Evaluating different adoption scenarios for TIL-therapy and the influence on its (early) cost-effectiveness.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
/ methods
Delphi Technique
Forecasting
Health Care Surveys
Humans
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
/ economics
Immunotherapy, Adoptive
/ economics
Infusions, Intravenous
Ipilimumab
/ economics
Lymphocytes, Tumor-Infiltrating
/ transplantation
Melanoma
/ pathology
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Technology Transfer
Time Factors
Uncertainty
Advanced melanoma
Expert views
Health technology assessment
Implementation
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Jul 2020
31 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
31
01
2020
accepted:
10
07
2020
entrez:
2
8
2020
pubmed:
2
8
2020
medline:
9
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Treatment with tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TIL) is an innovative therapy for advanced melanoma with promising clinical phase I/II study results and likely beneficial cost-effectiveness. As a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of TIL therapy in advanced melanoma compared to ipilimumab is still ongoing, adoption of TIL therapy by the field is confronted with uncertainty. To deal with this, scenario drafting can be used to identify potential barriers and enables the subsequent anticipation on these barriers. This study aims to inform adoption decisions of TIL by evaluating various scenarios and evaluate their effect on the cost-effectiveness. First, 14 adoption scenarios for TIL-therapy were drafted using a Delphi approach with a group of involved experts. Second, the likelihood of the scenarios taking place within 5 years was surveyed among international experts using a web-based questionnaire. Third, based on the questionnaire results and recent literature, scenarios were labeled as being either "likely" or "-unlikely". Finally, the cost-effectiveness of TIL treatment involving the "likely" scored scenarios was calculated. Twenty-nine experts from 12 countries completed the questionnaire. The scenarios showed an average likelihood ranging from 29 to 58%, indicating that future developments of TIL-therapy were surrounded with quite some uncertainty. Eight of the 14 scenarios were labeled as "likely". The net monetary benefit per patient is presented as a measure of cost-effectiveness, where a positive value means that a scenario is cost-effective. For six of these scenarios the cost-effectiveness was calculated: "Commercialization of TIL production" (the price was assumed to be 3 times the manufacturing costs in the academic setting) (-€51,550), "Pharmaceutical companies lowering the prices of ipilimumab" (€11,420), "Using TIL-therapy combined with ipilimumab" (-€10,840), "Automatic TIL production" (€22,670), "TIL more effective" (€23,270), "Less Interleukin-2" (€20,370). Incorporating possible future developments, TIL-therapy was calculated to be cost-effective compared to ipilimumab in the majority of "likely" scenarios. These scenarios could function as facilitators for adoption. Contrary, TIL therapy was expected to not be cost-effective when sold at commercial prices, or when combined with ipilimumab. These scenarios should be considered in the adoption decision as these may act as crucial barriers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Treatment with tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TIL) is an innovative therapy for advanced melanoma with promising clinical phase I/II study results and likely beneficial cost-effectiveness. As a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of TIL therapy in advanced melanoma compared to ipilimumab is still ongoing, adoption of TIL therapy by the field is confronted with uncertainty. To deal with this, scenario drafting can be used to identify potential barriers and enables the subsequent anticipation on these barriers. This study aims to inform adoption decisions of TIL by evaluating various scenarios and evaluate their effect on the cost-effectiveness.
METHODS
METHODS
First, 14 adoption scenarios for TIL-therapy were drafted using a Delphi approach with a group of involved experts. Second, the likelihood of the scenarios taking place within 5 years was surveyed among international experts using a web-based questionnaire. Third, based on the questionnaire results and recent literature, scenarios were labeled as being either "likely" or "-unlikely". Finally, the cost-effectiveness of TIL treatment involving the "likely" scored scenarios was calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-nine experts from 12 countries completed the questionnaire. The scenarios showed an average likelihood ranging from 29 to 58%, indicating that future developments of TIL-therapy were surrounded with quite some uncertainty. Eight of the 14 scenarios were labeled as "likely". The net monetary benefit per patient is presented as a measure of cost-effectiveness, where a positive value means that a scenario is cost-effective. For six of these scenarios the cost-effectiveness was calculated: "Commercialization of TIL production" (the price was assumed to be 3 times the manufacturing costs in the academic setting) (-€51,550), "Pharmaceutical companies lowering the prices of ipilimumab" (€11,420), "Using TIL-therapy combined with ipilimumab" (-€10,840), "Automatic TIL production" (€22,670), "TIL more effective" (€23,270), "Less Interleukin-2" (€20,370).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Incorporating possible future developments, TIL-therapy was calculated to be cost-effective compared to ipilimumab in the majority of "likely" scenarios. These scenarios could function as facilitators for adoption. Contrary, TIL therapy was expected to not be cost-effective when sold at commercial prices, or when combined with ipilimumab. These scenarios should be considered in the adoption decision as these may act as crucial barriers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32736535
doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07166-9
pii: 10.1186/s12885-020-07166-9
pmc: PMC7393723
doi:
Substances chimiques
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
0
Ipilimumab
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
712Subventions
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 837004011
Références
Oncologist. 2011;16(1):5-24
pubmed: 21212434
J Immunother. 2018 Nov/Dec;41(9):413-425
pubmed: 30300260
Oncotarget. 2017 Dec 6;8(69):113345-113359
pubmed: 29371915
Cytotherapy. 2016 Jun;18(6):797-805
pubmed: 27068764
J Immunother Cancer. 2018 Oct 3;6(1):102
pubmed: 30285902
Cancer J. 2012 Mar-Apr;18(2):160-75
pubmed: 22453018
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007 Spring;23(2):162-8
pubmed: 17493301
Regen Med. 2015;10(7):885-95
pubmed: 26541074
Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Jul 1;17(13):4550-7
pubmed: 21498393
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Nov 10;26(32):5233-9
pubmed: 18809613
BMC Cancer. 2016 Feb 06;16:66
pubmed: 26851938
Transfus Med Hemother. 2016 Sep;43(5):344-352
pubmed: 27781022
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019 Jan;133:99-111
pubmed: 30661664
N Engl J Med. 1988 Dec 22;319(25):1676-80
pubmed: 3264384
Br J Cancer. 2015 Apr 28;112(9):1510-8
pubmed: 25867267
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(12):2790-5
pubmed: 26308285
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Sep;37(9):1155-1163
pubmed: 31134467
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2019 May;68(5):773-785
pubmed: 30747243
Cancer J. 2017 Jan/Feb;23(1):48-53
pubmed: 28114254
Methods Mol Biol. 2016;1393:1-9
pubmed: 27033211
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Aug;150(2):361-369
pubmed: 29803316
Front Oncol. 2018 Mar 02;8:44
pubmed: 29552542
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Jan 15;23(2):351-362
pubmed: 28093487
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):733-44
pubmed: 18767894
Science. 2014 May 9;344(6184):641-5
pubmed: 24812403
BMJ. 2020 Jan 13;368:l4627
pubmed: 31932289
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Jan;18(1):158-66
pubmed: 10623706
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):18-20
pubmed: 26670093
N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 17;381(16):1535-1546
pubmed: 31562797
BMC Cancer. 2018 Sep 15;18(1):895
pubmed: 30219040
Regen Med. 2014 Jan;9(1):81-7
pubmed: 24351008
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Aug 1;22(15):3734-45
pubmed: 27006492
Cell Stem Cell. 2016 Sep 1;19(3):293-7
pubmed: 27588746