Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of published time invariant Markov models with Partitioned Survival models for cost effectiveness estimation; three case studies of treatments for glioblastoma multiforme

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) have mostly used state transition Markov models with time invariant transition probabilities (TIMMs). In three case studies of GBM treatments, we compared Partitioned Survival model (PSM) results with published outputs from TIMMs.

Methods

PSMs used the same RCT data sources, utility values, time horizons, cycle times and annual discounting used in published TIMMs. Reported overall survival and progression-free survival plots were digitised and fitted with a range of parametric models. Economic model outputs were generated in the same form as reported for the TIMMs. PSM output uncertainty was explored in univariate and in multivariate sensitivity analyses.

Results

PSMs generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios that were different to the published TIMMs. The magnitude of difference was substantial in two cases. The PSMs were reasonably robust and in sensitivity analyses were sensitive to variations in the same model inputs as were the TIMMs. When compared to the RCT data, the TIMMs tended to generate underestimates of the likely overall survival gain. TIMM estimates for depletion of individuals from the stable disease state and for accumulation in the dead state had relatively poor resemblance to the source RCT data.

Conclusion

TIMMs delivered different cost-effectiveness estimates to PSMs; in two cases, TIMMs produced substantially lower ICER values than PSMs. Model output differences appear attributable to less realistic cost-and-benefit estimates generated in TIMMs due to rapid depletion from the stable disease state and/or accumulation in the dead state.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lamers, L.M., et al.: Cost-effectiveness of temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: a report from the EORTC 26981/22981 NCI-C CE3 Intergroup Study. Cancer 112(6), 1337–1344 (2008)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Messali, A., Hay, J.W., Villacorta, R.: The cost-effectiveness of temozolomide in the adjuvant treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the United States. Neuro Oncol 15(11), 1532–1542 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kovic, B., Xie, F.: Economic evaluation of bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol 33(20), 2296–2302 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wu, B., et al.: Subgroup economic analysis for glioblastoma in a health resource-limited setting. PLoS ONE 7(4), e34588 (2012)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Waschke, A., et al.: Cost-effectiveness of the long-term use of temozolomide for treating newly diagnosed glioblastoma in Germany. J Neurooncol 138(2), 359–367 (2018)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bernard-Arnoux, F., et al.: The cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 18(8), 1129–1136 (2016)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Minacori, R., et al.: How to model survival in cost-effectiveness analysis? Differences between Markov and partitioned survival analysis models. Value Health 18(7), A704 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Williams, C., et al.: Estimation of survival probabilities for use in cost-effectiveness analyses: a comparison of a multi-state modelling survival analysis approach with partitioned survival and Markov decision-analytic modelling. Med Decis Making 37(4), 427–439 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Woods B, S E, Palmer S, Latimer N, Soares M. (2017) NICE DSU technical support document 19. Partitioned survival analysis for decision modelling in health care: a critical review. Available from https://www.nicedsu.org.uk

  10. Briggs, A., et al.: Partitioned survival versus state transition modelling in oncology: a case study with Nivolumab in advanced Melanoma. Value Health 18(7), A338 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Smare, C., et al.: Evaluating partitioned survival and Markov decision-analytic modeling approaches for use in cost-effectiveness analysis: estimating and comparing survival outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics 38, 97–108 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Greenberg D, Winters T, Brodbelt A, Williams M, Vernon S, Flowers J, Collins P (2017) Incidence and outcomes for cerebral Glioblastoma in England. Public Health England. https://www.ncin.org.uk/view?rid=2662

  13. Phillips, A.: Brain Tumours: rise in glioblastoma multiforme incidence in England 1995–2015 suggests an adverse environmental or lifestyle factor. J Environ Public Health (2018). https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2170208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Stupp, R., et al.: Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 352(10), 987–996 (2005)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Stupp, R., et al.: Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol 10(5), 459–466 (2009)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chinot, O.L., et al.: Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 370(8), 709–722 (2014)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gilbert, M.R., et al.: A randomized trial of bevacizumab for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 370(8), 699–708 (2014)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Stupp, R., et al.: Maintenance therapy with tumor-treating fields Plus Temozolomide vs Temozolomide alone for glioblastoma: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(23), 2535–2543 (2015)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Stupp, R., et al.: Effect of tumor-treating fields plus maintenance Temozolomide vs Maintenance temozolomide alone on survival in patients with glioblastoma: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318(23), 2306–2316 (2017)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Guyot, P., et al.: Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol 12, 9 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Crowther, M.J., Lambert, P.C.: stgenreg: a stata package for general parametric survival analysis. J Stat Softw (2013). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v053.i12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Royston P, Lambert PS (2011) Flexible parametric survival analysis using Stata: beyond the Cox model. Stata Press (ISBN 13-978-1-59718079-5)

  23. Garside, R., et al.: The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of carmustine implants and temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed high-grade glioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 11(45), iii–iv, ix–221 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gallacher, D., Achana, F.: Assessing the health economic agreement of different data sources. Stata J 18(1), 223–233 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Alexandersson, A.: Graphing confidence ellipses: an update of ellip for Stata 8. Stata J 4(3), 242–256 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cronin, A., Tian, L., Uno, H.: strmst2 and strmst2pw: new commands to compare survival curves using the restricted mean survival time. Stata J 16(3), 702–716 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Messali, A., Villacorta, R., Hay, J.W.: A review of the economic burden of glioblastoma and the cost effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments. Pharmacoeconomics 32(12), 1201–1212 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry, CV47AL, UK

    Martin Connock, Peter Auguste & Xavier Armoiry

  2. Pharmacy Department, School of Pharmacy (ISPB)/UMR CNRS 5510 MATEIS/Edouard Herriot Hospital, University of Lyon, Lyon, France

    Xavier Armoiry

Authors
  1. Martin Connock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Auguste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xavier Armoiry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xavier Armoiry.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 449 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Connock, M., Auguste, P. & Armoiry, X. A comparison of published time invariant Markov models with Partitioned Survival models for cost effectiveness estimation; three case studies of treatments for glioblastoma multiforme. Eur J Health Econ 22, 89–100 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01239-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01239-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation