IMPROVING CLINICAL AND ECONOMIC OUTCOMES IN TRANSARTERIAL CHEMOEMBOLISATION: A BUDGET IMPACT ANALYSIS OF BALLOON TACE IN HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA
Author(s)
Harvey Galvin, MSc1, Carlo Pagani, DVM2, Sophie Olivier, BSc3, Helen Hill, PGDip4, Aline Topouchian, PhD5.
1Terumo Interventional Systems, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 2Terumo Interventional Systems, Rome, Italy, 3Terumo Interventional Systems, Paris, France, 4Terumo Interventional Systems, Camberley, United Kingdom, 5Terumo Interventional Systems, Leuven, Belgium.
1Terumo Interventional Systems, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 2Terumo Interventional Systems, Rome, Italy, 3Terumo Interventional Systems, Paris, France, 4Terumo Interventional Systems, Camberley, United Kingdom, 5Terumo Interventional Systems, Leuven, Belgium.
OBJECTIVES: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), particularly those with tumours 3-5 cm, frequently require multiple transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) procedures to achieve optimal response. Suboptimal complete response (CR) rates drive retreatment, increase costs, and burden interventional radiology (IR) capacity. This evaluation of the clinical and economic impact of balloon TACE (B-TACE) versus conventional TACE (cTACE) focussed on retreatments and budget implications.
METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to compare B-TACE versus cTACE from an England healthcare payer perspective using 24/25 cost collection data. The model used patient-matched retrospective comparative response rates and pathways over a 6-month period. “First treatment” was defined as all TACE procedures required to achieve best response within 6 months, reflecting real-world treatment. Costs were assigned to initial procedures, repeat TACE, and alternative follow-up treatments. Analyses were conducted for all patients and a subgroup with tumour size 3-5 cm. Outcomes included complete response rates, number of procedures, and total cost of care.
RESULTS: B-TACE improved complete response rates compared with cTACE, resulting in fewer retreatment procedures within 6 months. Evaluating all patients (990 patients), B-TACE improved complete response rates by 9.7%, resulting in £837,165 cost savings (£845 per patient). This is a 14% reduction in overall costs driven by 239 fewer procedures. The 3-5 cm subgroup (495 patients) improved complete response rate by 22.8%, resulting in £651,356 cost savings (£1315 per patient). This is a 21% reduction in overall costs driven by 185 fewer procedures in this sub-population.
CONCLUSIONS: B-TACE offers a clinically and economically advantageous strategy in HCC by improving complete response rates and reducing retreatment costs and productivity losses. From a healthcare perspective, adoption of B-TACE has potential to improve outcomes while optimising IR capacity and resource utilisation. This could allow additional cancer patients to be treated and reduce waiting lists in HCC care pathway for NHS in England.
METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to compare B-TACE versus cTACE from an England healthcare payer perspective using 24/25 cost collection data. The model used patient-matched retrospective comparative response rates and pathways over a 6-month period. “First treatment” was defined as all TACE procedures required to achieve best response within 6 months, reflecting real-world treatment. Costs were assigned to initial procedures, repeat TACE, and alternative follow-up treatments. Analyses were conducted for all patients and a subgroup with tumour size 3-5 cm. Outcomes included complete response rates, number of procedures, and total cost of care.
RESULTS: B-TACE improved complete response rates compared with cTACE, resulting in fewer retreatment procedures within 6 months. Evaluating all patients (990 patients), B-TACE improved complete response rates by 9.7%, resulting in £837,165 cost savings (£845 per patient). This is a 14% reduction in overall costs driven by 239 fewer procedures. The 3-5 cm subgroup (495 patients) improved complete response rate by 22.8%, resulting in £651,356 cost savings (£1315 per patient). This is a 21% reduction in overall costs driven by 185 fewer procedures in this sub-population.
CONCLUSIONS: B-TACE offers a clinically and economically advantageous strategy in HCC by improving complete response rates and reducing retreatment costs and productivity losses. From a healthcare perspective, adoption of B-TACE has potential to improve outcomes while optimising IR capacity and resource utilisation. This could allow additional cancer patients to be treated and reduce waiting lists in HCC care pathway for NHS in England.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE220
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Economic Evaluation, Real World Data & Information Systems
Topic Subcategory
Budget Impact Analysis
Disease
Oncology