(a)
(b)
Figure 4: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results. (a) Cost-effectiveness plane (base case); (b) cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (Olara + Dox versus Dox). (a) shows the joint distribution of incremental costs and LYs estimated by 1,000 model simulations for each treatment comparison in which the mean values for all model parameters were sampled simultaneously from their individual statistical distributions. Details of the distributions are presented in Supplementary Materials. (b) shows the probability of cost-effectiveness for Olara + Dox versus Dox as a function of the ICER threshold (the additional cost per LY gained that the decision-maker is willing to pay). From this and equivalent analyses for each pairwise treatment comparison, the probability that Olara + Dox is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per LY gained was estimated as 83% versus Dox, 93% versus AIM, 93% versus GemDoc (GeDDiS), 94% versus GemDoc (Maki), 87% versus PLD, and 90% versus MAID. AIM = ifosfamide + doxorubicin + mesna; Dox = doxorubicin; GemDoc = gemcitabine + docetaxel; LY = life-year; MAID = mesna + doxorubicin + ifosfamide + dacarbazine; Olara + Dox = olaratumab + doxorubicin; PLD = pegylated liposomal doxorubicin.