-Author name in bold denotes the presenting author
-Asterisk * with author name denotes a Non-ASH member
Clinically Relevant Abstract denotes an abstract that is clinically relevant.

PhD Trainee denotes that this is a recommended PHD Trainee Session.

Ticketed Session denotes that this is a ticketed session.

1597 A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Front-Line Treatment Strategies in Early Stage Follicular Lymphoma

Program: Oral and Poster Abstracts
Session: 902. Health Services Research—Malignant Conditions (Lymphoid Disease): Poster I
Hematology Disease Topics & Pathways:
Follicular Lymphoma, Diseases, Lymphoid Malignancies, Clinically relevant
Saturday, December 5, 2020, 7:00 AM-3:30 PM

Joshua W.D. Tobin, MD1*, Greg Hapgood, BMBS, FRACP, FRCPA2, Maher K. Gandhi, PhD, FRACP, FRCPath3,4,5, Peter Mollee, FRACP, MBBS, MSc, FRCPA6,7, Ti Ma, BSci8*, Anna Crothers9* and Paul Scuffham10*

1Translational Research Institute, Blood Cancer Research Laboratory, Mater Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
2Cancer Care Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
3Mater Research Institute, University of Queensland, Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
4Blood Cancer Research Group, Mater Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
5Department of Haematology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
6Haematology Department, Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
7University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
8University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
9Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Gold Coast, AUS
10Griffith Univeristy, Brisbane, Australia

Background:

Radiation therapy (RT) has been considered the standard of care for front-line management for early-stage follicular lymphoma. Recent data suggests the use of RT is declining with more than half the patients receiving immunochemotherapy (ICT) with or without rituximab maintenance (RM). Cost-effectiveness analysis of these treatments has not been performed.

Methods:

We constructed a four-state partitioned survival model over a 15-year time horizon to compare RT alone, ICT and ICT+RM. The model was based on a real-world cohort of early-stage FL patients, staged using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography,from the Australasian Lymphoma Alliance. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from an Australian tax-payer perspective. A pre-specified value of AUD $75,000 was defined as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold reflecting recent approvals for therapeutics for indolent lymphoproliferative diseases in Australia.

Results:

Assuming 5% annual discounting the direct healthcare costs were: RT $14,480, ICT $22,171, ICT+RM $42,830 (Table 1). Compared with RT, ICT demonstrated an improvement in QALYs (+0.17) and an ICER of $44,879. Compared with RT, ICT+RM demonstrated a larger improvement in QALYs (+0.53) with an ICER of $53,062. Modelling a 25% cost reduction with a rituximab biosimilar led to further ICER reductions: ICT ($29,078); ICT+RM ($37,810).

Conclusion:

Although the initial healthcare-associated costs were higher than RT, over a 15-year horizon ICT and ICT+RM are cost-effective treatments in early stage FL from the Australian tax-payer perspective. Although the costs may differ internationally, the results remain broadly generalisable given the costs incurred related to time in the failure-free state.

Table 1:Comparison of healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years and cost-effectiveness between front-line therapies in early stage FL

Disclosures: Tobin: Gilead: Research Funding. Gandhi: Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Mater Research: Current Employment; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses ; Genentech: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mollee: Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

*signifies non-member of ASH