Cost-effectiveness of Lutetium [177Lu] oxodotreotide versus best supportive care with octreotide in patients with midgut neuroendocrine tumors in France

Abstract

Background and aims In France, there are approximately 2,400 new cases of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) annually. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with 177Lu-Dotatate plus long-acting repeatable [LAR] octreotide 30 mg has been shown to significantly improve progression-free survival and overall survival relative to high-dose octreotide LAR 60 mg in patients with unresectable or metastatic progressive midgut NETs. A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to assess whether 177Lu-Dotatate is a cost-effective option versus octreotide 60 mg for patients with unresectable/metastatic progressive midgut NETs from the perspective of French healthcare payer. Methods The analysis was performed using a three-state partitioned survival model. In the base case analysis 177Lu-Dotatate plus octreotide LAR 30 mg was compared with high-dose octreotide LAR 60 mg in patients with midgut NETs. Survival data were obtained from the phase III NETTER-1 trial in patients with metastatic midgut NETs. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 4% per annum. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results In the base case analysis, for patients with midgut NETs, 177Lu-Dotatate treatment improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 1.21 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to octreotide LAR 60 mg and the lifetime treatment costs were EUR 50,784 higher with 177Lu-Dotatate resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 42,106 per QALY gained versus octreotide LAR 60 mg. When compared with everolimus, 177Lu-Dotatate was associated with an ICER of EUR 59,769 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were sensitive to methods used to extrapolate survival data. Conclusions For patients with advanced progressive midgut NETs 177Lu-Dotatate is likely to be considered a cost-effective option versus octreotide 60 mg from the perspective of the French healthcare payer.