↓ Skip to main content

Early cost-effectiveness of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) for second line treatment in advanced melanoma: a model-based economic evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Early cost-effectiveness of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) for second line treatment in advanced melanoma: a model-based economic evaluation
Published in
BMC Cancer, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4788-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valesca P. Retèl, Lotte M. G. Steuten, Marnix H. Geukes Foppen, Janne C. Mewes, Melanie A. Lindenberg, John B. A. G. Haanen, Wim H. van Harten

Abstract

An emerging immunotherapy is infusion of tumor infiltrating Lymphocytes (TIL), with objective response rates of around 50% versus 19% for ipilimumab. As an Advanced Therapeutic Medicinal Products (ATMP), TIL is highly personalized and complex therapy. It requests substantial upfront investments from the hospital in: expensive lab-equipment, staff expertise and training, as well as extremely tight hospital logistics. Therefore, an early health economic modelling study, as part of a Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) program, was performed. We used a Markov decision model to estimate the expected costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years; QALYs) for TIL versus ipilimumab for second line treatment in metastatic melanoma patients from a Dutch health care perspective over a life long time horizon. Three mutually exclusive health states (stable disease (responders)), progressive disease and death) were modelled. To inform further research prioritization, Value of Information (VOI) analysis was performed. TIL is expected to generate more QALYs compared to ipilimumab (0.45 versus 0.38 respectively) at lower incremental cost (presently €81,140 versus €94,705 respectively) resulting in a dominant ICER (less costly and more effective). Based on current information TIL is dominating ipilimumab and has a probability of 86% for being cost effective at a cost/QALY threshold of €80,000. The Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) amounted to €3 M. TIL is expected to have the highest probability of being cost-effective in second line treatment for advanced melanoma compared to ipilimumab. To reduce decision uncertainty, a clinical trial investigating e.g. costs and survival seems most valuable. This is currently being undertaken as part of a CED program in the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with Denmark.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Master 9 8%
Other 8 7%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 34 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Other 27 24%
Unknown 39 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 December 2019.
All research outputs
#4,614,407
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,162
of 8,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,713
of 339,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#21
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,530 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.