Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil as a third-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the gastrohesophageal junction, among patients previously treated in Greece

ABSTRACT

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) compared with best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of patients with metastatic gastric cancer(mGC), including gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma(GEJ), who have received at least two prior therapies for metastatic disease and are eligible for third-line treatment, in Greece.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was locally adapted from a public payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical, safety and utility data were extracted from literature. Resource consumption data obtained from a panel of local experts using a questionnaire developed for the study was combined with unit costs obtained from official sources. All costs reflect the year 2020 (€). Outcomes of the model were patients’ life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY and LY gained.

Results

The total cost per patient was estimated to be €6,965 for FTD/TPI and €1,906 for BSC, while FTD/TPI was associated with 0.180 and 0.107 increments in LYs and QALYs, respectively, compared with BSC, resulting in an ICER of €47,144 per QALY gained and €28,112 per LY gained.

Conclusion

FTD/TPI was estimated to be a cost-effective treatment option for eligible third line mGC patients, including GEJ in Greece.

KEYWORDS:

• Cost-effectiveness
• trifluridine/tipiracil
• metastatic gastric cancer
• third line treatment
• Greece

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Servier Hellas for funding this research.

Reviewers disclosure

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships or otherwise to disclose.

Declaration of interest

Econcare LP received research grant funding from Servier Hellas. AB and VC are Servier Hellas employees. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Author contributions

GG and MK conducted the analyses, collected the data, interpreted the results and wrote the manuscript. KA, SE, AN, XS, PP, BI, KM and SJ were the local clinical experts who provided local resource utilization data, contributed to data validation and results interpretation. AB, VC and GK contributed to results interpretation and manuscript writing. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Consent to publish

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

All data used to conduct this study are included in this published article.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

This study is an economic evaluation analysis and does not involve human subjects. Input data including human material or human data derived from other published studies performed with the approval of an appropriate ethics committee. Therefore, no ethics approval arises for the performance of this cost-effectiveness analysis.

Additional information

Funding

The study was sponsored by Servier Hellas. The study sponsor had no interference in the study design, data collection or writing of the manuscript.