Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 17, 2026

A Three-Dimensional Spheroid Model to Investigate the Tumor-Stromal Interaction in Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: September 30, 2021
Cost-effectiveness analysis of interventional liver-directed therapies for downstaging of HCC before liver transplant
Xiao Wu1, Allison Kwong2, Michael Heller1
1Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Insights
Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) is more cost-effective than transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients awaiting liver transplants. TARE offers better outcomes, providing nearly 3.5 months longer in a compensated cirrhosis state.
Area of Science:
- Hepatobiliary Surgery
- Interventional Radiology
- Health Economics
Background:
- Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) are primary treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients awaiting liver transplantation.
- Downstaging (DS) is crucial for managing HCC and improving transplant eligibility.
Purpose of the Study:
- To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing TACE and TARE for downstaging HCC patients.
- To evaluate these treatments from a payer's perspective over a 5-year period.
Main Methods:
- A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing TACE and TARE for downstaging HCC.
- Utilized data from the United Network for Organ Sharing for clinical outcomes.
- Measured costs in USD and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
- Performed probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.
Main Results:
- TARE demonstrated higher effectiveness (2.51 QALY) than TACE (2.29 QALY).
- TARE incurred higher costs ($172,162) versus TACE ($159,706), with an ICER of $55,964/QALY.
- TARE was found to be more cost-effective in 91.69% of simulations and offered an additional 104 days in compensated cirrhosis.
Conclusions:
- TARE is a more cost-effective downstaging strategy for HCC patients compared to TACE, especially for those exceeding Milan criteria.
- TARE's cost-effectiveness is supported by improved QALYs and longer compensated cirrhosis duration.
- Sensitivity analyses confirm TARE's superior cost-effectiveness under various clinical and economic scenarios.
Abstract:
Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) are the 2 most used modalities for patients with HCC while awaiting liver transplant. The purpose of this study is to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing TACE and TARE for downstaging (DS) patients with HCC. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing TACE and TARE in DS HCC over a 5-year time horizon from a payer's perspective. The clinical course, including those who achieved successful DS leading to liver transplant and those who failed DS with possible disease progression, was obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing. Costs and effectiveness were measured in US dollars and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. TARE achieved a higher effectiveness of 2.51 QALY (TACE: 2.29 QALY) at a higher cost of $172,162 (TACE: $159,706), with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $55,964/QALY, making TARE the more cost-effective strategy. The difference in outcome was equivalent to 104 days (nearly 3.5 months) in compensated cirrhosis state. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that TARE was more cost-effective in 91.69% of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. TARE was more effective if greater than 48.2% of patients who received TACE or TARE were successfully downstaged (base case: 74.6% from the pooled analysis of multiple published cohorts). TARE became more cost-effective when the cost of TACE exceeded $4,831 (base case: $12,722) or when the cost of TARE was lower than $43,542 (base case: $30,609). Subgroup analyses identified TARE to be the more cost-effective strategy if the TARE cohort required 1 fewer locoregional therapy than the TACE cohort. TARE is the more cost-effective DS strategy for patients with HCC exceeding Milan criteria compared to TACE.

