BACKGROUND

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as imatinib mesylate have revolutionized the treatment of primary unresectable and/or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), providing durable disease control and extended survival. Although most patients eventually progress on therapy, dose escalation has been shown to benefit some patients. Sunitinib, a multitargeted kinase inhibitor is effective against imatinib-resistant or intolerant GIST patients. Although the cost of TKI therapy in GIST is high, no other effective systemic treatment options exist.

OBJECTIVE

Review pharmacoeconomic studies to determine the cost effectiveness (CE) of 1st- and 2nd-line TKI therapies in GIST.

METHODS

A literature review using Medline and PubMed databases was conducted to identify published economic analyses of TKI therapy in GIST. Key results from these studies were analyzed.

RESULTS

Six pharmacoeconomic studies were identified, including three analyses of 1st-line imatinib and three analyses of 2nd-line sunitinib. These studies employed various time horizons and discount rates and modeled CE from a number of different perspectives. Most of the pharmacoeconomic studies reviewed used survival as their efficacy endpoint, projecting outcomes beyond available data to model CE. Analyses of 2nd-line sunitinib using survival additionally faced the challenge of adjusting for the effect of placebo crossover to active treatment in the pivotal phase III study. Most studies used Markov techniques with a range of transition probabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Published pharmacoeconomic studies of 1st- and 2nd-line TKI therapy for advanced GIST employ various time horizons, discount rates, and different CE models. Consequently, these differences make comparisons between studies difficult. Studies of 1st-line imatinib concluded that imatinib was cost effective in advanced, metastatic GIST. Likewise, based on data reviewed here, 2nd-line sunitinib appears to be cost effective in patients with advanced GIST who are intolerant/resistant to imatinib. Key limitations of this review included inconsistency among the studies evaluated with regard to methodologies, countries of origination (currency and healthcare systems), and patient demographics.