Search

Purpose: The addition of bevacizumab to fluorouracil-based chemotherapy is a standard of care for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. Continuation of bevacizumab beyond progression is an accepted standard of care based on a 1.4-month increase in median overall survival observed in a randomized trial. No United States-based cost-effectiveness modeling analyses are currently available addressing the use of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in the first-line setting and when continued beyond progression from the perspective of US payers., Methods: We developed two Markov models to compare the cost and effectiveness of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with or without bevacizumab in the first-line treatment and subsequent fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan with or without bevacizumab in the second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Model robustness was addressed by univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)., Results: Using bevacizumab in first-line therapy provided an additional 0.10 QALYs (0.14 life-years) at a cost of $59,361. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $571,240 per QALY. Continuing bevacizumab beyond progression provided an additional 0.11 QALYs (0.16 life-years) at a cost of $39,209. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $364,083 per QALY. In univariable sensitivity analyses, the variables with the greatest influence on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were bevacizumab cost, overall survival, and utility., Conclusion: Bevacizumab provides minimal incremental benefit at high incremental cost per QALY in both the first- and second-line settings of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To estimate the cost effectiveness of TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) compared with FAC (fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) when administered as adjuvant therapy to women with node-positive early breast cancer in the United Kingdom (UK), both with and without primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)., Methods: A standard health economic Markov model estimated the cost and outcome for node-positive early breast cancer patients, from initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy to death. Patient-level data were used from the Breast Cancer International Research Group (BCIRG) 001 trial for estimates of the effect of chemotherapy on toxicity and outcome, and an observational data set collected from a UK university hospital provided estimates of resource use and outcome for patients with relapsed disease., Results: Over a 10-year analysis timeframe, the incremental cost per life-year saved associated with the use of TAC rather than FAC was estimated as pound 15,418 (95% CI, pound 13,734 to pound 17,997) and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (IC/QALY) was pound 18,188 (95% CI, pound 14,161 to pound 32,422). The addition of primary G-CSF (lenograstim or filgrastim) to the TAC regimen resulted in an IC/QALY of pound 20,432. The results were most sensitive to the quality-of-life (QOL) score for patients in remission postchemotherapy. However, even if QOL was assumed to be as poor as for patients with metastatic disease, the IC/QALY estimate rose only to pound 32,430., Conclusion: The use of adjuvant TAC rather than FAC for node-positive early breast cancer patients is cost effective, despite the increased drug and toxicity treatment costs, and when primary G-CSF prophylaxis is given to all patients.

Purpose: We report the results of a prospectively randomized study that compared the combination of epirubicin, cisplatin, and protracted venous infusion fluorouracil (5-FU) (ECF regimen) with the standard combination of 5-FU, doxorubicin, and methotrexate (FAMTX) in previously untreated patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer., Patients and Methods: Two hundred seventy-four patients with adenocarcinoma or undifferentiated carcinoma were randomized and analyzed for survival, tumor response, toxicity, and quality of life (QL)., Results: The overall response rate was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36% to 54%) with ECF and 21% (95% CI, 13% to 29%) with FAMTX (P = .0002). Toxicity was tolerable and there were only three toxic deaths. The FAMTX regimen caused more hematologic toxicity and serious infections, but ECF caused more emesis and alopecia. The median survival duration was 8.9 months with ECF and 5.7 months with FAMTX (P = .0009); at 1 year, 36% (95% CI, 27% to 45%) of ECF and 21% (95% CI, 14% to 29%) of FAMTX patients were alive. The median failure-free survival duration was 7.4 months with ECF and 3.4 months with FAMTX (P = .00006). The global QL scores were better for ECF at 24 weeks, but the remaining QL data showed no differences between either arm of the study. Hospital-based cost analysis on a subset of patients was similar for each arm and translated into an increment cost of $975 per life-year gained., Conclusion: The ECF regimen results in a survival and response advantage, tolerable toxicity, better QL and cost-effectiveness compared with FAMTX chemotherapy. This regimen should now be considered the standard treatment for advanced esophagogastric cancer.