Cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapy with Y-90 resin microspheres for intermediate- and advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in Brazil.

AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a severe condition with poor prognosis that places a significant burden on patients, caregivers, and healthcare systems. Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) is a treatment available to patients with HCC which addresses some of the limitations of alternative treatment options. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken into the use of SIRT using Y-90 resin microspheres for the treatment of unresectable intermediate- and late-stage HCC in Brazil. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned-survival model was developed, including a tunnel state for patients downstaged to receive treatments with curative intent. Sorafenib was the selected comparator, a common systemic treatment in Brazil and for which comparative evidence exists. Clinical data were extracted from published sources of pivotal trials, and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years (LYs). The analysis was conducted from the Brazilian private payer perspective and a lifetime horizon was implemented. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: LYs and QALYs were higher for SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres versus sorafenib (0.27 and 0.20 incremental LYs and QALYs, respectively) and costs were slightly higher for SIRT (R$15,864). The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was R$77,602 per QALY. The ICER was mostly influenced by parameters defining the sorafenib overall survival curve and SIRT had a 73% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of R$135,761 per QALY (3-times the per-capita gross domestic product in Brazil). Overall, sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results indicating that SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres is cost-effective compared with sorafenib. LIMITATIONS: A rapidly evolving treatment landscape in Brazil and worldwide, and the lack of local data for some variables were the main limitations. CONCLUSIONS: SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres is a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib in Brazil.

The American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement for permanent implant brachytherapy using Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolization for liver tumors.

PURPOSE: To develop a multidisciplinary consensus for high quality multidisciplinary implementation of brachytherapy using Yttrium-90 (90Y) microspheres transarterial radioembolization (90Y TARE) for primary and metastatic cancers in the liver. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Members of the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) and colleagues with multidisciplinary expertise in liver tumor therapy formulated guidelines for 90Y TARE for unresectable primary liver malignancies and unresectable metastatic cancer to the liver. The consensus is provided on the most recent literature and clinical experience. RESULTS: The ABS strongly recommends the use of 90Y microsphere brachytherapy for the definitive/palliative treatment of unresectable liver cancer when recommended by the multidisciplinary team. A quality management program must be implemented at the start of 90Y TARE program development and follow-up data should be tracked for efficacy and toxicity. Patient-specific dosimetry optimized for treatment intent is recommended when conducting 90Y TARE. Implementation in patients on systemic therapy should account for factors that may enhance treatment related toxicity without delaying treatment inappropriately. Further management and salvage therapy options including retreatment with 90Y TARE should be carefully considered. CONCLUSIONS: ABS consensus for implementing a safe 90Y TARE program for liver cancer in the multidisciplinary setting is presented. It builds on previous guidelines to include recommendations for appropriate implementation based on current literature and practices in experienced centers. Practitioners and cooperative groups are encouraged to use this document as a guide to formulate their clinical practices and to adopt the most recent dose reporting policies that are critical for a unified outcome analysis of future effectiveness studies.