OBJECTIVES Hungarian adaptation of global cost-effectiveness models of vismodegib vs. standard of care (SOC) in the treatment of locally advanced or symptomatic metastatic basal cell carcinoma (laBCC and mBCC). METHODS Global Markov-models were developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of vismodegib vs. SOC in patients with laBCC or mBCC. The model inputs were based on the pivotal phase II clinical study (ERIVANCE). Health state utility values were based on a time trade off study. To support the reimbursement dossier submission, the adaptation of the global cost-effectiveness models was conducted. The costs and resource use were recalculated based on a questionnaire survey with Hungarian health-care professionals. In the model there were two treatment arms, vismodegib and SOC. The model had three states, progression-free, progressed and death. For progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) the results of the phase II clinical trial were used in the vismodegib arm of the model. Originally on the SOC arm the model calculated with mortality data of the general population, due to lack of relevant data on the PFS and OS of patients with advanced BCC. Therefore, a research (Delphi-panel survey) was conducted to estimate the OS of patients with laBCC and mBCC, treated with SOC. RESULTS According to the Delphi-panel survey the median OS for patients with laBCC and mBCC was 48 months and 24 months, respectively, on the SOC arm. The average time spent in progression-free health state is longer with vismodegib therapy than with SOC for both, laBCC and mBCC patients. CONCLUSIONS Vismodegib could provide an effective treatment for this therapeutic area with high rate of unmet need. During the adaptation process Delphi-panel surveys seemed to be an appropriate method to earn consensus statement to ensure estimation and help interpretation.