Cost-utility analysis of sequential therapy with sorafenib followed by regorafenib versus single-line therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Abstract

529 Background: Regorafenib is the only licensed second-line therapy available for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that progress on first-line sorafenib in the UK. We evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a sequence of treatment with sorafenib followed by regorafenib (SOR-REG) compared with licensed single-line therapies for which there is no clear sequencing options available, including atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATEZO+BEV), which has become the standard of care in first-line treatment, as well as lenvatinib (LEN), followed by best supportive care (BSC). Methods: Assuming a UK National Health Service and Social Services perspective, we developed a probabilistic individual-level semi-Markov model with states reflecting progression-free survival, progression following first-line treatment, further progression following second-line treatment, and death. First-line overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were informed by fractional polynomials network meta-analysis of published trials. Individual patient data from a phase 3 trial (RESORCE) on regorafenib and BSC informed OS and PFS in the second-line setting. Costs and utilities were sourced from published studies. Cost-effectiveness was summarized using incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), which could be positive or negative depending on direction of expected benefit associated with SOR-REG, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Results: We found 1000 probabilistic samples and 1000 patients were sufficient for convergence. Lifetime costs were highest with ATEZO-BEV ([£80,963 [95% CI: £11,022, £97,369]), followed by SOR-REG (£38,373 [£31,064, £43,420]) and LEN (£37,351 [£5,020, £55,800]). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were highest with ATEZO+BEV (1.021 [0.152, 1.239), followed by SOR-REG (0.942 [0.802, 1.057]) and LEN (0.755, [0.094, 1.092]). At a WTP threshold of £30,000 / QALY gained, SOR-REG had an INMB of £40,211 (95% CI -£2,099, £52,731) and £4,589 (-£8,044, £14,481) versus ATEZO+BEV and LEN, respectively. Conclusions: A sequence of SOR-REG for patients with advanced HCC is cost-effective at WTP thresholds of £30,000 / QALY gained due to lower lifetime costs and broadly comparable QALY gains with single-line ATEZO-BEV and LEN in the UK. Broader second-line treatment options are needed for patients receiving ATEZO+BEV and LEN as first-line therapies.