Comparison of Drug-Eluting Embolics versus Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization for the Treatment of Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR Wu, X., Chapiro, J., Malhotra, A., Kothary, N. 2020


PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of using doxorubicin-loaded drug-eluting embolic (DEE) transarterial chemoembolization versus that of using conventional transarterial chemoembolization for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-analysis model was constructed over the lifespan of a payer's perspective. The model simulated the clinical course, including periprocedural complications, additional transarterial chemoembolization or other treatments (ablation, radioembolization, or systemic treatment), palliative care, and death, of patients with unresectable HCC. All clinical parameters were derived from the literature. Base case calculations, probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and multiple two-way sensitivity analyses were performed.RESULTS: In the base case calculations for patients with a median age of 67 years (range for conventional transarterial chemoembolization: 28-88 years, range for DEE-transarterial chemoembolization: 16-93 years), conventional transarterial chemoembolization yielded a health benefit of 2.11 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) at a cost of $125,324, whereas DEE-transarterial chemoembolization yielded 1.71 QALY for $144,816. In 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, conventional transarterial chemoembolization continued to be a more cost-effective strategy. conventional transarterial chemoembolization was cost-effective when the complication risks for both the procedures were simultaneously varied from 0% to 30%. DEE-transarterial chemoembolization became cost-effective if the conventional transarterial chemoembolization mortality exceeded that of DEE-transarterial chemoembolization by 17% in absolute values. The two-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that conventional transarterial chemoembolization was cost-effective until the risk of disease progression was >0.4% of that for DEE-transarterial chemoembolization in absolute values. Our analysis showed that DEE-transarterial chemoembolization would be more cost-effective if it offered >2.5% higher overall survival benefit than conventional transarterial chemoembolization in absolute values.CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DEE-transarterial chemoembolization, conventional transarterial chemoembolization yielded a higher number of QALY at a lower cost, making it the more cost-effective of the 2 modalities.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jvir.2020.09.022

View details for PubMedID 33160827