Figure 5 shows that the marginal cost-utility ratios of Strategy A / Strategy B correlated strongly with the median times to LT and the sorafenib HR, but these ratios were below the calculated WTP value in the majority of cases. In particular, we found an inverse relationship between these two variables, i.e., the longer the median

time to LT, the lower the HR threshold had to be in order to balance the utility against the costs. One-way sensitivity analyses (Fig. 6) confirmed Atezolizumab purchase that, using the calculated WTP value, the incremental NHB of Strategy A versus Strategy B increased as the sorafenib HR decreased (Fig. 6A) and the threshold value of HR where Strategy A became harmful was 0.75. The incremental NHB tended to rise for median times to LT below 6 months (Fig. 6B), whereas it dropped for longer

waiting times Selleck AZD1152-HQPA and only became negative more than 24 months after starting the neoadjuvant therapy. As expected, the incremental NHB of sorafenib dropped more rapidly when locoregional therapies were introduced after the first 6 months on the WL (Fig. 7). For example, sorafenib maintained a positive NHB up to 12 months on the WL only when the impact (HR) of conventional therapies on the dropout rate was higher than 0.5 (Fig. 7). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the neoadjuvant role of sorafenib in the context of LT for HCC patients. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed with a high level of confidence (Fig. 2) that neoadjuvant therapy with sorafenib before LT had a beneficial effect on survival with respect to a strategy without therapy. This central result of our study may be essentially explained by the positive impact of sorafenib on the transplant probability of HCC patients listed for LT (Fig. 2A). Our data confirmed previous findings concerning other Markov models of pre-LT bridging therapies.18 The results of the present study are very strong, however, because Calpain they are the first to be based on the findings of two RCTs.12, 13 In fact, whereas locoregional therapies such as TACE, percutaneous ablation, or resection7–9 have been recommended to reduce the dropout risk for HCC candidates

awaiting LT, the scientific evidence to support and quantify their efficacy against tumor progression remains weak,11 especially as concerns the first 6 months on the WL.10, 18 For the same reason, however, it is extremely important to emphasize that the results of this study cannot be used to promote sorafenib as a first-line neoadjuvant strategy for HCC patients awaiting LT. In fact, locoregional therapies have a well-known relevant impact on the survival of early HCC patients, so they are probably more powerful bridging strategies (when properly indicated). The basic assumption of this study is that we know the effect of sorafenib (HR) on time to progression, but the same cannot be said of conventional bridging therapies.