Sarcoma

Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 725305, 19 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/725305

Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of First-Line Treatment with Doxorubicin/Ifosfamide Compared to Trabectedin Monotherapy in the Management of Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma in Italy, Spain, and Sweden

Julian F. Guest,1,2 Monica Panca,¹ Erikas Sladkevicius,¹ Nicholas Gough,³ and Mark Linch⁴

¹Catalyst Health Economics Consultants, 34b High Street, Northwood, Middlesex HA6 1BN, UK

²School of Biomedical Sciences, King’s College, London SE1 1UL, UK

³Palliative Care Department, Royal Marsden Hospital, London SW3 6JJ, UK

⁴Sarcoma Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, London SW3 6JJ, UK

Received 13 May 2013; Accepted 20 August 2013

Academic Editor: R. Pollock

Copyright © 2013 Julian F. Guest et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Background. Doxorubicin/ifosfamide is a first-line systemic chemotherapy for the majority of advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS) subtypes. Trabectedin is indicated for the treatment of ASTS after failure of anthracyclines and/or ifosfamide; however it is being increasingly used off-label as a first-line treatment. This study estimated the cost effectiveness of these two treatments in the first-line management of ASTS in Italy, Spain, and Sweden. Methods. A Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost effectiveness of doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy, defined as the cost per QALY gained, in each country. Results. First-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide resulted in lower two-year healthcare costs and more QALYs than first-line treatment with trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a cost per QALY threshold of 35,000, >90% of a cohort would be cost effectively treated with doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries. Conclusion. Within the model’s limitations, first-line treatment of patients with ASTS with doxorubicin/ifosfamide instead of trabectedin monotherapy affords a cost-effective use of publicly funded healthcare resources in Italy, Spain, and Sweden and is therefore the preferred treatment in all three countries. These findings support the recommendation that trabectedin should remain a second-line treatment.

1. Introduction

Soft tissue sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of rare malignant tumours originating from connective tissue [1, 2] which account for approximately 1% of all adult cancers [3]. Their incidence in the European population is 3 to 4 new cases per 100,000 which has remained stable over time [3]. The risk of developing soft tissue sarcoma increases with age and the disease mostly develops in people over 50 years [4]. Soft tissue sarcomas commonly occur in the extremities (50% of patients), trunk/retroperitoneum (40%), or the head and neck (10%) [5]; they generally develop without pain and can be difficult to diagnose. Prognosis depends on several factors, including patients’ age and the size, depth, histologic grade, and stage of the tumour [2, 6]. Curative treatment largely consists of radical surgery and/or radiotherapy. However, these tumours are often aggressive and over 50% of soft tissue sarcoma patients develop metastases [7, 8].

Patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS) present with either locally advanced “inoperable” or metastatic disease [9]. With some exceptions, patients with ASTS are generally considered incurable and have poor long-term survival. Moreover, histological subtypes differ in their sensitivity to cytotoxic drugs [10]. Consequently, patient selection for an appropriate treatment strategy requires expert multidisciplinary team involvement [11, 12].

Palliative chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment for ASTS where the aim is to establish disease control and improve both quantity and quality of life. Sarcomas have proved resistant to many conventional cytotoxic therapies with only doxorubicin and ifosfamide showing significant response rates when used alone or in combination as first-line treatments [13]. However, high-dose ifosfamide is associated with an increased risk of toxicity [14–16]. Consequently, many clinicians do not initiate chemotherapy with ifosfamide monotherapy. A standard dose combination of doxorubicin and ifosfamide leads to a higher response rate than when either is used as a single agent [17].

Trabectedin is a newly licensed chemotherapeutic agent for the treatment of ASTS, with demonstrable clinical response and an acceptable toxicity profile [18–20]. It is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with ASTS (1) after failure of anthracyclines and ifosfamide or (2) who are unsuited to receive these agents. However, trabectedin is being increasingly used off-label as a first-line treatment. Trabectedin has a relatively high acquisition cost compared to doxorubicin and ifosfamide. In the context of limited healthcare resources, pharmacoeconomic analyses are important in aiding policy makers and clinicians to make the most appropriate decisions about resource allocation and patient management. Against this background, the objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared with trabectedin monotherapy in the first-line management of ASTS in Italy, Spain, and Sweden from the perspective of the publicly funded health service in each country.

2. Methods

2.1. Data Sources

A systematic literature search was performed using the search term of ASTS plus one of the following: incidence, prevalence, epidemiology, doxorubicin or Adriamycin and/or ifosfamide, liposomal doxorubicin or Caelyx, ifosfamide and epirubicin, trabectedin or ecteinascidin-743, gemcitabine and/or docetaxel, gemcitabine and dacarbazine, gemcitabine and vinorelbine, gemcitabine and paclitaxel, trofosfamide and/or etoposide, CYVADIC or cyclophosphamide and vincristine and Adriamycin and dacarbazine, utilities, quality of life, cost effectiveness, cost utility, resource utilisation, and economics and cost. The search strategy was not limited by year of publication; English, Italian, Spanish, and Swedish language papers were included. A manual literature search was also undertaken, based on citations in the published papers.

The search included studies published between 1988 and 2010 and included prospective and retrospective studies, randomised and nonrandomised studies, multicentre trials, single centre reports, and clinical reviews. Publications that only reported outcomes for specific subtypes of ASTS were excluded. The review yielded 53 different studies providing data on 2,977 patients. Analysis of the publications provided an estimate of

(i)the probability of patients achieving complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD),(ii)the median duration of each type of response,(iii)survival rates,(iv)the incidence of grades 3-4 haematological complications including the incidence of anaemia, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.

The literature search was unable to find any health economic studies on ASTS in Italy, Spain, or Sweden. Hence, estimates of healthcare resource use were obtained by interviewing six oncologists in each country who treated patients with sarcoma. The interviews used a structured questionnaire and focused on patient management and resource utilisation.

2.2. Economic Model

A Markov model was constructed depicting the management of a 65-year-old patient with ASTS (Figure 1). The model spans a period of 2 years and comprises the following health states: progressive disease, (PD), stable disease (SD), partial response (PR), complete response (CR), and death. The model comprises monthly cycles and the arrows depict the possible movement of patients between the different health states.

Figure 1: Markov model depicting the management of ASTS in Italy, Spain, and Sweden.

All patients enter the model with PD and receive treatment with either doxorubicin/ifosfamide or trabectedin. Within the model, following first-line chemotherapy, patients can remain in the PD health state, move into one of the other three health states (i.e., CR, PR, or SD), or die. Patients remain in the CR, PR, and SD health states for the median duration of response, before moving to the PD health state. The model assumed that patients who remain in the PD health state would be switched to a second-line chemotherapy after three cycles of their first-line treatment.

After second-line chemotherapy, patients can again remain in the PD health state, move into one of the other three health states, or they can die. The model only considered first- and second-line chemotherapies. Therefore, following failure of second-line chemotherapy, patients with disease progression were assumed to only receive palliative care alone.

Within the model, patients in any health state can die from age-related factors in accordance with the background death rate. Additionally, patients in the PD health state can die from ASTS-related factors.

2.2.1. Model Inputs: Resource Use

No publications were identified that quantified healthcare resource use for the management of ASTS in Italy, Spain, or Sweden. Therefore, this was estimated using information obtained from interviews with six oncologists in each country who managed ASTS and who collectively saw 250, 300, and 200 patients with ASTS in Italy, Spain, or Sweden, respectively, at any one time.

Diagnosis. New cases of ASTS are generally diagnosed by oncologists, but patients are managed by a multidisciplinary team comprising oncologists, surgeons (general, orthopaedic, or thoracic depending on the site of the tumour), radiation oncologists, pathologists, and any other secondary care specialist depending on the sub-type of ASTS. Diagnosis of ASTS generally takes 2–6 weeks. However, the diagnosis can be delayed by up to 6 months due to unsuccessful biopsies.

According to the interviewees, patients would be seen on an outpatient basis and would have a mean of 3 visits before a diagnosis of ASTS is confirmed. The tests and procedures performed during the diagnostic phase depend on the site of the disease and the histological sub-type of sarcoma. Nevertheless, all patients would have a full clinical examination and undergo the following diagnostic procedures: blood tests (100% of patients), other nonspecified pathological tests (100% of patients), biopsy (50–100% of patients), computerized tomography (CT scan; 75–100% of patients), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 40–80% of patients), positron emission tomography (PET scan; 5–35% of patients), chest X-ray (10–20% of patients), and ultrasound scan (5–50% of patients). Also, patients would be assessed for their performance status using the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scales and criteria, with regard to disease progression and its influence on patients’ daily living abilities [21].

Treatment. Patients with ASTS often have widespread metastases and are therefore treated with systemic chemotherapy. Oncologists generally initiate chemotherapy at a mean of 2 weeks (range: 1–4 weeks) following a diagnosis of ASTS. Chemotherapy regimens are tailored according to the type of primary tumour since different sarcoma subtypes respond differently to different drugs. According to the interviewees, up to 75% of patients are expected to receive first-line doxorubicin/ifosfamide. The probabilities of receiving a second-line treatment following a lack of response or disease progression, as estimated by the interviewees and incorporated in the model, are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Probabilities of receiving second-line treatments.

Regimen
Probability of receiving second-line treatment in

Italy
Spain
Sweden

Following first-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide

    CYVADIC∧
<0.01
<0.01
0.10

    Gemcitabine/dacarbazine
<0.01
0.12
<0.01

    Gemcitabine/docetaxel
0.18
0.20
0.48

    Gemcitabine/paclitaxel
<0.01
0.10
<0.01

    Gemcitabine/vinorelbine
<0.01
0.08
<0.01

    Gemcitabine monotherapy
<0.01
0.12
<0.01

    Ifosfamide monotherapy
0.20
0.12
<0.01

    Liposomal doxorubicin
0.12
<0.01
<0.01

    Trofosfamide
<0.01
<0.01
0.12

    Trabectedin monotherapy
0.50
0.26
0.30

Following first-line treatment with trabectedin monotherapy

    Docetaxel monotherapy
0.26
<0.01
<0.01

    Doxorubicin/ifosfamide
<0.01
<0.01
0.67

    Doxorubicin monotherapy
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

    Gemcitabine/docetaxel
0.05
0.44
0.25

    Ifosfamide/epirubicin
0.16
<0.01
<0.01

    Ifosfamide monotherapy
0.53
0.56
<0.01

    Trofosfamide/etoposide
<0.01
<0.01
0.08

 ∧CYVADIC: cyclophosphamide, vincristine, adriamycin, and dacarbazine.

It has to be noted that treatment patterns identified during the clinician interviews are only indicative, since a significant proportion of patients would be enrolled in clinical trials or only managed with palliative care following treatment failure.

There are no established third-line treatments for ASTS, and any chemotherapy drug that has not been used along the treatment pathway could be used as a third-line treatment and subsequently. Third-line treatments depend on many factors, including previous treatments, the patients’ ECOG performance status, their preferences, the histological sub-type of sarcoma, and the level of tolerable toxicity. Consequently, only second-line treatments have been modelled in the present study. Patients who remain alive following failure of a second-line treatment were assumed to only receive palliative care.

The characteristics of all the chemotherapy regimens utilised by the interviewees that have been incorporated in the model are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2: Characteristics of chemotherapy regimens incorporated into the model.

Regimen
Mean dose per cycle
Admissions/outpatient clinic attendances per cycle

CYVADIC∧
600 mg/m² cyclophosphamide
4 outpatient clinic attendances

1 mg/m² vincristine

30 mg/m² doxorubicin

250 mg/m² dacarbazine

Docetaxel
100 mg/m2 docetaxel
1 outpatient clinic attendance

Doxorubicin
75 mg/m² doxorubicin
1 outpatient clinic attendance

Doxorubicin/ifosfamide
66 mg/m² doxorubicin
3-4-day admission

8.5 g/m² ifosfamide

Ifosfamide
12.5 g/m² ifosfamide
4-day admission or 2 outpatient clinic attendances

Ifosfamide/epirubicin
100 mg/m² epirubicin
3-day admission

5 g/m² ifosfamide

Gemcitabine
1,000 mg/m² gemcitabine
2 outpatient clinic attendances

Gemcitabine/dacarbazine
1,766 mg/m² gemcitabine
2 outpatient clinic attendances

700 mg/m2 dacarbazine

Gemcitabine/docetaxel
1,000 mg/m² gemcitabine
2 outpatient clinic attendances

75 mg/m² docetaxel

Gemcitabine/paclitaxel
1,000 mg/m² gemcitabine
2 outpatient clinic attendances

125 mg/m² paclitaxel

Gemcitabine/vinorelbine
1,250 mg/m² gemcitabine
2 outpatient clinic attendances

25 mg/m² vinorelbine

Liposomal doxorubicin
50 mg/m2 doxorubicin
1 outpatient clinic attendance

Trabectedin
1.3 mg/m2 trabectedin
2-day admission

Trofosfamide
200 mg/m2 trofosfamide
Oral administration over ~10 days, no hospital attendance

Trofosfamide/etoposide
150 mg/m² trofosfamide
Oral administration over ~10 days, no hospital attendance

25 mg/m² etoposide

 ∧CYVADIC: cyclophosphamide, vincristine, adriamycin, and dacarbazine.

Evaluation of Response to Chemotherapy. Patients generally receive 2–4 cycles of chemotherapy before evaluation of response. This would be ascertained using laboratory tests (100% of patients), CT scan (60–100% of patients), MRI scan (20–40% of patients), PET scan (5–15% of patients), ultrasound (10% of patients), and chest X-ray (8% of patients). Patients may also undergo other tests as needed. Patients not responding to treatment would be switched to a second-line treatment following the first response evaluation and they would be evaluated after another 2-3 cycles. Patients who respond to treatment would continue on it for a mean of 6 cycles or in some cases until disease progression. Nevertheless, an average patient would receive a mean of 6 cycles.

Pre- and Postchemotherapy Tests. All patients receiving chemotherapy would undergo haematological and renal function tests before each cycle of chemotherapy. Additionally, patients receiving doxorubicin-containing regimens would usually require functional cardiac assessment with an echocardiography (ECHO)/multiple gated acquisition scan (MUGA). Patients receiving trabectedin would also undergo liver function tests. Some clinicians would also perform a CT scan before each cycle of chemotherapy to monitor response. However, this would only be employed in selected patients and it is not a standard practice. Other tests may be performed before the administration of chemotherapy if toxicity is observed. The tests performed would depend on the type of toxicity present.

Approximately 6–30% of patients experiencing haematological toxicity require dose adjustments, which are very individual and depend on a patient’s weight, their tolerance levels, and general performance status. Normally, the chemotherapy dose for the next cycle would be reduced by 23% of a patient’s initial chemotherapy dose (range: 18–28%). This applies to all regimens. Any dose reduction lasts for the rest of the treatment unless a patient’s performance status significantly improves. According to the interviewees, dose reduction is most likely to be required at the end of a treatment.

Clinician Visits. During the period patients receive chemotherapy, an oncologist would see patients every 3-4 weeks. Patients experiencing haematological toxicity might need to be seen more than once during each cycle. Also, patients receiving a cycle over a few days may be seen on each day of the infusion. No other specialists would see patients during the treatment phase. However, other specialists may become involved if needed (e.g., gynaecological sarcomas would require the involvement of a gynaecologist).

Following completion of the chemotherapy phase, patients with complete or partial response would be seen every 3–6 months by oncologists and radiotherapists only. In some cases patients may require closer monitoring. Those with stable disease would be seen anywhere between every 3 weeks and every 3 months by oncologists and radiotherapists.

Follow-Up Tests and Procedures. After chemotherapy, patients who have responded would undergo the following procedures/tests during their follow-up: laboratory tests (100% of patients), CT scan (50–100% of patients), MRI scan (30–45% of patients), PET scan (10–15% of patients), chest X-ray (8% of patients), and ultrasound scan (1% of patients). A range of other tests would be performed as needed. Follow-up procedures and tests would be performed every 3–6 months.

Pre- and Postchemotherapy Medications. Generally, all patients would receive medication before each chemotherapy administration with the aim of preventing haematological or nonhaematological toxicities. In Italy, patients would receive an antiemetic such as granisetron (3 mg; 50% of patients) or ondansetron (8 mg; 50% of patients) and a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone (4–16 mg; 100% of patients). In Spain, patients would receive palonosetron (1 mg; 20% of patients), aprepitant (125 mg; 100% of patients in most regimens except those containing trabectedin), granisetron (2 mg; 20% of patients), metoclopramide (30 mg; 20% of patients) or ondansetron (8–24 mg; 20% of patients), dexamethasone (4–20 mg; 100% of patients), and an antihistamine, such as diphenhydramine (150 mg; 100% of patients). Generally, an antihistamine would be only administered in regimens containing paclitaxel, docetaxel, and trabectedin. Patients receiving gemcitabine- and/or dacarbazine-containing regimens would be given a corticosteroid and an antiemetic. In Sweden, patients would receive corticosteroids such as betamethasone (4–8 mg; 100% of patients) and an antiemetic such as tropisetron (5 mg; 100% of patients) before administration of doxorubicin/ifosfamide and dexamethasone (8 mg; 100% of patients) before administration of trabectedin. Patients would receive antiemetics and laxatives for 2-3 days after chemotherapy.

In all three countries a granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF, filgrastim 6 mg) would be administered to prevent neutropenia in 65% of patients receiving doxorubicin/ifosfamide and 15% of patients receiving gemcitabine-containing regimens. Other patients would not receive prophylactic G-CSF but would receive it therapeutically when they experience haematological toxicities.

All patients receiving an ifosfamide-containing chemotherapy would also receive mesna. Typically, the dose of mesna administered would be the same as the ifosfamide dose.

Haematological Toxicities. According to the interviewed oncologists, the main complications associated with the aforementioned regimens are grades 3-4 haematological toxicities (i.e., anaemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia). Hence, the healthcare costs associated with managing these complications have been incorporated into the model.

Palliative Care. According to the interviewees, palliative care can be introduced at any stage along the treatment pathway. The necessity for palliative care is guided by a patient’s performance status and could be introduced even before the initiation of chemotherapy. Frequently, palliative care units work in collaboration with oncology services and provide patient care when the disease is too advanced, when patients are unable to receive chemotherapy, when patients experience difficult to control symptoms, or when there is no active treatment that is effective. Accordingly, the costs associated with palliative care have been incorporated into the model.

2.2.2. Model Inputs: Clinical Outcomes

Clinical outcomes associated with the management of ASTS were estimated from the literature review. Published clinical outcomes analysed included the probability of achieving CR, PR, SD, and PD (Table 3), median duration of response (Table 3), cancer-related mortality stratified according to the regimens (Figures 2 and 3), and incidence of grades 3-4 haematological toxicities (Table 4). Where more than one publication was available, the mean rates were weighted according to the sample sizes.

Table 3: Efficacy rates and duration of response associated with different chemotherapy regimens for ASTS.

Probability of achieving:
Median duration of response (months) in:

Complete remission
Partial remission
Stable disease
Progressive disease
Complete remission
Partial remission
Stable disease

First-line treatments

    Doxorubicin/ifosfamide
0.06
0.21
0.38
0.35
15.44
7.69
6.41

[16, 17, 22–32]
[16, 17, 22–32]
[16, 17, 22–32]
[16, 17, 22–32]
[16, 17, 22, 24, 27, 28, 31, 33]
[16, 17, 22, 24, 27, 28, 31, 33]
[16, 17, 22, 24, 27, 28, 31, 33]

    Trabectedin
0.03
0.11
0.14
0.72
17.74
8.75
7.48

[34]
[34]
[34]
[34]
[34]
[34]
[34]

Second-line treatments

    CYVADIC*∧
0.03
0.19
0.39
0.39
12.13
6.57
5.75

    Docetaxel
0.00
0.11
0.25
0.64
0.00
6.60
7.17

[35–37]
[35–37]
[35–37]
[35–37]
[35, 36]
[35, 36]
[35, 36]

    Doxorubicin
0.02
0.07
0.31
0.61
12.13* 
6.57* 
5.75* 

[38, 39]
[38, 39]
[38, 39]
[38, 39]

    Doxorubicin/ifosfamide
0.05
0.27
0.37
0.31
12.13* 
6.57* 
5.75*

[22, 38]
[22, 38]
[22, 38]
[22, 38]

    Gemcitabine
0.00
0.08
0.33
0.59
0.00
4.46
3.86

[40–45]
[40–45]
[40–45]
[40–45]
[43, 46, 47]
[43, 46, 47]
[43, 46, 47]

    Gemcitabine/dacarbazine
0.01
0.10
0.39
0.51
10.48
6.50
5.79

[48–50]
[48–50]
[48–50]
[48–50]
[48]
[48]
[48]

    Gemcitabine/docetaxel
0.05
0.19
0.41
0.35
12.13* 
6.57* 
5.75* 

[40, 51–54]
[40, 51–54]
[40, 51–54]
[40, 51–54]

    Gemcitabine/paclitaxel*
0.03
0.19
0.39
0.39
12.13
6.57 
5.75

    Gemcitabine/vinorelbine
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.78
16.10
16.10
9.60

[55, 56]
[55, 56]
[55, 56]
[55, 56]
[56]
[56]
[56]

    Ifosfamide
0.02
0.13
0.24
0.61
13.77
8.75
7.61

[38, 57–60]
[38, 57–60]
[38, 57–60]
[38, 57–60]
[58, 60]
[58, 60]
[58, 60]

    Ifosfamide/epirubicin*
0.05
0.27
0.37
0.31
12.13
6.57
5.75

    Liposomal doxorubicin*
0.02
0.07
0.31
0.61
12.13
6.57
5.75

    Trabectedin
<0.01
0.07
0.44
0.49
16.14
10.25
8.91

[19, 34, 61–67]
[19, 34, 61–67]
[19, 34, 61–67]
[19, 34, 61–67]
[19, 34, 61, 63–65]
[19, 34, 61, 63–65]
[19, 34, 61, 63–65]

    Trofosfamide
0.00
0.03
0.19
0.79
12.13*
6.57*
5.75*

[68–70]
[68–70]
[68–70]
[68–70]

    Trofosfamide/etoposide*
0.03
0.19
0.39
0.39
12.13
6.57
5.75

 *Values were estimated. ∧CYVADIC: cyclophosphamide, vincristine, adriamycin and dacarbazine.

Table 4: Probabilities of patients developing haematological toxicities stratified by chemotherapy regimen.

Probability of developing

neutropenia
febrile neutropenia
thrombocytopenia
anaemia

First-line treatments

    Doxorubicin/ifosfamide
0.82
0.12
0.23
0.35

[23, 24, 26, 30]
[24, 26]
[17, 23, 24, 26, 30]
[23, 26, 30]

    Trabectedin
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.03

[34]
[34]
[34]
[34]

Second-line treatments

    CYVADIC*∧
0.52
0.19
0.17
0.16

    Docetaxel
0.90
0.12
0.03
0.08

[36, 37]
[35, 37]
[35–37]
[35–37]

    Doxorubicin
0.84
0.19
0.09
0.18*

[39]
[39]
[39]

    Doxorubicin/ifosfamide*
0.52
0.19
0.17
0.18

    Gemcitabine
0.18
0.07
0.18
0.11

[40, 41, 43, 47, 71]
[33, 40, 41, 43, 71]
[33, 40–43, 46, 71]
[40–43, 71]

    Gemcitabine/dacarbazine
0.46 [49]
0.19*
0.12 [49]
0.23 [49]

    Gemcitabine/docetaxel
0.31
0.09
0.33
0.18

[52, 54]
[52, 54]
[40, 52, 54]
[52, 54]

    Gemcitabine/paclitaxel*
0.52
0.19
0.17
0.16

    Gemcitabine/vinorelbine
0.38 [56]
0.08 [56]
0.10 [56]
0.05 [56]

    Ifosfamide
0.82
0.39
0.13
0.12

[57–60]
[58, 59]
[57–60]
[57–59]

    Ifosfamide/epirubicin*
0.52
0.19
0.17
0.18

    Liposomal doxorubicin*
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.35

    Trabectedin
0.50
0.06
0.16
0.18

[19, 34, 61, 64, 65, 67]
[19, 34, 61, 65]
[19, 34, 61, 64, 65, 67]
[19, 34, 61, 65]

    Trofosfamide
0.52*
0.19*
0.17*
0.25 [70]

    Trofosfamide/etoposide*
0.52
0.19
0.17
0.16

 ∧CYVADIC: cyclophosphamide, vincristine, adriamycin, and dacarbazine.

*Values were estimated.

Figure 2: Survival rates associated with first-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide and trabectedin.

Figure 3: Survival rates associated with second-line treatments.

The outcomes from studies in which doxorubicin/ifosfamide and trabectedin were used as first-line chemotherapies are shown separately from those studies in which these agents were used as second-line treatments. The literature review could not identify any publications reporting efficacy rates for second-line chemotherapy with CYVADIC (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, adriamycin, and dacarbazine), trofosfamide/etoposide, and gemcitabine/paclitaxel. Therefore, the efficacy rates for these cytotoxic agents were assumed to be the average of all the efficacy rates that were available for second-line chemotherapy (i.e., doxorubicin/ifosfamide, gemcitabine/docetaxel, and gemcitabine/dacarbazine). Also, efficacy rates for second-line chemotherapy with ifosfamide/epirubicin were assumed to be the same as those for doxorubicin/ifosfamide, as they were both ifosfamide-containing regimens, and the rates for liposomal doxorubicin were assumed to be the same as those for doxorubicin monotherapy since both are anthracyclines.

Median Duration of Response. Some publications reported only the overall median duration of response. Hence, the relationship between overall median duration of response and median duration associated with CR, PR, and SD derived from publications reporting stratified outcomes was used to estimate median duration of response for the missing response types.

The literature review could not identify any publications reporting median duration of response following second-line chemotherapy with doxorubicin/ifosfamide, doxorubicin monotherapy, ifosfamide/epirubicin, gemcitabine/docetaxel, gemcitabine/paclitaxel, trofosfamide, trofosfamide/etoposide, CYVADIC, and liposomal doxorubicin monotherapy. Hence, the reported average median duration of response associated with second-line ifosfamide monotherapy, gemcitabine/dacarbazine, and gemcitabine monotherapy was used to estimate the median duration of response associated with these regimens, since the median duration of response was only available for these second-line regimens. It was decided to exclude trabectedin’s duration of response from this extrapolation since it was the only new generation chemotherapeutic agent.

Table 3 summarises the probabilities of achieving one of the health states and the duration of remaining in a health state following first- and second-line chemotherapies that have been incorporated in the model.

Mortality Rates. Age-related mortality was estimated using published mortality rates [84]. The literature review was used to estimate cancer-related mortality rates. Using a least squares regression methodology, lines of best fit were derived to estimate cancer-related mortality rates at various time points. The resulting mortality curves were adjusted to exclude age-related mortality for Italy [84], Spain [84], and Sweden [84]. Cancer-related mortality rates were available for all first-line treatments [17, 18, 23, 24, 28, 29] and some second-line treatments: gemcitabine monotherapy [40, 43, 46, 47], ifosfamide monotherapy [38, 57, 60], trabectedin monotherapy [19, 34, 61, 63–65, 67], gemcitabine/vinorelbine [56], and docetaxel monotherapy [35, 37]. Cancer-related mortality rates could not be identified for the following second-line regimens: doxorubicin monotherapy, doxorubicin/ifosfamide, ifosfamide/epirubicin, gemcitabine/dacarbazine, gemcitabine/paclitaxel, CYVADIC, trofosfamide/etoposide, trofosfamide, and liposomal doxorubicin monotherapy. Hence, cancer-related mortality rates for doxorubicin monotherapy and liposomal doxorubicin monotherapy were assumed to be the same as those for second-line ifosfamide monotherapy, because they appear comparable in clinical practice (Table 3). Cancer-related mortality rates for doxorubicin/ifosfamide and ifosfamide/epirubicin were assumed to be the average of those for second-line ifosfamide monotherapy and trabectedin monotherapy because of the reported similarities in the average median duration of response between the regimens. Also the interviewed clinicians considered that the mortality rates associated with these three regimens were comparable in clinical practice. Cancer-related mortality rates for gemcitabine/paclitaxel, CYVADIC, trofosfamide, and trofosfamide/etoposide were assumed to be the average of those for second-line gemcitabine, ifosfamide, and trabectedin. This was based on the observed similarities in the average median duration of responses associated with the aforementioned regimens.

The estimated survival rates following first-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide and trabectedin monotherapy that have been incorporated in the model are shown in Figure 2. The estimated survival rates following second-line treatment after failing first-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide and trabectedin monotherapy that have been incorporated in the model are shown in Figure 3.

Incidence of Haematological Complications. According to the interviewees only grades 3-4 haematological complications would result in additional healthcare resource utilisation. The incidence of haematological complications was estimated from the literature review. However, the review could not identify any publications reporting the incidence of grades 3-4 haematological complications following second-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide, gemcitabine/paclitaxel, CYVADIC, trofosfamide/etoposide, and ifosfamide/epirubicin. Consequently, the average of the available incidence rates associated with the second-line combination regimens was used.

Also not reported was the incidence of grades 3-4 haematological complications following second-line treatment with liposomal doxorubicin monotherapy. The relationship between the incidence rates associated with first-line doxorubicin monotherapy and liposomal doxorubicin monotherapy was used to estimate the missing incidence rates. This assumption was made on the basis that liposomal doxorubicin monotherapy has equivalent activity to doxorubicin monotherapy treatment [97]. Also, not reported was the incidence of anaemia following second-line treatment with doxorubicin monotherapy. Therefore, the average of the rates of anaemia associated with other second-line treatments was used to interpolate missing values.

Table 4 summarises the incidence of grades 3-4 haematological toxicities following first- and second-line treatments that have been incorporated in the model.

2.2.3. Model Inputs: Utilities

Health state utilities for ASTS elicited from the general public using time trade-off methodology were assigned to the health states in our model [98]. The estimated utility values were as follows: complete response 0.60, partial response 0.51, stable disease 0.43, and progressive disease 0.30.

2.2.4. Model Outputs

By assigning unit costs in Euros at 2010/2011 prices (Table 5) to the resource use estimates in the different health states within the Markov model, the healthcare costs over two years after a patient initially received either doxorubicin/ifosfamide or trabectedin monotherapy were estimated. Unit costs that were only available for earlier periods were uprated to 2010/2011 prices using the relevant inflation index for each country.

Table 5: Unit resource costs (in Euros at 2010/2011 prices) used in the model.

Resource
Unit costs (in Euros at 2010/2011 prices)

Italy
Spain
Sweden

Aprepitant (125 mg)

90.9
[72]
63.8
[73]

Betapred (4 mg)

6.4
[73]

Betamethasone (8 mg)

3.2
[73]

Biopsy
129.1
[74]
603.7
[75]
314.1
[76]

Bone scintigraphy

296.8
[77]

Chest X-ray
16.2
[78]
6.5
[79]
48.7
[76]

CT scan
86.3
[74]
87.5
[79]
313.6
[76]

Cyclophosphamide (200 mg)

4.1
[80]

Dacarbazine (1000 mg)

21.7
[80]

Dacarbazine (200 mg)

8.9
[80]

Dexamethasone (0.75 mg, 10 tablets)
1.1
[81]

Dexamethasone (1 mg, 30 tablets)

3.0
[72]

Diphenhydramine (25 mg, 25 capsules)

1.4
[72]

Docetaxel (10 mg)
84.4
[80]

Docetaxel (100 mg)

182.8
[80]

Docetaxel (80 mg)

403.1
[80]

Doxorubicin (50 mg)
119.5
[80]
4.1
[80]
59.8
[80]

Echocardiography
51.7
[74]
18.2
[79]
214.9
[76]

Electrocardiogram
13.0
[78]
13.5
[82]
334.2
[76]

Epirubicin (50 mg)
81.2
[80]

Etoposide (100 mg)

20.8
[80]

Filgrastim (300 mcg)

94.8
[72]

Filgrastim (6 mg)
149.8
[81]

Gemcitabine (1000 mg)
113.2
[80]
75.7
[80]
104.6
[80]

General surgeon consultation

230.3
[76]

Granisetron (1 mg, 10 tablets)
133.9
[81]
48.1
[72]

Haematology tests
3.7
[83]
20.5
[82]
5.2
[76]

Hospitalisation for chemotherapy infusion/day
238.3
[84]
212.9
[84]
288.6
[84]

Ifosfamide (1 g)
30.7
[80]
19.7
[80]

Ifosfamide (2 g)

65.7
[80]

Lenograstim (1 vial)
153.4
[81]

Levocetirizine (5 mg, 20 tablets)
10.5
[81]

Liver function test
9.2
[83]
11.7
[79]

Liposomal doxorubicin (2 mg)
548.2
[80]

Managing anaemia
1,354.8
[85]
900.0
[86]
548.6
[87]

Managing febrile neutropenia
3,305.0
[88]
3829.5
[89]
2,892.0
[90]

Managing neutropenia
523.3
[85]
2086.1
[91]

Managing thrombocytopenia
1,354.8
[85]
900.0
[86]
548.6
[87]

Mesna (3 g)

13.2
[72]

Mesna (6 g)
25.7
[81]

Mesna (5 g)

192.2
[73]

Metoclopramide (250 mL)

2.7
[72]

MRI scan
285.8
[83]
168.0
[79]
386.4
[76]

Multidisciplinary team assessment
48.7
[74]
61.3
[79]
1,816.5
[76]

Nuclear medicine specialist consultation

61.5
[79]

Nurse home visit
51.2
[92]
56.5
[77]

Oncologist consultation
21.6
[83]
61.5
[79]
283.7
[76]

Ondansetron (4 mg, 6 tablets)
57.8
[81]

Ondansetron (4 mg, 15 tablets)

36.3
[72]

Orthopaedic surgeon consultation
21.6
[83]
61.5
[79]
102.4
[76]

Outpatient attendance for chemotherapy
122.8
[84]
98.9
[84]
288.6
[84]

Paclitaxel (30 mg)

83.8
[80]

Palliative care per patient
3,265.0
[93]
2167.7
[94]
1,343.9
[95, 96]

Palonosetron (250 mcg)

104.6
[72]

Pathologist consultation
21.6
[83]
61.5
[79]

Pegfilgrastim (1 syringe)

1,062.6
[72]
1,322.5
[73]

PET scan
1,071.7
[74]
500.0
[79]
314.1
[76]

Radiologist consultation
21.6
[83]
61.5
[79]

Radiotherapist consultation
21.6
[83]
61.5
[79]

Renal function test
5.0
[83]
8.9
[79]

Secondary care hospital specialist visit

61.5
[79]

Trabectedin (1 mg, 1 vial)
2,970.1
[80]
2,049.9
[80]
1,913.3
[80]

Trofosfamide 50 mg/m²

1.4
[80]

Tropisetron (5 mg)

20.5
[73]

Ultrasound scan
17.6
[74]
18.2
[79]

Urine analysis
6.1
[83]
1.8
[79]
20.9
[76]

Vincristine (1 mg)

16.2
[80]

Vinorelbine (1 mL)

24.1
[80]

In Sweden unit costs were converted from Swedish Krona (SEK) to Euros at the rate of 1 = 9.55 SEK.

The primary measure of clinical effectiveness in the model was the number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) two years after starting first-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide or trabectedin monotherapy. The model also estimated successful treatment at two years in terms of the proportion of patients achieving CR, PR, and SD.

In accordance with the guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy [99], Spain [100], and Sweden [101] healthcare costs and QALYs in the second year were each discounted at 3%.

2.3. Cost Effectiveness Analyses

The incremental cost effectiveness of doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy was calculated as the difference between the expected discounted costs of the two treatment strategies over 2 years divided by the difference between the expected discounted number of QALYs of the two strategies over 2 years. Hence, the incremental cost effectiveness of doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy was defined as the cost per QALY gained. If a treatment resulted in more QALYs for less cost, it was defined as a dominant treatment.

2.4. Sensitivity Analyses

Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) using Monte Carlo iterations (10,000 iterations of the model) were undertaken by simultaneously varying all the probabilities, utilities, unit costs, and resource use values within the model. The probabilities and utilities were varied randomly according to a beta distribution and the resource use estimates and unit costs were varied randomly according to a gamma distribution. Results from these analyses were used to construct cost effectiveness acceptability curves showing the probability of first-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy to be cost effective at varying cost per QALY thresholds.

Deterministic sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess the impact of independently varying individual parameter values within the model. The parameter estimates were varied over plausible ranges by altering them to 20% below and 20% above the base case values.

3. Results

3.1. Expected Clinical Outcomes

The outcomes at two years following initial treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide or trabectedin are summarised in Table 6. Differences between the countries reflect the different second-line treatments that are used in Italy, Spain, and Sweden.

Table 6: Clinical outcomes at two years.

Italy
Spain
Sweden

Doxorubicin/ifosfamide
Trabectedin
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide
Trabectedin
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide
Trabectedin

Probability of

    complete response
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01

    partial response
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01

    stable disease
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01

    progressive disease
0.54
0.51
0.54
0.53
0.54
0.59

    dying
0.43
0.47
0.42
0.45
0.42
0.39

Number of QALYs per patient
0.595 (0.593, 0.597)
0.530 (0.528, 0.533)
0.590 (0.587, 0.593)
0.550 (0.547, 0.553)
0.608 (0.606, 0.611)
0.584 (0.582, 0.587)

95% confidence intervals in parentheses.

3.2. Expected Healthcare Costs

The expected costs at two years following initial treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide or trabectedin are summarised in Table 7. Differences between the countries reflect the different second-line treatments, different management algorithms, and different unit costs. Nevertheless, in all three countries, the expected two-year costs of starting treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide are between 4% and 10% less than those of starting treatment with trabectedin.

Table 7: Expected healthcare costs (at 2010/2011 prices) over 2 years following first-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide combination and trabectedin monotherapy.

Resource
Expected healthcare costs per patient (Euros at 2010/2011 prices) over 2 years following first-line treatment

Italy
Spain
Sweden

Doxorubicin/ifosfamide
Trabectedin
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide
Trabectedin
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide
Trabectedin

Diagnosis
634.4
(2%)
634.4
(2%)
1886.5
(6%)
1886.5
(6%)
2416.8
(7%)
2416.8
(6%)

First-line cytotoxics
2302.9
(6%)
26885.4
(66%)
1491.8
(5%)
18432.1
(54%)
3172.2
(9%)
17934.5
(45%)

Second-line cytotoxics
17007.3
(44%)
2556.9
(6%)
6524.1
(21%)
1761.6
(5%)
8469.5
(23%)
3224.8
(8%)

Evaluations of response
2025.7
(5%)
1641.7
(4%)
1280.4
(4%)
1098.7
(3%)
2758.0
(8%)
2453.2
(6%)

Hospitalisations for chemotherapy infusion
5093.0
(13%)
3765.6
(9%)
4704.7
(15%)
3564.3
(10%)
4326.8
(12%)
3685.2
(9%)

Outpatient attendances for chemotherapy
291.3
(<1%)
338.0
(1%)
560.9
(2%)
423.4
(1%)
998.6
(3%)
439.0
(1%)

Tests before each cycle of chemotherapy
212.5
(<1%)
118.0
(<1%)
266.2
(1%)
197.9
(1%)
244.3
(1%)
217.0
(1%)

Pre- and postchemotherapy medication
5706.9
(15%)
1107.3
(3%)
7621.1
(25%)
1665.8
(5%)
11732.4
(32%)
7458.6
(19%)

Palliative care
2918.9
(8%)
1773.3
(4%)
1942.7
(6%)
1932.3
(6%)
1200.9
(3%)
1265.9
(3%)

Management of haematological toxicity
2728.6
(7%)
1811.1
(4%)
4421.0
(14%)
3233.7
(9%)
1187.2
(3%)
685.2
(2%)

Total
38921.7
(100%)
40631.7
(100%)
30699.4
(100%)
34196.3
(100%)
36506.7
(100%)
39780.2
(100%)

(Percentage of total expected cost is in parenthesis).

In Spain and Sweden the primary cost driver in patients starting chemotherapy with doxorubicin/ifosfamide was the cost of pre- and postchemotherapy medications. However, in Italy, the primary cost driver was the cost of second-line chemotherapy regimens. In all three countries, the primary cost driver in patients starting chemotherapy with trabectedin was the acquisition cost of this cytotoxic agent (Table 7).

3.3. Cost Effectiveness Analyses

Starting treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide instead of trabectedin monotherapy is expected to lead to a cost reduction of 1,710 in Italy, 3,497 in Spain, and 3,274 in Sweden. Additionally, starting treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide instead of trabectedin monotherapy is expected to lead to an improvement in health status at two years of 0.07 QALYs in Italy, 0.04 QALYs in Spain, and 0.02 QALYs in Sweden. Hence, doxorubicin/ifosfamide was found to be a dominant treatment relative to trabectedin in all three countries with a cost per QALY of −26,308, −87,423, and −136,396 in Italy, Spain, and Sweden, respectively.

3.4. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses

Probabilistic sensitivity analyses highlighted the distribution in the incremental costs and QALYs at two years (Figure 4), from which it can be seen that the majority of the samples are located in the dominant (bottom right) quadrant (Figure 4). These analyses also showed that there is greater dispersion in Spain and Sweden than in Italy.

Figure 4: Scatterplot of the incremental cost effectiveness of doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy (10,000 iterations of each model).

Cost effectiveness acceptability curves generated from the probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed the probability of doxorubicin/ifosfamide to be cost effective compared to trabectedin monotherapy across a wide range of cost per QALY thresholds (Figure 5). At a threshold of 35,000 per QALY, >90% of a cohort would be cost effectively treated with doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries.

Figure 5: Acceptability curves.

3.5. Deterministic Sensitivity Analyses

Extensive deterministic sensitivity analyses (Table 8) showed that the model is robust to plausible changes in the model inputs. Varying the model inputs between 20% below and 20% above the base case values showed that doxorubicin/ifosfamide remained a dominant treatment in Spain and Sweden and a cost-effective treatment in Italy, across all the variables.

Table 8: Sensitivity analyses.

Scenario
Base case value in Italy
Base case value in Spain
Base case value in Sweden
Effect

Duration of partial remission following first-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide ranges from 6.1 to 9.2 months
7.7 months
7.7 months
7.7 months
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Duration of stable disease following first-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide ranges from 5.1 to 7.7 months
6.4 months
6.4 months
6.4 months
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Duration of partial remission following first-line treatment with trabectedin ranges from 7.0 to 10.6 months
8.8 months
8.8 months
8.8 months
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Duration of stable disease following first-line treatment with trabectedin ranges from 6.0 to 9.0 months
7.5 months
7.5 months
7.5 months
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Probability of being in stable disease after first-line doxorubicin/ifosfamide ranges from 0.3 to 0.5
0.38
0.38
0.38
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Probability of being in stable disease after first-line trabectedin ranges from 0.1 to 0.2
0.14
0.14
0.14
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Probability of being in stable disease after second-line trabectedin ranges from 0.35 to 0.50
0.44
0.44
0.44
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Probability of switching to trabectedin after first-line doxorubicin/ifosfamide ranges from 80% below to 20% above the base case value
0.50
0.26
0.30
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment except in Italy where its costeffectiveness ranges from being dominant to 21,500 per QALY, breaking even at a probability of 0.55

Length of hospital stay for doxorubicin/ifosfamide infusion ranges from 1 to 5 days
3 days
4 days
3 days
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment except in Italy where its costeffectiveness ranges from being dominant to 16,400 per QALY, breaking even at 4 days

Unit cost of doxorubicin ranges from 80% below to 20% above the base case value
119.50
4.11
59.79
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Unit cost of ifosfamide ranges from 80% below to 20% above the base case value
30.71
19.71
65.65
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Unit cost of trabectedin ranges from 80% below to 20% above the base case value
2,970.10
2,049.91
1,913.29
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment except in Italy where its costeffectiveness ranges from 11,200 per QALY to being dominant, breaking even at 2,570

Cost of managing adverse events ranges from 80% below to 20% above the base case values

Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Cost of pre- and postchemotherapy medications ranges from 80% below to 20% above the base case values

Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Cost of palliative care ranges from 80% below to 20% above the base case values

Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Utility for progressive disease ranges from 0.24 to 0.36
0.30
0.30
0.30
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Utility for stable disease ranges from 0.34 to 0.52
0.43
0.43
0.43
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Difference in QALYs gained following the start of treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide and trabectedin ranges from 80% below and 20% above the base case value
0.07
0.04
0.02
Doxorubicin/ifosfamide remains a dominant treatment

Additionally, doxorubicin/ifosfamide remained a dominant treatment when the use of second-line treatments was excluded from the patients’ pathways, by assuming that those who do not respond to first-line chemotherapy, or those with disease progression, only receive palliative care. In these circumstances, starting chemotherapy with doxorubicin/ifosfamide or trabectedin is expected to lead to a two-year cost of

(i)14,567 and 32,858 per patient, respectively, in Italy,(ii)18,085 and 26,198 per patient, respectively, in Spain,(iii)21,385 and 23,410 per patient, respectively, in Sweden.

Additionally, starting chemotherapy with doxorubicin/ifosfamide or trabectedin is expected to lead to 0.274 QALYs and 0.178 QALYs per patient, respectively, at two years, irrespective of country.

4. Discussion

There have been several studies assessing the efficacy of first-line treatment of ASTS with trabectedin [18, 34]. Hence, the precedent had been set prior to performing this study to evaluate the cost effectiveness of doxorubicin/ifosfamide versus trabectedin as first-line treatment strategies for the management of this disease. Our literature search failed to find any health economic studies on ASTS in Italy, Spain, or Sweden. Consequently, using a range of published studies and estimates of resource use obtained from clinicians who manage sarcoma, a two-year Markov model was constructed to simulate the management of patients suffering from ASTS in each of these three countries. Due to the lack of published data, the time horizon of the model was limited to two years, by which time most patients would die. Markov models are suited to simulate the consequences of decisions when the timing of events is important and when events may happen more than once. Hence, they are appropriate for evaluating the consequences of decisions that are of a sequential or repetitive nature [102]. Since events such as response and relapse in ASTS recur over time, use of a Markov model was considered the most appropriate vehicle for performing this cost effectiveness analysis.

There are potential limitations with the model, mainly due to the combination of numerous sources and data assumptions. The clinical basis of the model was diverse studies that included patients with different types of ASTS, different severity of disease, different age of sufferers, different administration schedules, and prior treatments. Therefore, the patient populations may not be identical in all the studies. Consequently, the clinical outcomes observed in this study may not necessarily reflect those observed in clinical practice. Also, the Markov model was based on many assumptions pertaining to cancer-related mortality, chemotherapy efficacy rates, and duration of response. These assumptions were necessary due to the limited availability of data pertaining to some of the regimens employed by the interviewed oncologists. Nevertheless, these assumptions were tested using extensive deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and found to be robust to changes in the model inputs. Notwithstanding this, there is potential for confounding in this study due to the lack of any direct comparative evidence between the two first-line treatment regimens and some of the second-line treatment efficacy estimates are based on assumptions.

The literature search was unable to identify any published studies assessing healthcare resource utilisation and chemotherapy patterns for ASTS. Because of the low incidence of the disease, healthcare resource utilisation was not collected prospectively but was estimated from interviews with six oncologists in each country. Consequently, resource use for the “average clinician” throughout each country may not be the same as that for those clinicians who participated in this study.

The interviewees indicated that there are no treatment guidelines for the management of ASTS, and in Sweden, only ~20–30% of patients are covered by the Scandinavian Sarcoma Group protocol (SSG XX) [103]. Therefore, the chemotherapy patterns in this study reflect the individual judgment of the oncologists interviewed. Consequently, the levels of healthcare resource utilisation observed in the analysis might not be indicative for each country as a whole. Also, as a consequence, it is not known how the study results would generalise to patients treated in other oncology centres. Moreover, treatment of ASTS is very individual and the type of regimen chosen depends on (1) the histological sub-type of sarcoma and (2) the patient’s characteristics. Also, following treatment failure, a proportion of patients would be enrolled into clinical trials or would only receive palliative care. Furthermore, treatment patterns are not very standardised. Hence, there may be other treatments that are used but have not been mentioned by the interviewees. Consequently, it was a very challenging task for the interviewees to provide generalised treatment patterns. Nevertheless, the chemotherapy patterns presented in this study provide an overview of current practice in all three countries. Moreover, according to the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the conclusions reached are robust to changes in the distribution of the second-line treatments.

The model incorporated resource use and utility values for an “average patient” and did not take into account stage of disease and patients’ characteristics such as age, gender, suitability of patients for different chemotherapy regimens, and other comorbidities. The model considered only direct healthcare costs borne by the secondary healthcare sector in each country and did not consider costs borne by the community. Moreover, the costs and consequences of managing patients who survive beyond two years are also excluded. Also, the study excluded costs incurred by patients, families, and/or their caregivers and indirect costs incurred by society as a result of patients taking time off work and/or not being able to lead productive lives, although the majority of patients are expected to have a mean age of 65 years. Consequently, inclusion of these costs may affect the study’s results and need to be studied further in larger populations.

First-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide was found to be cost effective when compared to first-line trabectedin monotherapy in Italy, Spain, and Sweden. In this study, patients’ health status, in terms of the number of QALYs at two years, is a reflection of the probability of being in different health states over the study period and the duration of being in each health state. According to the Markov model, first-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide yields more QALYs than with trabectedin monotherapy, irrespective of whether second-line chemotherapy is included in the analysis. Additionally, in all three countries use of doxorubicin/ifosfamide leads to lower two-year healthcare costs. Moreover, at a threshold of 35,000 per QALY, >90% of a cohort is expected to be cost effectively treated with doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries. The primary cost driver of managing patients in the trabectedin monotherapy group is the unit cost of this cytotoxic agent. Subsequent to completion of this study the results of the landmark EORTC62012 study comparing doxorubicin with doxorubicin/ifosfamide as first-line treatment for ASTS have been reported as an abstract [104]. This multi-institutional, phase III study recruited 455 patients and demonstrated an improved progression-free survival for the combination arm but significantly worse toxicity and no overall survival benefit. Many oncologists would therefore consider single agent doxorubicin to be the new standard of care, a treatment that would be expected to have lower acquisition and toxicity management costs than doxorubicin/ifosfamide. Hence, it is difficult to see how the high acquisition cost of trabectedin affords value for money to the publicly funded healthcare systems in Italy, Spain, and Sweden when used as a first-line treatment for ASTS. Consequently, trabectedin should be used following failure of doxorubicin and ifosfamide treatment in accordance with its indication.

In the absence of any published health economic studies assessing the cost effectiveness of treatments for the management of ASTS in any country, it is not known how the results of the present analysis would generalise to other settings and patient groups and whether all important factors for the decision under consideration have been taken into account. Nevertheless, within the limitations of the present study, doxorubicin/ifosfamide (or single agent doxorubicin [104]) is expected to be a preferred first-line treatment strategy for the management of ASTS compared to trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries.

In conclusion, within the model’s limitations, first-line treatment of patients with ASTS with doxorubicin/ifosfamide instead of trabectedin monotherapy affords a cost-effective use of publicly funded healthcare resources in Italy, Spain, and Sweden. These findings support the recommendation that trabectedin should remain a second/third-line treatment.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the following oncologists for their contributions to this study: Dr. R. Berardi, Azienda Ospedaliero, Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti Umberto I, Ancona, Italy; Dr. M. Berretta, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, IRCCS, Aviano, Italy; Dr. A. Comandone, Gradenigo Hospital and Gruppo Piemontese Sarcomi, Torino, Italy; Dr. M. C. Deidda, Policlinico Universitario di Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy; Dr. L. Tomasello, National Cancer Research Institute, Genoa, Italy; Dr. B. Vincenzi, University Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy; Dr. C. Balaña, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain; Dr. J. M. Broto, Hospital Universitario Son Dureta, Palma De Mallorca, Spain; Dr. J. F. Gonzalez, Grupo Hospitalario Quirón, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain; Dr. V. M. Marín, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain; Dr. A. L. Pousa, Hospital De Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; Dr. J. I. Verdum, Clínica Corachan, Barcelona, Spain; Dr. E. Lidbrink, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; Professor H. Hagberg, University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden; Dr. K. Engström, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; Dr. M. Erlanson, University Hospital, Umeå, Sweden; Dr. M. Jerkeman, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; and Dr. N. Wall, University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden. This study was supported by Baxter Healthcare, Zurich, Switzerland. However, Baxter Healthcare did not have any control of the methodology, conduct, results, or conclusion of this study or editorial involvement in this paper. The authors have no other conflict of interests that is directly relevant to the content of this paper, which remains their sole responsibility.

References

P. A. Cassier, S. I. Labidi-Galy, P. Heudel et al., “Therapeutic pipeline for soft-tissue sarcoma,” Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, vol. 12, no. 16, pp. 2479–2491, 2011.

M. A. Clark, C. Fisher, I. Judson, and J. M. Thomas, “Soft-tissue sarcomas in adults,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 353, no. 7, pp. 701–711, 2005.

N. Penel, C. Nisse, S. Feddal, and E. Lartigau, “Soft tissue sarcoma,” Presse Medicale, vol. 30, no. 28, pp. 1405–1413, 2001.

“Cancer Research UK,” 2011, http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/home/

M. F. Brennan, E. S. Casper, and L. B. Harrison, “Soft tissue sarcoma,” in Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology, V. T. deVita Jr., S. Hellman, and S. A. Rosenberg, Eds., pp. 1738–1788, Lippincott-Ravel Publishers, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 5th edition, 1997.

A. Misra, N. Mistry, R. Grimer, and F. Peart, “The management of soft tissue sarcoma,” Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 161–174, 2009.

J. F. Abellan, J. M. Lamo de Espinosa, J. Duart et al., “Nonreferral of possible soft tissue sarcomas in adults: a dangerous omission in policy,” Sarcoma, vol. 2009, Article ID 827912, 7 pages, 2009.

J. M. Coindre, P. Terrier, L. Guillou et al., “Predictive value of grade for metastasis development in the main histologic types of adult soft tissue sarcomas: a study of 1240 patients from the French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group,” Cancer, vol. 91, no. 10, pp. 1914–1926, 2001.

M. van Glabbeke, A. T. van Oosterom, J. W. Oosterhuis et al., “Prognostic factors for the outcome of chemotherapy in advanced soft tissue sarcoma: an analysis of 2,185 patients treated with anthracycline- containing first-line regimens—a European organization for research and treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group Study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 150–157, 1999.

A. Italiano, M. Toulmonde, and B. Bui-Nguyen, “Chemotherapy options for patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma beyond anthracyclines,” Bulletin du Cancer, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 679–686, 2010.

K. Thornton, C. E. Pesce, and M. A. Choti, “Multidisciplinary management of metastatic sarcoma,” Surgical Clinics of North America, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 661–672, 2008.

The ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group, “Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 23, supplement 7, pp. vii92–vii99, 2012.

S. Verma and V. Bramwell, “Dose-intensive chemotherapy in advanced adult soft tissue sarcoma,” Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 201–215, 2002.

J. M. Buesa, A. López-Pousa, J. Martín et al., “Phase II trial of first-line high-dose ifosfamide in advanced soft tissue sarcomas of the adult: a study of the Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas (GEIS),” Annals of Oncology, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 871–876, 1998.

J. Verweij and H. M. Pinedo, “Systemic treatment of advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma,” in Soft Tissue Sarcomas: New Developments in the Multidisciplinary Approach to Treatment, H. M. Pinedo, J. Verweij, and H. D. Suit, Eds., pp. 75–91, Kluwer Academic, Boston, Mass, USA, 1991.

J. Schütte, R. Kellner, and S. Seeber, “Ifosfamide in the treatment of soft-tissue sarcomas: experience at the West German Tumor Center, Essen,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. S194–S198, 1993.

A. Santoro, T. Tursz, H. Mouridsen et al., “Doxorubicin versus CYVADIC versus doxorubicin plus ifosfamide in first- line treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a randomized study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1537–1545, 1995.

R. Garcia-Carbonero, J. G. Supko, R. G. Maki et al., “Ecteinascidin-743 (ET-743) for chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas: multicenter phase II and pharmacokinetic study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 24, pp. 5484–5492, 2005.

A. L. Cesne, J. Y. Blay, I. Judson et al., “Phase II study of ET-743 in advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 576–584, 2005.

J. Fayette, I. R. Coquard, L. Alberti, D. Ranchère, H. Boyle, and J.-Y. Blay, “ET-743: a novel agent with activity in soft tissue sarcomas,” Oncologist, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 827–832, 2005.

M. M. Oken, R. H. Creech, and T. E. Davis, “Toxicology and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group,” American Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 649–655, 1982.

J. L. Mansi, C. Fisher, E. Wiltshaw, S. MacMillan, M. King, and R. Stuart-Harris, “A phase I-II study of ifosfamide in combination with adriamycin in the treatment of adult soft tissue sarcoma,” European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1439–1443, 1988.

F. P. Worden, J. M. G. Taylor, J. S. Biermann et al., “Randomized phase II evaluation of 6 g/m2 of ifosfamide plus doxorubicin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) compared with 12 g/m² of ifosfamide plus doxorubicin and G-CSF in the treatment of poor-prognosis soft tissue sarcoma,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 105–112, 2005.

A. Le Cesne, I. Judson, D. Crowther et al., “Randomized phase III study comparing conventional-dose doxorubicin plus ifosfamide versus high-dose doxorubicin plus infosfamide plus recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 18, no. 14, pp. 2676–2684, 2000.

C. Bokemeyer, A. Franzke, J. T. Hartmann, et al., “A phase I/II study of sequential, dose-escalated, high dose ifosfamide plus doxorubicin with peripheral blood stem cell support for the treatment of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas,” Cancer, vol. 80, no. 7, pp. 1221–1227, 1997.

T. de Pas, F. de Braud, L. Orlando et al., “High-dose ifosfamide plus adriamycin in the treatment of adult advanced soft tissue sarcomas: is it feasible?” Annals of Oncology, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 917–919, 1998.

N. Wall and H. Starkhammar, “Chemotherapy of soft tissue sarcoma: a clinical evaluation of treatment over ten years,” Acta Oncologica, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 55–61, 2003.

S. Leyvraz, M. Bacchi, T. Cerny et al., “Phase I multicenter study of combined high-dose ifosfamide and doxorubicin in the treatment of advanced sarcomas. Swiss Group for Clinical Research (SAKK),” Annals of Oncology, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 877–884, 1998.

J. Schütte, H. T. Mouridsen, W. Steward et al., “Ifosfamide plus doxorubicin in previously untreated patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. S204–S209, 1993.

A. Comandone, S. Bretti, O. Bertetto, C. Oliva, P. Bergnolo, and C. Bumma, “Low dose adriamycin and ifosfamide in the treatment of advanced adult soft tissue sarcomas,” Anticancer Research B, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2077–2080, 2000.

I. Barişta, G. Tekuzman, S. Yalçin, et al., “Treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcomas with ifosfamide and doxorubicin combination chemotherapy,” Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 12–16, 2000.

R. E. Hawkins, E. Wiltshaw, and J. L. Mansi, “Ifosfamide with and without adriamycin in advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, vol. 26, pp. S26–S29, 1990.

P. J. Loehrer Sr., G. W. Sledge Jr., C. Nicaise et al., “Ifosfamide plus doxorubicin in metastatic adult sarcomas: a multi-institutional phase II trial,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 1655–1659, 1989.

G. D. Demetri, “ET-743: the US experience in sarcomas of soft tissues,” Anti-Cancer Drugs, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. S7–S9, 2002.

W. J. Köstler, T. Brodowicz, Y. Attems et al., “Docetaxel as rescue medication in anthracycline- and ifostamide-resistant locally advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: results of a phase II trial,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 1281–1288, 2001.

Q. G. van Hoesel, J. Verweij, G. Catimel et al., “Phase II study with docetaxel (Taxotere) in advanced soft tissue sarcomas of the adult. EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 539–542, 1994.

A. Santoro, A. Romanini, A. Rosso et al., “Lack of activity of docetaxel in soft tissue sarcomas: results of a phase II study of the Italian Group on Rare Tumors,” Sarcoma, vol. 3, no. 3-4, pp. 177–181, 1999.

A. Minchom, R. L. Jones, C. Fisher et al., “Clinical benefit of second-line palliative chemotherapy in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma,” Sarcoma, vol. 2010, Article ID 264360, 8 pages, 2010.

J. Verweij, S. M. Lee, W. Ruka et al., “Randomized phase II study of docetaxel versus doxorubicin in first- and second-line chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcomas in adults: a study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 2081–2086, 2000.

R. G. Maki, J. K. Wathen, S. R. Patel et al., “Randomised phase II study of gemcitabine and docetaxel compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas: results of sarcoma alliance for research through collaboration study 002,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 25, no. 19, pp. 2755–2763, 2007.

A. Amodio, S. Carpano, C. Manfredi, et al., “Gemcitabine in advanced stage soft tissue sarcoma: a phase II study,” Clinical Therapeutics, vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 17–20, 1999.

O. Merimsky, I. Meller, G. Flusser et al., “Gemcitabine in soft tissue or bone sarcoma resistant to standard chemotherapy: a phase II study,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 177–181, 2000.

E. Späth-Schwalbe, I. Genvresse, A. Koschuth, A. Dietzmann, R. Grunewald, and K. Possinger, “Phase II trial of gemcitabine in patients with pretreated advanced soft tissue sarcomas,” Anti-Cancer Drugs, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 325–329, 2000.

V. Ferraresi, M. Ciccarese, M. C. Cercato et al., “Gemcitabine at fixed dose-rate in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a mono-institutional phase II study,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 149–155, 2008.

J. T. Hartmann, K. Oechsle, J. Huober et al., “An open label, non-comparative phase II study of gemcitabine as salvage treatment for patients with pretreated adult type soft tissue sarcoma,” Investigational New Drugs, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 249–253, 2006.

S. Okuno, J. Edmonson, M. Mahoney, J. C. Buckner, S. Frytak, and E. Galanis, “Phase II trial of gemcitabine in advanced sarcomas,” Cancer, vol. 94, no. 12, pp. 3225–3229, 2002.

S. R. Patel, V. Gandhi, J. Jenkins et al., “Phase II clinical investigation of gemcitabine in advanced soft tissue sarcomas and window evaluation of dose rate on gemcitabine triphosphate accumulation,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 19, no. 15, pp. 3483–3489, 2001.

J. M. Buesa, R. Losa, A. Fernández et al., “Phase I clinical trial of fixed-dose rate infusional gemcitabine and dacarbazine in the treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma, with assessment of gemcitabine triphosphate accumulation,” Cancer, vol. 101, no. 10, pp. 2261–2269, 2004.

R. Losa, J. Fra, A. López-Pousa et al., “Phase II study with the combination of gemcitabine and DTIC in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 251–259, 2007.

X. García-del-Muro, A. López-Pousa, J. Maurel et al., “Randomized phase II study comparing gemcitabine plus dacarbazine versus dacarbazine alone in patients with previously treated soft tissue sarcoma: a Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas Study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 29, no. 18, pp. 2528–2533, 2011.

K. M. Leu, L. J. Ostruszka, D. Shewach et al., “Laboratory and clinical evidence of synergistic cytotoxicity of sequential treament with gemcitabine followed by docetaxel in the treatment of sarcoma,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1706–1712, 2004.

M. L. Hensley, R. Maki, E. Venkatraman et al., “Gemcitabine and docetaxel in patients with unresectable leiomyosarcoma: results of a phase II trial,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 2824–2831, 2002.

P. Ebeling, L. Eisele, P. Schuett et al., “Docetaxel and gemcitabine in the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma—a single-center experience,” Onkologie, vol. 31, no. 1-2, pp. 11–16, 2008.

J.-O. Bay, I. Ray-Coquard, J. Fayette et al., “Docetaxel and gemcitabine combination in 133 advanced soft-tissue sarcomas: a retrospective analysis,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 706–711, 2006.

J. A. Morgan, S. George, J. Desai, et al., “Phase II study of gemcitabine/vinorelbine (GV) as first or second line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 22, no. 14S, pp. 9004–9009, 2004, ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings

P. Dileo, J. A. Morgan, D. Zahrieh et al., “Gemcitabine and vinorelbine combination chemotherapy for patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas: results of a phase II trial,” Cancer, vol. 109, no. 9, pp. 1863–1869, 2007.

A. T. van Oosterom, H. T. Mouridsen, O. S. Nielsen et al., “Results of randomised studies of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) with two different ifosfamide regimens in first- and second-line chemotherapy in advanced soft tissue sarcoma patients,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 38, no. 18, pp. 2397–2406, 2002.

O. S. Nielsen, I. Judson, Q. van Hoesel et al., “Effect of high-dose ifosfamide in advanced soft tissue sarcomas. A multicentre phase II study of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 61–67, 2000.

R. Coriat, O. Mir, S. Camps et al., “Ambulatory administration of 5-day infusion ifosfamide + mesna: a pilot study in sarcoma patients,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 491–495, 2010.

T. Tursz, “High-dose ifosfamide in the treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcomas,” Seminars in Oncology, vol. 23, supplement 7, no. 3, pp. 34–39, 1996.

A. Le Cesne, G. Demetri, and L. Jean, “Impact of Yondelis in the natural history of patients with pretreated advanced soft tissue sarcomas: long-term follow-up results,” in Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, pp. 17–23, November 2003.

E. G. C. Brain, “Safety and efficacy of ET-743: the French experience,” Anti-Cancer Drugs, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. S11–S14, 2002.

G. Huygh, P. M. J. Clement, H. Dumez et al., “Ecteinascidin-743: evidence of activity in advanced, pretreated soft tissue and bone sarcoma patients,” Sarcoma, vol. 2006, Article ID 56282, 11 pages, 2006.

S. Delaloge, A. Yovine, A. Taamma et al., “Ecteinascidin-743: a marine-derived compound in advanced, pretreated sarcoma patients - Preliminary evidence of activity,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1248–1255, 2001.

A. Yovine, M. Riofrio, J. Y. Blay et al., “Phase II study of ecteinascidin-743 in advanced pretreated soft tissue sarcoma patients,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 890–899, 2004.

J. Blay, N. Penel, A. Italiano, et al., “Trabectedin for advanced sarcomas failing doxorubicin: analysis of 189 unreported patients in a compassionate use program,” Sarcoma, 2009, ASCO Annual Meeting Poster Presentation

J. Fayette, H. Boyle, S. Chabaud et al., “Efficacy of trabectedin for advanced sarcomas in clinical trials versus compassionate use programs: analysis of 92 patients treated in a single institution,” Anti-Cancer Drugs, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 113–119, 2010.

J. T. Hartmann, K. Oechsle, F. Mayer, L. Kanz, and C. Bokemeyer, “Phase II trial of trofosfamide in patients with advanced pretreated soft tissue sarcomas,” Anticancer Research C, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1899–1901, 2003.

P. Reichardt, D. Pink, J. Tilgner, A. Kretzschmar, P. C. Thuss-Patience, and B. Dörken, “Oral trofosfamide: an active and well-tolerated maintenance therapy for adult patients with advanced bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Results of a retrospective analysis,” Onkologie, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 541–546, 2002.

C. Kollmannsberger, W. Brugger, J. T. Hartmann et al., “Phase II study of oral trofosfamide as palliative therapy in pretreated patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma,” Anti-Cancer Drugs, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 453–456, 1999.

L. Švancárová, J. Y. Blay, I. R. Judson et al., “Gemcitabine in advanced adult soft-tissue sarcomas. A phase II study of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 556–559, 2002.

Database, “Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmaceuticos,” October 2011, https://botplusweb.portalfarma.com/botplus.asp

“Läkemedelsportalen (Swedish national pharmaceuticals price list),” October 2011, http://www.fass.se/LIF/info/forstabesoket.jsp

“Nomenclatore Tariffario Regione Lazio, 2010,” 2010, http://www.asl.ri.it/index.php

J. Branera, J. Puig, M. Gil, R. Bella, A. Darnell, and A. Malet, “Outpatient US-guided percutaneous liver biopsy: technique and complications,” Radiologia, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 32–36, 2005.

Regionförbundet- regioner prislistor, October 2011, http://www.norrlandstingen.se/lankar_prislistor.htm

BOC-Numero 64. Precios de los servicios sanitarios, “en los centros hospitalarios, 2007,” October 2011, http://www.fmdv.org

A. Ringborg, R. Nieuwlaat, P. Lindgren et al., “Costs of atrial fibrillation in five European countries: results from the Euro Heart Survey on atrial fibrillation,” Europace, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 403–411, 2008.

“Interviews with clinicians”.

“Baxter Healthcare SA”.

“Italian Medicines Agency, 2010,” 2011, http://www.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/en

M. Vera-Llonch, E. Dukes, J. Rejas, O. Sofrygin, M. Mychaskiw, and G. Oster, “Cost-effectiveness of pregabalin versus venlafaxine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: findings from a Spanish perspective,” European Journal of Health Economics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 35–44, 2010.

J. F. Guest, D. Concolino, R. di Vito, C. Feliciani, R. Parini, and A. Zampetti, “Modelling the resource implications of managing adults with Fabry disease in Italy,” European Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 710–718, 2011.

“World Health Organisation,” 2010, http://www.who.int/en

G. Mickisch, M. Gore, B. Escudier, G. Procopio, S. Walzer, and M. Nuijten, “Costs of managing adverse events in the treatment of first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma: bevacizumab in combination with interferon-α2a compared with sunitinib,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 80–86, 2010.

M. Ortega-Andreu, H. Pérez-Chrzanowska, R. Figueredo, et al., “Blood loss control with two doses of tranexamic acid in a multimodal protocol for total knee arthroplasty,” The Open Orthopaedics Journal, vol. 5, pp. 44–48, 2011.

A. H. Glenngård and U. Persson, “En blodtransfusion i Sverige - Så mycket kostar den samhället,” Lakartidningen, vol. 103, no. 38, pp. 2752–2756, 2006.

M. Danova, S. Chiroli, G. Rosti, and Q. V. Doan, “Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus six days of filgrastim for preventing febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients,” Tumori, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 219–226, 2009.

J. I. Mayordomo, A. López, N. Viňolas, et al., “Retrospective cost analysis of management of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients in Spain,” Current Medical Research and Opinion, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 2533–2542, 2009.

F. Kasteng, M. Erlanson, H. Hagberg, E. Kimby, T. Relander, and J. Lundkvist, “Cost-effectiveness of maintenance rituximab treatment after second line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma in Sweden,” Acta Oncologica, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1029–1036, 2008.

Y. Asukai, A. Valladares, C. Camps et al., “Cost-effectiveness analysis of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in Spain: results for the non-squamous histology population,” BMC Cancer, vol. 10, article 26, 2010.

M. Percudani, C. Barbui, J. Beecham, and M. Knapp, “Routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice: service and non-service costs of psychiatric patients attending a Community Mental Health Centre in Italy,” European Psychiatry, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 469–477, 2004.

S. Mercadante, G. Intravaia, P. Villari et al., “Clinical and financial analysis of an acute palliative care unit in an oncological department,” Palliative Medicine, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 760–767, 2008.

X. Gómez-Batiste, A. Tuca, E. Corrales et al., “Resource consumption and costs of palliative care services in Spain: a multicenter prospective study,” Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 522–532, 2006.

L. Dahlberg, J. Lundkvist, and H. Lindman, “Health care costs for treatment of disseminated breast cancer,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 1987–1991, 2009.

J. Hjelmgren, J. Ceberg, U. Persson, and T. A. Alvegård, “The cost of treating pancreatic cancer: a cohort study based on patients' records from four hospitals in Sweden,” Acta Oncologica, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 218–226, 2003.

I. Judson, J. A. Radford, M. Harris et al., “Randomised phase II trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (DOXIL/CAELYX) versus doxorubicin in the treatment of advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a study by the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 870–877, 2001.

J. F. Guest, E. Sladkevicius, N. Gough, M. Linch, and R. Grimer, “Utility values for advanced soft tissue sarcoma health States from the general public in the United kingdom,” Sarcoma, vol. 2013, Article ID 863056, 9 pages, 2013.

S. Capri, A. Ceci, L. Terranova et al., “Guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy: recommendations from the Italian group of pharmacoeconomic studies,” Drug Information Journal, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 189–201, 2001.

J. López-Bastida, J. Oliva, F. Antoñanzas, et al., “Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies,” The European Journal of Health Economics, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 513–520, 2010.

F. Borgström, O. Johnell, J. A. Kanis, A. Oden, D. Sykes, and B. Jönsson, “Cost effectiveness of raloxifene in the treatment of osteoporosis in Sweden: an economic evaluation based on the MORE study,” PharmacoEconomics, vol. 22, no. 17, pp. 1153–1165, 2004.

A. M. Gray, P. M. Clarke, J. Wolstenholme, et al., Applied Methods of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health Care, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2010.

“SSG XX- A Scandinavian Sarcoma Group treatment protocol for adult patients with non-metastatic high-risk soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities and trunk wall,” Scandinavian Sarcoma Group and Oncologic Center, Lund, Sweden, 2007

W. T. A. van der Graaf, I. Judson, J. Verweij et al., “Results of a randomised phase III trial (EORTC, 62012) of single agent doxorubicin versus doxorubicin plus ifosfamide as first line chemotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a survival study by the EORTC soft tissue and bone sarcoma group,” ESMO Congress. Abstract LBA7, October 2012, http://oncologypro.esmo.org/meeting-resources/meeting-abstracts/european-society-for-medical-oncology-esmo-2012/results-of-a-randomised-phase-iii-trial-2882.aspx