance 100-capecitabine and oxaliplatin in the adjuvant treatment of stage III (Dukes’ C) colon cancer. London: NICE; 2006. NICE. NICE technology appraisal guidance 100-capecitabine and oxaliplatin in the adjuvant treatment of stage III (Dukes’ C) colon cancer. London: NICE; 2006.
10.
go back to reference Qin S, Bai Y, Ye S, et al. Phase III study of oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFOX4) versus doxorubicin as palliative systemic chemotherapy in advanced HCC in Asian patients. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(15_suppl):4008.CrossRef Qin S, Bai Y, Ye S, et al. Phase III study of oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFOX4) versus doxorubicin as palliative systemic chemotherapy in advanced HCC in Asian patients. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(15_suppl):4008.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Qin S, Cheng Y, Liang J, et al. Efficacy and safety of the FOLFOX4 regimen versus doxorubicin in Chinese patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a subgroup analysis of the EACH study. Oncologist. 2014;19:1169–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Qin S, Cheng Y, Liang J, et al. Efficacy and safety of the FOLFOX4 regimen versus doxorubicin in Chinese patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a subgroup analysis of the EACH study. Oncologist. 2014;19:1169–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Liu G, Hu S, Wu J. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations in China (2011 version). China pharmacoeconomic. 2011;3:6–48. Liu G, Hu S, Wu J. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations in China (2011 version). China pharmacoeconomic. 2011;3:6–48.
13.
go back to reference Qin S, Bai Y, Lim HY, et al. Randomized, multicenter, open-label study of oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil/leucovorin versus doxorubicin as palliative chemotherapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from Asia. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3501–8.CrossRefPubMed Qin S, Bai Y, Lim HY, et al. Randomized, multicenter, open-label study of oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil/leucovorin versus doxorubicin as palliative chemotherapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from Asia. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3501–8.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Bayer China. Nexavar® package insert. Beijing, China, 2015. Bayer China. Nexavar® package insert. Beijing, China, 2015.
15.
go back to reference Sanofi China. Eloxatin® package insert. Shanghai, China, 2015. Sanofi China. Eloxatin® package insert. Shanghai, China, 2015.
16.
go back to reference National Health and Family Planning Commission. Nutrition and chronic disease status reports of Chinese residents [Chinese]. Beijing: National Health and Family Planning Commission; 2015. National Health and Family Planning Commission. Nutrition and chronic disease status reports of Chinese residents [Chinese]. Beijing: National Health and Family Planning Commission; 2015.
17.
go back to reference Thompson Coon J, Hoyle M, Green C, et al. Bevacizumab, sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(2):1–184.CrossRefPubMed Thompson Coon J, Hoyle M, Green C, et al. Bevacizumab, sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(2):1–184.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference World Bank. GDP per capita (current US$). 2014. World Bank. GDP per capita (current US$). 2014.
19.
go back to reference X-Rates. Monthly average USD to RMB December 2015. 2015. X-Rates. Monthly average USD to RMB December 2015. 2015.
20.
go back to reference Macroeconomics WHO. Health: investing in health for economic development. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health Geneva. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001. Macroeconomics WHO. Health: investing in health for economic development. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health Geneva. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
21.
go back to reference Shanghai health care. Shanghai basic medical insurance for urban employees and urban/rural residents health care policy. Shanghai: Shanghai health care; 2016. Shanghai health care. Shanghai basic medical insurance for urban employees and urban/rural residents health care policy. Shanghai: Shanghai health care; 2016.
22.
go back to reference Craig BA, Black MA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental net-health benefit: two sides of the same coin. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconom Outcomes Res. 2001;1(1):37–46.CrossRef Craig BA, Black MA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental net-health benefit: two sides of the same coin. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconom Outcomes Res. 2001;1(1):37–46.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Miller DK, Homan SM. Determining transition probabilities confusion and suggestions. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:52–8.CrossRefPubMed Miller DK, Homan SM. Determining transition probabilities confusion and suggestions. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:52–8.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Zhang P, Yang Y, Wen F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib as a first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;27:853–9.CrossRefPubMed Zhang P, Yang Y, Wen F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib as a first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;27:853–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Camma C, Cabibbo G, Petta S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib treatment in field practice for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2013;57:1046–54.CrossRefPubMed Camma C, Cabibbo G, Petta S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib treatment in field practice for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2013;57:1046–54.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Carr BI, Carroll S, Muszbek N, et al. Economic evaluation of sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25:1739–46.CrossRefPubMed Carr BI, Carroll S, Muszbek N, et al. Economic evaluation of sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25:1739–46.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Muszbek N, Shah S, Carroll S, et al. Economic evaluation of sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24:3559–69.CrossRefPubMed Muszbek N, Shah S, Carroll S, et al. Economic evaluation of sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24:3559–69.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Carr BI, Carroll S, Muszbek N, et al. Economic evaluation of sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25:1739–46.CrossRefPubMed Carr BI, Carroll S, Muszbek N, et al. Economic evaluation of sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25:1739–46.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Cammà C, Cabibbo G, Petta S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib treatment in field practice for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2013;57:1046–54.CrossRefPubMed Cammà C, Cabibbo G, Petta S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib treatment in field practice for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2013;57:1046–54.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Yothasamut J, Tantivess S, Teerawattananon Y. Using economic evaluation in policy decision-making in Asian countries: mission impossible or mission probable? Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 3):S26–30.CrossRefPubMed Yothasamut J, Tantivess S, Teerawattananon Y. Using economic evaluation in policy decision-making in Asian countries: mission impossible or mission probable? Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 3):S26–30.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFOX4 and sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China
Authors
Shukui Qin
Eliza Kruger
Seng Chuen Tan
Shuqun Cheng
Nanya Wang
Jun Liang
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1478-7547
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-018-0112-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1/2018 Go to the issue