[177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE versus standard of care in adult patients with gastro-enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs): a cost-consequence analysis from an Italian hospital perspective

Purpose To assess and compare clinical outcomes and costs, to the Italian healthcare system, of three therapeutic options approved in the management of adult patients with gastro-enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs). Methods We compared the efficacy, safety, and costs of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, everolimus (both originator and generic products), and sunitinib in patients with advanced GEP-NETs (NET G1 and G2) that had progressed following treatment with somatostatin analogs (SSAs). A cost-consequence model was developed and validated by a panel of clinical experts from three NET reference centres in Italy. The clinical outcomes included in the model were median progression-free survival and the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), as reported in pivotal clinical trials. The costs for acquisition and administration of each treatment, and of managing AEs, were calculated from the perspective of the Italian national health service. Treatment costs per progression-free month were calculated separately for patients with NETs of pancreatic (PanNETs; all three treatments) and gastrointestinal (GI-NETs; [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE and everolimus only) origin. Results In patients with PanNETs, total costs per progression-free month were euro2989 for [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, euro4975 for originator everolimus, euro3472 for generic everolimus, and euro5337 for sunitinib. In patients with GI-NETs, total costs per progression-free month were euro3189 for [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, euro4990 for originator everolimus, and euro3483 for generic everolimus. Conclusions [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE was associated with lower costs per progression-free month versus relevant treatment options in patients with GI-NETs or PanNETs (NET G1-G2; progressed following SSA treatment), although acquisition and administration costs are higher. These findings provide further economic arguments in the overall context of treatment decision-making.