Top

Published in:

01-08-2005 | Original Research Article

Economic evaluation of temozolomide in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme

Authors: Janne A. Martikainen, Akseli Kivioja, Taru Hallinen, Pia Vihinen

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 8/2005

Abstract

Background: Temozolomide (TMZ) is an oral alkylating agent with demonstrated efficacy as therapy for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and anaplastic astrocytoma. TMZ has widely replaced the procarbazine, lomustine plus vincristine (PCV) combination for the treatment of malignant brain tumours as a result of its oral administration and favourable toxicity profile.

Objectives: This study had three related aims. First, the cost effectiveness of TMZ (from the Finnish healthcare payer perspective) was compared with PCV in patients with GBM that had relapsed after primary treatment with surgery and radiotherapy. Second, the probability that TMZ is cost effective, compared with PCV, was estimated at different societal willingness-to-pay levels. Third, the value of new information for reducing the uncertainty related to the choice of treatment between TMZ and PCV was evaluated.

Methods: The cost effectiveness of TMZ and PCV was evaluated using a decision-modelling approach. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for cost per gained life-month, progression-free life-month and QALY were calculated. Various information sources were used to acquire parameter values for the model. The efficacy information of both treatments was derived from the medical literature, quality-of-life (QOL) estimates were gathered from Finnish neurooncologists using visual analogue scale methods, and data on the use of healthcare resources were collected from hospital databases. The exact prices for resource use were gained from the list of Finnish health service unit costs (year 2001 prices). The model was analysed using second-order Monte Carlo simulation. The value of new information on reducing uncertainty was analysed using the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) approach.

Results: According to the derived ICERs, 1 extra life-month gained with TMZ costs €2367, 1 extra progression-free life-month costs €2165, and 1 extra QALY costs €32 471, compared with PCV, in the treatment of GBM. The probability of TMZ being the most cost-effective choice of treatment was >60% for all levels of willingness to pay >€5000 per gained life-month. The respective probabilities were >75% for all levels of willingness to pay >€10 000 per gained progressionfree life-month and about 85% for all levels of willingness to pay >€20 000 per gained quality-adjusted life-month. According to EVPI analysis, future research would potentially be cost effective if the costs of research were €4.1 million (maximum).

Conclusions: On the basis of this Finnish analysis, TMZ has a high probability of being more cost effective than PCV for patients with GBM. The addition of QOL aspects to the prolonging of survival increases the probability further.

Exchange rate of the European Central Bank, 1 March 2004.

Newlands ES, Stevens MF, Wedge SR, et al. Temozolomide: a review of its discovery, chemical properties, pre-clinical development and clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rev 1997; 23 (1): 35–61PubMedCrossRef

Brada M, Hoang-Xuan K, Rampling R, et al. Multicenter phase II trial of temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma multiforme at first relapse. Ann Oncol 2001; 12 (2): 259–66PubMedCrossRef

Yung WK, Albright RE, Olson J, et al. A phase 11 study of temozolomide vs procarbazine in patients with glioblastoma multiforme at first relapse. Br J Cancer 2000; 83 (5): 588–93PubMedCrossRef

Stupp R, Dietrich P-Y, Ostermann Kraljevic S, et al. Promising survival for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme treated with concomitant radiation plus temozolomide followed by adjuvant temozolomide. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20 (5): 1375–82PubMedCrossRef

Briggs AH, Goeree R, Blackhouse G, et al. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: choosing between treatment strategies for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med Decis Making 2002; 22 (4): 290–308PubMed

Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation: a practical approach. Med Decis Making 1985; 5 (2): 157–77PubMedCrossRef

Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 322–38PubMedCrossRef

Briggs A, Sculpher M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (4): 397–409PubMedCrossRef

Tan SB, Dear KBG, Bruzzi P, et al. Strategy for randomised clinical trials in rare cancers. BMJ 2003; 327 (7405): 47–9PubMedCrossRef

10.

Brandes AA, Vastola F, Basso U, et al. A prospective study of glioblastoma in the elderly. Cancer 2003; 97 (3): 657–62PubMedCrossRef

11.

Kappelle AC, Postma TJ, Taphoorn MJB, et al. PCV chemotherapy for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Neurology 2001; 56 (1): 118–20PubMedCrossRef

12.

Boiardi A, Silvani A, Eoli M, et al. PCV chemotherapy for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Neurology 2001; 56 (12): 1782PubMedCrossRef

13.

Miller D, Homan S. Determining transition probabilities: confusion and suggestions. Med Decis Making 1994; 14 (1): 52–8PubMedCrossRef

14.

Gelman A, Carlin J, Siren H, et al. Bayesian data analysis. London: Chapman & Hall, 1995

15.

Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 2001; 21 (4): 329–34PubMed

16.

Brazier J, Green C, McCabe C, et al. Use of visual analog scale in economic evaluation. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2003; 3 (3): 293–302CrossRef

17.

Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7 (6: 490–502PubMedCrossRef

18.

Hujanen T. Terveydenhuollon yksikkökustannukset Suomessa vuonna 2001. Helsinki: Stakes Aiheita, 2003

19.

Valtioneuvoston asetus lääketaksasta [Council of States act on price list for drugs], 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.finlex.fi/flAaki/alkup/2002/20021183 [Accessed 2003 Aug 1]

20.

Briggs A, Gray A. The distribution of health care costs and their statistical analysis for economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998; 3 (4): 233–45PubMed

21.

Levin VA, Wara WM, Davis RL, et al. Phase III comparison of BCNU and the combination of procarbazine, CCNU, and vincristine administered after radiotherapy with hydroxyurea for malignant gliomas. J Neurosurg 1985; 63: 218–23PubMedCrossRef

22.

Levin VA, Hess KR, Choucair A, et al. Phase III randomized study of postradiotherapy chemotherapy with combination α-difiuoromethylomithe-PCV versus PCV for anaplastic gliomas. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9: 981–90PubMed

23.

Medical Research Council Brain Tumour Working party. Randomized trial of procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine in the adjuvant treatment of high-grade astrocytoma: a Medical Research Council trial. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19 (2): 509–18

24.

Buckner JC, Gesme D, O’Fallon JR, et al. Phase II trial of procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine as initial therapy for patients with low-grade oligodendroglioma or oligoastrocytoma: efficacy and associations with chromosomal abnormalities. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21 (2): 251–5PubMedCrossRef

25.

Prados MD, Scott C, Sandler H, et al. A phase 3 randomized study of radiotherapy plus procarbazine, CCNU, and vincristine (PCV) with or without BUdR for the treatment of anaplastic astrocytoma: a preliminary report of RTOG 9404. Int J Radial Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 45 (5): 1109–15CrossRef

26.

Yung WK, Prados MD, Yaya-Tur R, et al. Multicenter phase II trial of temozolomide in patients with anaplastic astrocytoma or oligoastrocytoma at first relapse. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17 (9): 2762–71PubMed

27.

Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: S68–80PubMedCrossRef

28.

O’Hagan A, Stevens JW, Montmartin J. Inference for the costeffectiveness acceptability curve and cost-effectiveness ratio. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (4): 339–49PubMedCrossRef

29.

Tambour M, Zethraeus N, Johannesson M. A note on confidence intervals in cost-effectiveness analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14 (3): 467–71PubMedCrossRef

30.

Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18 (3): 341–64PubMedCrossRef

31.

Claxton K, Neumann PJ, Araki S, et al. Bayesian value-ofinformation analysis: an application to a policy model of Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001; 17 (1): 38–55PubMedCrossRef

32.

Kamon J. Planning the efficient allocation of research funds: an adapted application of a non-parametric Bayesian value of information analysis. Health Policy 2002; 61 (3): 329–47CrossRef

33.

Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M, et al. Improving the efficiency and relevance of health technology assessment: the role of iterative decision analytic modelling. York: Centre for Health Economics, 2000

34.

Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States: statistical report. Primary brain tumors in the United States, 1995-1999 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ebtrus.org/reports/ 2002/2002report.pdf [Accessed 2003 Aug 1]

35.

Dinnes J, Cave C, Huang S, et al. The effectiveness and costeffectiveness of temozolomide for the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5 (13). Available from URL: blip: // www.nechta.org/fullmono/mon5l3.pdf [Accessed 2003 Jun 1]

36.

Salo J, Niemelä A, Joukamaa M, et al. Effect of brain tumour laterality on patients’ perceived quality of life. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 72: 373–7PubMedCrossRef

37.

Sprangers M, Aaronson N. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45 (7): 743–60PubMedCrossRef

38.

Addington-Hall J, Kalra L. Measuring quality of life: who should measure quality of life? BMJ 2001; 322 (9): 1417–20PubMedCrossRef

39.

Rissanen P, Sintonen H, Pekurinen M. 15D Terveyteen liittyvän elämänlaatumittarin, visuaalisen analogiamittarin ja koetun terveydentilan mittarin arvot aikuisikäisessä normaaliväestössa. Sos Laaketiet Aikak 1995; 32 (3): 207–11

Title: Economic evaluation of temozolomide in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme
Authors: Janne A. Martikainen
Akseli Kivioja
Taru Hallinen
Pia Vihinen
Publication date: 01-08-2005
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: PharmacoEconomics / Issue 8/2005
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523080-00006

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Economic evaluation of temozolomide in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2005

Societal discounting of health effects in cost-effectiveness analyses

The authors’ reply

Cost of illness and its predictors for Parkinson’s disease in Germany

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with small cell lung cancer

Parent-proxy EQ-5D ratings of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in the US and the UK

Pharmaceutical policy regarding generic drugs in Belgium