HOUT-17. UTILITIES OF RARE CANCERS LIKE MALIGNANT PLEURAL MESOTHELIOMA AND GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME - DO THEY COMPARE?

Abstract

Abstract BACKGROUND Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive primary brain cancer in adults. Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an invasive and generally fatal malignancy of the pleura mainly caused by exposure to asbestos fibers. TTFields treatment has been shown effective in both MPM and GBM with a comparable increase in median overall survival (OS). Differences in utility values however, could significantly influence assessment of cost-effectiveness for MPM and GBM, despite similar clinical efficacy. METHODS We reviewed the published literature adressing health state preference values or health utilities in both indications using a boolean search of the PubMed database. The results were compiled separately for both diseases and then compared to each other. RESULTS Estimates of health states preference values or utilities in GBM all refer to one single publication by the UK NICE. Healthy members of the NHS Value of Health Panel (VoHP) rated a total of nine descriptive health state scenarios using the standard gamble method for preference elicitation. Utilities for MPM were derived at individual patient level from the EQ-5 questionnaire collected during one trial. Other publications do not use specific mesothelioma heath state preference velues but assume applicability of utilities derived from a non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) population. CONCLUSIONS GBM utilites use different health states for elicitation, while utilities used in MPM were elicited at patient level. GBM utilities can be used in a health state disease model but there are no similar published values for MPM. MPM utilities using the EQ-5 questionnaire however better describe individual utilities and their change during the course of disease. Despite similar costs and clinical efficacy of TTFields treatment for GBM and MPM, the difference in elicitation methods and sources of utilites may lead to significant disparities in cost effectiveness assessment and subsequent adoption of TTFields treatment in different indications.