Transarterial therapies in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma eligible for transarterial embolization: a US cost-effectiveness analysis

Objectives To assess the cost-effectiveness of transarterial radioembolization (TARE) versus conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) and drug-eluting beads chemoembolization (DEE-TACE) for patients with unresectable early- to intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Design A cohort-based Markov model with a five-year time horizon was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the three embolization treatments. Upon entering the model, patients with HCC received either TARE or one of the two other embolization treatments. Patients remained in a watch and wait state for tumor downstaging that allowed them to move to health states such as liver transplant, resection, systemic therapies, or cure. Clinical input parameters were retrieved from the published literature, and where values could not be sourced, assumptions were made and validated by clinical experts. Health benefits were quantified using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost input parameters were obtained from various sources, including the Medicare Cost Report, IBM & REG; Micromedex RED BOOK, and published literature.Results At five years, TARE was found to be cost-saving (saving $15,779 per person compared to cTACE) and produced 0.33 more QALYs per person than cTACE. TARE cost $13,696 more but produced 0.33 more QALYs than DEE-TACE, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $41,474 per QALY gained at five years. After accounting for parameter uncertainty, the likelihood of TARE being cost-effective was at least 90% against all comparators at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained.Conclusions TARE produces more QALYs than cTACE and DEE-TACE, with a high probability of being cost-effective against both comparators. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer guideline recommends the use of transarterial radioembolization (TARE), conventional (cTACE), or drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEE-TACE) for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TARE versus two alternative embolization treatments (cTACE and DEE-TACE) in treating patients with unresectable early- to intermediate-stage HCC.A cohort-based Markov model was developed to analyze the costs and benefits of these treatments from a US healthcare perspective within a 5-year time horizon. A 20-year time horizon was assessed as a scenario. In the model, patients were assigned to receive TARE, cTACE, or DEE-TACE and remained in the watch and wait stage for tumor downstaging. Data used in the model was taken from previous studies and in consultation with clinical experts. The benefits of the treatments were measured by considering the impact on the patient's quality of life. The costs associated with the treatments were obtained from various sources, including reports, publicly available databases, and published literature.The findings show that TARE is not only cost-saving compared to cTACE but also results in a higher number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per person. While TARE was more expensive than DEE-TACE, it produced more QALYs, further indicating more favorable patient outcomes and overall treatment effectiveness. These findings could potentially impact resource allocation and decision-making for the treatment of HCC.

Automated summary

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with two alternative treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). TARE was found to be cost-saving compared to conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) and produced more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per person. Although TARE was more expensive than drug-eluting beads chemoembolization (DEE-TACE), it still had a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio. Therefore, TARE is a potentially cost-effective treatment for unresectable early- to intermediate-stage HCC.