Search

Introduction: No treatment hierarchy for external anogenital warts (AGW) is currently recommended, despite wide variations in the costs of available treatments. The aim of this study was to propose a treatment hierarchy based on a health economic analysis of local treatments for AGW from the perspective of the French health insurance system., Methods: Thirteen treatments and 73 treatment sequences were evaluated for AGW clearance and absence of AGW recurrence at 3 months of follow-up. The cost per treatment included the cost of consultations, drugs, medical procedures, and dressings. The time horizon was one year. The least expensive treatment was used as the reference treatment in the calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A two-line decision tree for treatment was constructed., Results: Podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution was the least expensive treatment. Compared to podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution, the most cost-effective treatment was surgical excision (ICER: €456.82) and the most cost-effective treatment sequence was podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution followed by 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 5% cream., Conclusion: Considering the high risk of bias in the randomized controlled trials considered, the most cost-effective treatment sequence was podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution followed by 5-FU 5% cream., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare adverse event (AE) management costs for fruquintinib, regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) and trifluridine/tipiracil+bevacizumab (T/T+bev) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy from the US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. Materials & methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to calculate the per-patient and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) AE costs using rates of grade 3/4 AEs with incidence ≥5% in clinical trials, event-specific management costs and duration treatment. Anchored comparisons of AE costs were calculated using a difference-in-differences approach with best supportive care (BSC) as a common reference. AE rates and treatment duration were obtained from clinical trials: FRESCO and FRESCO-2 (fruquintinib), RECOURSE (T/T), CORRECT (regorafenib) and SUNLIGHT (T/T, T/T+bev). AE management costs for the commercial and Medicare perspectives were obtained from publicly available sources. Results: From the commercial perspective, the AE costs (presented as per-patient, PPPM) were: $4015, $1091 for fruquintinib (FRESCO); $4253, $1390 for fruquintinib (FRESCO-2); $17,110, $11,104 for T/T (RECOURSE); $9851, $4691 for T/T (SUNLIGHT); $8199, $4823 for regorafenib; and $11,620, $2324 for T/T+bev. These results were consistent in anchored comparisons: the difference-in-difference for fruquintinib based on FRESCO was -$1929 versus regorafenib and -$11,427 versus T/T; for fruquintinib based on FRESCO-2 was -$2257 versus regorafenib and -$11,756 versus T/T. Across all analyses, results were consistent from the Medicare perspective. Conclusion: Fruquintinib was associated with lower AE management costs compared with regorafenib, T/T and T/T+bev for patients with previously treated mCRC. This evidence has direct implications for treatment, formulary and pathways decision-making in this patient population.

BACKGROUND The FOHAIC-1 trial showed hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (HAIC-FO) improved survival, compared with sorafenib, in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness comparison between HAIC-FO and sorafenib from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. MATERIAL AND METHODS The economic evaluation was conducted between July 2023 and February 2024, spanning a 10-year investment horizon. A Markov model was developed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of HAIC-FO vs sorafenib. Health states incorporated in the model comprised progression-free disease, progressed disease, and death. Transition probabilities were derived from data obtained from the FOHAIC-1 trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Additionally, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the model's robustness. RESULTS The HAIC-FO group accrued a total cost of $22,781, whereas the sorafenib group totaled $18,795. In terms of effectiveness, the HAIC-FO group achieved 1.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), whereas the sorafenib group attained 0.65 QALYs. Compared with sorafenib, HAIC-FO yielded an additional 0.41 QALYs at a cost of additional $3,985, resulting in an incremental cost of $9,720 per QALY gained. The one-way sensitivity analysis revealed the final ICER remained below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,492 per QALY, when considering parameter fluctuations. Additionally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 99.8% probability that the ICER for HAIC-FO compared with sorafenib would fall below the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS Compared with sorafenib, HAIC-FO emerged as a cost-effective first-line treatment option for patients facing advanced HCC in China.

Patients with PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC) were significantly more likely to survive when treated with serplulimab plus cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (serplulimab-CF). At this point, it is unknown whether this expensive therapy is cost-effective. From the Chinese healthcare system's perspective, we aimed to evaluate serplulimab-CF versus CF alone for cost-effectiveness. A partitioned survival model was constructed based on the ASTRUM-007 trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. A further analysis of subgroups and scenarios was conducted. The willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $38,258/QALY or $84,866/QALY is defined as three times the per capita gross domestic product value of the general region or affluent region. Compared with CF alone, in the overall (scenario 1), patients with PD-L1 expression level of 1 ≤ CPS < 10 (scenario 2), and patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 (scenario 3) populations, the ICERs were $69,025/QALY, $82,533/QALY, and $75,436/QALY for serplulimab-CF. Nevertheless, the probability of serplulimab-CF becoming cost-effective based on scenarios 1, 2, and 3 is only 2.71%, 0.94%, and 2.84%, respectively, at a WTP threshold of $38,258/QALY. When serplulimab costs < $4.84/mg, serplulimab-CF may be cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $38,258/QALY; otherwise, CF was preferred. Similar results were obtained from sensitivity analyses, suggesting the robustness of these findings. There was no cost-effectiveness in general regions of China for serplulimab-CF in PD-L1-positive ESCC compared to CF, although it is probably considered cost-effective in affluent regions. Serplulimab-CF may achieve favorable cost-effectiveness by lowering the price of serplulimab., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: International guidelines recommend ivosidenib followed by modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX) for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) with isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations. Taiwan National Health Insurance covers only fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) chemotherapy for this ICC group, and there has been no prior economic evaluation of ivosidenib. Therefore, we aimed to assess ivosidenib's cost-effectiveness in previously treated, advanced ICC-presenting IDH1 mutations compared with mFOLFOX or 5-FU/LV., Methods: A 3-state partitioned survival model was employed to assess ivosidenib's cost-effectiveness over a 10-year horizon with a 3% discount rate, setting the willingness-to-pay threshold at 3 times the 2022 GDP per capita. Efficacy data for Ivosidenib, mFOLFOX, and 5-FU/LV were sourced from the ClarIDHy, ABC06, and NIFTY trials, respectively. Ivosidenib's cost was assumed to be NT$10,402/500 mg. Primary outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were employed to evaluate uncertainty and explore price reduction scenarios., Results: Ivosidenib exhibited ICERs of NT$6,268,528 and NT$5,670,555 compared with mFOLFOX and 5-FU/LV, respectively, both exceeding the established threshold. PSA revealed that ivosidenib was unlikely to be cost-effective, except when it was reduced to NT$4,161 and NT$5,201/500 mg when compared with mFOLFOX and 5-FU/LV, respectively. DSA underscored the significant influence of ivosidenib's cost and utility values on estimate uncertainty., Conclusions: At NT$10,402/500 mg, ivosidenib was not cost-effective for IDH1-mutant ICC patients compared with mFOLFOX or 5-FU/LV, indicating that a 50-60% price reduction is necessary for ivosidenib to be cost-effective in this patient group., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: Metastatic colorectal cancer with KRAS wild type is treated using a range of drug regimens, including fluorouracil, irinotecan, and Leucovorin(FOLFIRI)plus bevacizumab(Bmab), cetuximab(Cmab), or panitumumab(Pmab). The present study aimed to identify the optimal regimen using a decision analysis method, in combination with clinical and economic evidence., Method: A simple Markov model with a monthly cycle time was constructed. Probabilistic variables for input into the model were derived from randomized controlled trials. Direct costs for the drugs, laboratory analyses, and medical staff were calculated and used in the model., Results: The expected survival times and costs of FOLFIRI alone and combination therapies were 20.9 months and 2,299,198 yen for FOLFIRI, 29.9 months and 8,929,888 yen for Bmab, 27.8 months and 11,811,849 yen for Cmab, and 22.6 months and 8,795,622 yen for Pmab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to FOLFIRI were 736,743 yen/month for Bmab, 1,378,645 yen/month for Cmab, and 3,821,426 yen/month for Pmab., Conclusions: These findings suggested that these regimens were not sufficiently cost-effective, although they have excellent therapeutic efficacy. From the economic point of view, these combination regimens were inferior to FOLFIRI alone.

Aims: Fruquintinib is a selective small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3 recently approved in the United States (US) for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who have previously been treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF biological therapy, and if RAS wild-type and medically appropriate, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. This study aimed to estimate the 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib from a US payer perspective (commercial and Medicare)., Materials and Methods: A budget impact model was developed to compare two scenarios: a reference scenario in which patients received regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, or trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab and an alternative scenario in which patients received reference scenario treatments or fruquintinib. Market shares were evenly divided across available options. A 5-year time horizon and a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members was assumed. The model included epidemiological inputs to estimate the eligible population; clinical inputs for treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse event (AE) frequency; and cost inputs for treatment, AEs, disease management, subsequent therapy, and terminal care costs. Budget impact was reported as total, per member per year (PMPY), and per member per month (PMPM)., Results: The model estimated an eligible population of 194 patients (39 per year) over 5 years. In the base case, the estimated 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib was $4,077,073 ($0.82 PMPY and 0.07 PMPM) for a commercial health plan. During the first year, the estimated budget impact was $627,570 ($0.63 PMPY and 0.05 PMPM). Results were robust across sensitivity analyses. PMPM costs from the Medicare perspective were greater than the base-case (commercial) ($0.17 vs. $0.07) due to higher incidence of CRC in that population., Conclusions: Fruquintinib is associated with a low budget impact for payers based on proposed thresholds in the US.

Objectives: Adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients with average-risk stage II (T3N0) colon cancer. Nevertheless, a subgroup of these patients who are CDX2-negative might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testing for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil combined with oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) for patients with stage II colon cancer., Methods: We developed a decision model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with average-risk stage II colon cancer with 7.2% of these patients being CDX2-negative under 2 different interventions: (1) test for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for CDX2-negative patients and (2) no CDX2 testing and no adjuvant chemotherapy for any patient. We derived disease progression parameters, adjuvant chemotherapy effectiveness and utilities from published analyses, and cancer care costs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted., Results: Testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX for CDX2-negative patients had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5500/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with no CDX2 testing and no FOLFOX (6.874 vs 6.838 discounted QALYs and $89 991 vs $89 797 discounted US dollar lifetime costs). In sensitivity analyses, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY, testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX on CDX2-negative patients remains cost-effective for hazard ratios of <0.975 of the effectiveness of FOLFOX in CDX2-negative patients in reducing the rate of developing a metastatic recurrence., Conclusions: Testing tumors of patients with stage II colon cancer for CDX2 and administration of adjuvant treatment to the subgroup found CDX2-negative is a cost-effective and high-value management strategy across a broad range of plausible assumptions., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To estimate the cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that can be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: Simulation modeling in a panel of 2500 FOLFIRINOX-treated patients, using varying treatment duration (1-12 cycles) and conversion rates (10-100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional FOLFIRINOX treatment that could be budget neutral. Results: In a 2500-patient panel at 100% conversion, savings of US$6,907.41 per converted patient over 12 cycles of prophylaxis translate to US$17.3 million and could provide 72,273 additional FOLFIRINOX doses or 6023 full 6-month regimens. Conclusion: Conversion to biosimilar CIN/FN prophylaxis can generate significant cost-savings and provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Importance: Gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) both improve survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer when compared with single-agent gemcitabine in clinical trials., Objective: To describe changes in the survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer associated with sequential drug-funding approvals and to determine if there exist distinct patient populations for whom GEMNAB and FOLFIRINOX are associated with survival benefit., Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective cohort study examined all incident cases of advanced pancreatic cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada (2008-2018) that were identified from the Cancer Care Ontario (Ontario Health) New Drug Funding Program database. Statistical analysis was performed from October 2020 to January 2021., Exposures: First-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the proportion of patients treated with each chemotherapy regimen over time and overall survival for each regimen. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare overall survival between treatment regimens after adjustment for confounding variables, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and matching., Results: From 2008 to 2018, 5465 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada. The median (range) age of patients was 66.9 (27.8-93.4) years; 2447 (45%) were female; 878 (16%) had prior pancreatic resection, and 328 (6%) had prior adjuvant gemcitabine. During the time period when only gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX were funded (2011-2015), 49% (929 of 1887) received FOLFIRINOX. When GEMNAB was subsequently funded (2015-2018), 9% (206 of 2347) received gemcitabine, 44% (1034 of 2347) received FOLFIRINOX, and 47% (1107 of 2347) received GEMNAB. The median overall survival increased from 5.6 months (95% CI, 5.1-6.0 months) in 2008 to 2011 to 6.9 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.4 months) in 2011 to 2015 to 7.6 months (95% CI, 7.1-8.0 months) in 2015 to 2018. Patients receiving FOLFIRINOX were younger and healthier than patients receiving GEMNAB. After adjustment and weighting, FOLFIRINOX was associated with better overall survival than GEMNAB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69-0.81]). In analyses comparing patients treated with GEMNAB and gemcitabine, GEMNAB was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94])., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy within a universal health care system found that drug funding decisions were associated with increased uptake of new treatment options over time and improved survival. Both FOLFIRINOX and GEMNAB were associated with survival benefits in distinct patient populations.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Minimally invasive alternative approaches to treat non-melanoma skin cancers remain limited and unproven., Objective: We aim to assess the efficacy of varying combinations of anti-tumor agents&mdash;imiquimod 5% cream, 5-fluorouracil 2% solution, and tretinoin 0.1% cream&mdash;with brief cryotherapy in treating non-melanoma skin cancers., Methods: This retrospective study included 690 cases of non-melanoma skin cancers in 480 patients who received a diagnosis of a basal cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma during a ten-year period. During treatment period, patients applied 30 applications of one of three combinations (imiquimod/tretinoin, 5-fluorouracil/tretinoin, or imiquimod/5-fluorouracil/tretinoin) and had cryotherapy every 2 weeks. Each patient had a clinical examination at least three years post-treatment or documented treatment failure. Clearance was defined by a lack of persistence or recurrence for 3 years following the completion of treatment. The likelihood of lesion clearance was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis., Results: A total of 186 cases (97; basal cell carcinoma and 89; squamous cell carcinoma) in 133 patients [37% women and 63% men; median (interquartile range) age, 77 (69, 83) years] met the inclusion criteria. Multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusting for clinical and lesion variables demonstrated that, relative to the imiquimod/5-fluorouracil/tretinoin treatment approach, imiquimod/ tretinoin (odds ratio, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.99) and 5-fluorouracil/tretinoin (0.02; 0.00&ndash;0.45) were associated with lower likelihoods of lesion clearance. Likewise, morpheaform basal cell carcinoma had a lower probability of clearance (0.05; 0.00&ndash;0.72)., Conclusions: The combination of imiquimod/5-fluorouracil/tretinoin with cryotherapy had high clearance rates and was the most effective treatment regimen. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(3):260-267. doi:10.36849/JDD.5427.

Purpose: The AXEPT trial demonstrated that modified XELIRI (mXELIRI; capecitabine + irinotecan) was noninferior to standard treatment with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil + leucovorin + irinotecan), both ± bevacizumab, in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The present study was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mXELIRI versus FOLFIRI as a second-line treatment of mCRC., Methods: We developed a Markov model to estimate the costs and health outcomes of mXELIRI and FOLFIRI in patients with mCRC from the Chinese payer perspective. Survival data, transition probabilities, and health utility values were obtained from published studies. The costs of drugs were obtained from the West China Hospital. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values were regarded as the primary end points. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainty of parameters in the analysis., Findings: The effectiveness was found to be 0.48 QALYs (1.14 LYs) in the mXELIRI arm and 0.41 QALYs (1.05 LYs) in the FOLFIRI arm, with total costs of 29,896.41 US dollars (USD) in the mXELIRI arm and 28,894.68 USD in the FOLFIRI arm. The ICER and ICUR with mXELIRI versus FOLFIRI were 11,130.33 USD/LY and 14,310.43 USD/QALY gained, which were less than the willingness-to-pay threshold in China (25,840.88 USD/QALY)., Implications: Based on the results of this study, mXELIRI was found to be a cost-effective alternative to FOLFIRI as a second-line treatment of mCRC in patients in China., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Objectives: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a costly disease with a limited life-expectancy as it generally presents as an advanced, metastatic disease. Though current literature suggests cost varies by first line treatment, there is limited real-world knowledge about the economic burden of pancreatic cancer. This study describes the economic burden of pancreatic cancer patients overall and by observed first line treatments., Methods: The IBM MarketScan databases were used to identify adult metastatic PC patients from January 1, 2010 through 3/31/2017. Those without other primary cancers, pregnancy, or prior PC treatment, and with 6 months of continuous enrollment prior to PC were included. Treatment patterns and healthcare utilization and expenditures were measured during the variable-length follow-up period. Continuous measures were presented as per patient per month (PPPM)., Results: A total of 6,360 patients met all inclusion criteria. Almost half (46.8%) of patients were untreated. Gemcitabine alone (15.6%) and FOLFIRINOX (11.4%) were the most commonly observed first line regimens. Treated patients incurred $17,513 PPPM (Gemcitabine alone) to $27,889 PPPM (FOLFIRINOX) during follow-up. Untreated patients incurred the highest unadjusted ($30,777 PPPM) and adjusted ($20,392 PPPM) cost., Conclusions: Metastatic PC patients incur a high economic burden driven by high utilization of healthcare resources, which varies by first line treatment. Also, the high proportion of untreated patients is alarming as these patients may be the most expensive of all patients. There is an unmet need in these patients for effective treatments that also reduce their economic burden., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Elisabetta Malangone-Monaco and Virginia Noxon are employees of IBM Watson Health, which was paid by AstraZeneca for the research and development of this manuscript. Ashley Cole was an employee of IBM Watson Health for the duration of the study. Yunes Doleh is an employee of AstraZeneca. Giovanni Antico was an employee of AstraZeneca during the time the analysis was conducted. Michael Pishvaian is affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Washington DC., (Copyright © 2020 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The addition of aflibercept (AFL) or ramucirumab (RAM) to folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) prolongs overall survival and progression-free survival compared with FOLFIRI alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) as second-line therapy. Although these combination regimens are recommended among the standard therapies, significant additional cost is a concern. The comparative cost-effectiveness of AFL and RAM was examined from the perspective of the Japanese health care payer., Methods: A partitioned survival analysis was constructed. The data sources were the VELOUR (Aflibercept Versus Placebo in Combination With Irinotecan and 5-FU in the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer After Failure of an Oxaliplatin Based Regimen) and RAISE (Ramucirumab Versus Placebo in Combination With Second-Line FOLFIRI in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma That Progressed During or After First-Line Therapy With Bevacizumab, Oxaliplatin, and a Fluoropyrimidine) trials, which compared FOLFIRI alone with AFL or RAM in second-line treatment for mCRC. The cost and effectiveness of the combination of AFL or RAM with FOLFIRI were compared with those of FOLFIRI alone and examined between both agents in a 10-year time horizon. The health outcomes were life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The costs were 2019 revisions to the drug prices and medical fees. The robustness of the model was verified by 1-way sensitivity analyses and a probability sensitivity analysis. A 2% annual discount was applied to the expenses and QALYs. A willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥7.5 million was used., Findings: Compared with FOLFIRI alone, combination AFL or RAM with FOLFIRI had incremental effects of 0.173 QALYs (0.253 LYs) and 0.137 QALYs (0.197 LYs), incremental costs of ¥3,423,481 (US $31,010) and ¥5,766,106 (US $52,229), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ¥19, 836, 504 (US $179,678) and ¥41, 947, 989 (US $379,964) per QALY, respectively. Results of 1-way sensitivity analyses and probability sensitivity analysis all exceeded a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥7.5 million. In the comparison of the 2 agents, AFL was a dominant over RAM., Implications: Adding AFL or RAM to FOLFIRI in the second line of mCRC treatment was not cost-effective in the Japanese health care system. On the basis of the results of this study, in the treatment of mCRC, it will be necessary to adjust the prices of AFL and RAM with the improvement of clinical parameters, such as survival time and adverse events. Of the 2 agents, AFL was more cost-effective than RAM., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have indicated that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Management of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA) places a significant financial burden on the U.S. health care system because of such factors as treatment with multidrug chemotherapy regimens, management of chemotherapy-related adverse events, and disease- or treatment-related hospitalizations. Depending on functional status, first-line chemotherapy regimens that are guideline recommended include nab -paclitaxel with gemcitabine (AG) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX), the combination of fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. However, few previous studies have examined overall health care costs associated with mPDA management., Objective: To describe health care costs following initiation of first-line treatment with AG or FFX among patients with mPDA., Methods: Retrospective cohorts of first-line AG and FFX initiators were constructed from the MarketScan database (2014-2017). The index date was the date of first-line AG or FFX initiation. Included patients had insurance enrollment for 6 months before the index date. Total cumulative health care costs and costs from outpatient services, inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, chemotherapy administrations, and pharmacy dispensing were assessed within 12 months after the index date (i.e., 0-1, 0-2, …, 0-12 months). Patient-level cost data began accruing from the first paid claim and continued accruing until the censoring date., Results: A total of 2,199 patients with mPDA initiated first-line AG (n = 1,352) or FFX (n = 847). Compared with AG initiators, FFX patients were younger (mean age 59 vs. 63 years) and had better baseline health status, with fewer having diabetes (43% vs. 57%) or coronary artery disease (12% vs. 22%). Median follow-up was 5.4 and 7.2 months for AG and FFX, respectively. Median first-line treatment duration was 2.1 months with AG and 2.3 months with FFX. Six months following first-line treatment initiation, total cumulative health care costs (median) were $85,714 (95% CI = $79,683-$91,788) and $114,116 (95% CI = $105,816-$119,591) for AG and FFX initiators, respectively. Outpatient services contributed the largest fractional cost for both groups., Conclusions: Total health care costs for patients with mPDA who initiated FFX or AG are driven mostly by outpatient rather than inpatient costs. Further research, using comparative methodology, is warranted to fully understand cost drivers and whether higher costs for FFX patients relate primarily to use of FFX or higher underlying use of outpatient care among FFX patients., Disclosures: This study was funded by Halozyme Therapeutics. Oestreicher and Yeganegi were employees of Halozyme Therapeutics at the time of the study and were involved in study design, data interpretation, and the decision to submit the data for publication. Bullock reports advisory board fees from Eisai, Exelixis, Bayer, and Taiho and consulting fees from Halozyme Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Rowan reports consulting fees from Halozyme Therapeutics, during the conduct of the study. Chiorean reports grants and consulting fees from Celgene and Halozyme Therapeutics; grants from Lilly, Stemline, Ignyta, Roche, Merck, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Incyte, Macrogenics, Rafael, and AADi; and consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Array, Eisai, Ipsen, Five Prime Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Vicus, and Legend, outside the submitted work.

Aims: This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs FOLFIRI + bevacizumab for patients with RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Germany based on the randomized phase 3 FIRE-3 trial. For patients with RAS wt mCRC, FOLFIRI + cetuximab yielded statistically significant median overall survival gains over FOLFIRI + bevacizumab. Materials and methods: A standard 3-state partitioned survival cost-utility model was developed to compare the health benefits and costs of treatment from a German social health insurance perspective using individual patient-level trial data. Health outcomes were reported in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Survival was estimated based on Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves supplemented with best-fitting parametric survival model extrapolations. Subgroup analyses of patients with a left-sided primary tumor location or patients with metastases confined to the liver were performed. Results: In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, FOLFIRI + cetuximab, providing 0.68 additional LYs (0.53 QALYs), yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of €36,360/LY and €47,250/QALY. In subgroup analyses, patients experienced improved survival gains without a corresponding increase in costs, resulting in lower ICERs. Our model was most sensitive to changes in treatment duration across all lines of therapy, utility of progressive disease, as well as patients' weight and body surface area. Limitations: This cost-effectiveness analysis was based on patient-level data from the FIRE-3 trial. Trial outcomes may not adequately reflect those in the real-world setting. Additionally, resource use and costs were obtained from tariff lists, which do not account for differences in treatment practice. These considerations limit generalizability of outcomes to other countries, or within the German healthcare setting. Conclusions: Based on our analyses, FOLFIRI + cetuximab is cost-effective compared with FOLFIRI + bevacizumab in patients with RAS wt mCRC, with ICERs well below willingness-to-pay thresholds for diseases with a high burden.

Background: High cost of prescription medications presents a challenging issue for older patients with multimorbidities. Topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is an effective treatment for actinic keratoses (AK), a highly prevalent condition among elderly populations, but it is often associated with unpredictable retail prices and high out-of-pocket costs. One online pharmacy offers branded prescription medications at fixed, low prices, but it may be less accessible to older patients for numerous reasons., Objective: To determine if the number of patients receiving topical 5-FU from an online pharmacy is proportionate to the national data on expected payment types for patients prescribed topical 5-FU for AK., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using weighted pooled data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) on topical 5-FU prescriptions for AK from 2007-2016. Data regarding online pharmacy use were provided by Dermatology.com for the year 2019., Results: Among patients with AK prescribed topical 5-FU, the most prevalent payment source was Medicare (54%) followed by private insurance (40%). On the online pharmacy, the majority of patients had commercial insurance (71%) followed by Medicaid (12%)., Limitations: Data from Dermatology.com are limited., Conclusions: Lower-cost medications from the online pharmacy site may improve adherence and outcomes in older adults and decrease total cost associated with AK treatment. However, the online pharmacy is underutilized by this population. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(4): doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.4690.

Background: Recently, patients who received induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma were found to have survival advantages compared with those receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in two large randomized trials. Based on these two trials, we present a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare gemcitabine and cisplatin (GP) versus cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel (TPF) for induction chemotherapy to treat locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma., Methods: We constructed a Markov model to compare the cost and effectiveness of GP versus TPF. Clinical data including the frequency of adverse events, recurrence and death obtained from two randomized phase III trials were used to calculate transition probabilities and costs. Health utilities were estimated from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expressed as dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), were calculated, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than $27,534.25/QALY (3 × the per capita GDP of China, 2018) were considered cost-effective. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the robustness of the model., Results: Our base case model found that the total cost was $53,082.68 in the GP group and $45,482.66 in the TPF group. The QALYs were 6.82 and 4.11, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favoured the GP regimen, at an incremental cost of $2,804.44 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that treatment with the GP regimen was cost-effective 100% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $27,534.25‬/QALY., Conclusion: In this model, GP was estimated to be cost-effective compared with cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel for patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma from the payer's perspectives in the China., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All the authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Cetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) is superior to FOLFOX-4 alone as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS wild-type (RAS wt mCRC), with significantly improved survival benefit by TAILOR, an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase III trial. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of these two regimens remains uncertain. The following study aims to determine whether cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is a cost-effective regimen for patients with specific RAS wt mCRC in China., Design: A cost-effectiveness model combined decision tree and Markov model was built to simulate pateints with RAS wt mCRC based on health states of dead, progressive and stable. The health outcomes from the TAILOR trial and utilities from published data were used respectively. Costs were calculated with reference to the Chinese societal perspective. The robustness of the results was evaluated by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Participants: The included patients were newly diagnosed Chinese patients with fully RAS wt mCRC., Interventions: First-line treatment with either cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 or FOLFOX-4., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes are costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)., Results: Baseline analysis disclosed that the QALYs was increased by 0.383 caused by additional cetuximab, while an increase of US$62 947 was observed in relation to FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy. The ICER was US$164 044 per QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28 106 per QALY., Conclusions: Despite the survival benefit, cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is not a cost-effective treatment for the first-line regime of patients with RAS wt mCRC in China., Trial Registration Number: TAILOR trial (NCT01228734); Post-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The NCT00339183 trial demonstrated that adding panitumumab to fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as a second-line therapy of wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) increases the median progression-free survival (PFS). Nevertheless, panitumumab is not yet approved in China, and the costs and outcomes of the therapy are still unclear. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of this intervention from the perspective of Chinese health care systems by constructing two pricing scenarios for panitumumab. Scenario 1: Pricing is based on the price of a similar product (cetuximab) in China. Scenario 2: We estimated the value-based price., Methods: A partitioned survival model was created based on the results of the NCT00339183 trial, which evaluated panitumumab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI. The model simulated the disease progression. We calculated medical costs from the perspectives of the Chinese health care systems. The primary outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)., Results: In scenario 1, compared with FOLFIRI alone, FOLFIRI with panitumumab arm had an ICER of ¥1,539,988/QALY. The most influential factors were the mean overall survival (OS), utility before progression and cost of panitumumab. The probability of panitumumab plus FOLFIRI being cost-effective in China was 0% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was ¥193,932/QALY. In scenario 2, when the cost of panitumumab was assumed to be ¥4032.61 or ¥5218.96 per cycle, the ICERs approximated the WTP thresholds of ¥193,932/QALY or ¥420,633/QALY, respectively. In this value-based pricing scenario, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI is estimated to be cost-effective., Conclusion: We construct two pricing scenarios in China. In scenario 1, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI as a second-line therapy of mCRC provided an incremental benefit, but simultaneously increased costs (at the current price) even further. In scenario 2, when the value-based price was adopted, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI was estimated to be cost-effective. Our study establishes a pricing framework for new anticancer drugs to reflect the economics of drugs., Trial Registration Number: NCT00339183.

Background: Using data from the 4-year follow-up results of an open, randomised, phase II study, this patient-based cost-effectiveness analysis compares mFOLFIRI (irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, the IRI arm) with mFOLFOX7 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, the OXA arm) as first-line treatments in patients with locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (GC)., Methods: A Markov model was created based on previous results reported at the 2016 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium to evaluate mFOLFIRI and mFOLFOX7 for advanced GC quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were examined as the primary outcomes., Results: For the evaluable 128 patients, treatment efficacy was 0.59 QALYs for the IRI arm and 0.70 QALYs for the OXA arm, with a total cost of $13,861.34 for the IRI arm and $14,127.30 for the OXA arm. Hence, the ICER was $2,417.82 per QALY the OXA arm, which was below the threshold of 3 × per capita GDP of China. For subgroup analysis of those receiving mFOLFIRI followed by mFOLFOX7 (the IRI arm) and the reverse (the OXA arm), the OXA arm gained 0.44 more QALYs than the IRI arm with a total cost of $28,890.09 for the IRI arm and $31,147.30 for the OXA arm. However, the cost per QALY was also lower for the OXA arm than for the IRI arm, and the cost per QALY gained was $5,129.55 (below the Chinese WTP)., Conclusion: mFOLFOX7 is a very high cost-effective alternative as the first-line treatment for those patients with advanced GC compared with mFOLFIRI., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The FIRE-3 phase III clinical trial demonstrated the marked advantage of prolonging the median overall survival of patients with final RAS wild-type (WT) left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) by 38.3 months after treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab and by 28.0 months after treatment with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. However, the substantial cost increase and economic impact of using cetuximab imposes a considerable burden on patients and society., Methods: A Markov model based on the data collected in the FIRE-3 trial was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of treating patients with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters., Results: In our analysis, the total treatment costs in the bevacizumab and cetuximab groups were $92 549.31 and $94 987.31, respectively, and the QALYs gained were 1.58 and 2.05. In the base-case analysis, compared with bevacizumab, left-sided RAS WT patients receiving cetuximab gained 0.47 more QALYs at an ICER of $5187.23/QALY ($3166.23/LY). The 1-way sensitivity analysis showed that the most influential parameter was the cost of cetuximab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost-effective probability of cetuximab group was 92.8% under the willingness-to-pay threshold of $24 081., Conclusions: Treatment with FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in Chinese patients with left-sided RAS WT mCRC may improve health outcomes and use financial resources more efficiently than FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab.

Purpose: Patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer are offered platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab; however, this strategy is not cost-effective. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical predictive molecular test to identify and treat only patients potentially responsive to cetuximab (C) added to platinum-fluorouracil (PF) (PF + C POS) versus the administration of PF + C to all patients (PF + C ALL)., Methods: A Markov model has been developed to estimate health outcomes (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]; life years [LYs]) and costs of the 2 strategies on a time horizon of 3 years from the Italian health care perspective. For the response to treatment, a definition, including partial or complete response, has been applied. In the base-case scenario, molecular test sensitivity, specificity, and cost have been assumed equal to 85%, 70%, and €4000, respectively., Findings: The model estimated 0.5285 QALYs (0.9245 LYs) and 0.5666 QALYs (0.9949 LYs) for PF + C POS and PF + C ALL, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio of PF + C ALL versus PF + C POS was €112,462/QALY, suggesting the administration of PF + C only to patients who would be responsive to it., Implications: The use of cetuximab with chemotherapy could be a cost-effective choice in first-line recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer if based on a molecular selection able to identify which patients will achieve partial or complete response to the treatment. The developed model may be usefully applied to new emerging treatments, such as immunotherapeutic agents in the same setting., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives : This study compared the cost and quality of life (QoL) of 407 advanced colorectal cancer patients, randomly assigned to receive LV5FU2 followed by FOLFOX6 (sequential strategy) or FOLFOX6 followed by FOLFIRI (combination strategy). Methods : Costs were compared from the French health insurance perspective, until the end of the second line of treatment. Consumed resources, collected during the trial, included medicines, hospitalizations, examinations, and transportation. Valuations were made using 2009 and 2016 tariffs. QoL was assessed using the QLQ-C30 questionnaire and clinically significant variations were searched. Results : In 2009, the mean cost per patient was significantly lower for the sequential strategy compared to the combination strategy (18,061€ and 23,119€, p = 0.001). In 2016, the difference was no longer significant (16,876€ and 18,090€, p = 0.41) because oxaliplatin and irinotecan became generics. The QoL analysis (292 patients) showed that there was significantly less improvement of global health status in the sequential strategy than in the combination strategy (29% and 42%; p = 0.02) during first-line therapy. No significant differences were observed for emotional functioning (p = 0.45) and physical functioning (p = 0.07) or during second-line therapy. Conclusion : The choice to treat patients with advanced colorectal cancer using one or the other strategy cannot be based on costs or QoL.

Background: Evidence from a retrospective analysis of multiple large phase iii trials suggested that primary tumour location (ptl) in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (wt RAS mcrc) might have predictive value with respect to response to drug therapies. Recent studies also show a potential preferential benefit for epidermal growth factor inhibitors (egfris) for left-sided tumours. In the present study, we aimed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) for the first-line use of an egfri for patients with left-sided wt RAS mcrc., Methods: We developed a state-transition model to determine the cost effectiveness of alternative treatment strategies in patients with left-sided mcrc:■ Standard of care■ Use of an egfri in first-line therapyThe cohort for the study consisted of patients diagnosed with unresectable wt RAS mcrc with an indication for chemotherapy and previously documented ptl. Model parameters were obtained from the published literature and calibration. The perspective was that of a provincial ministry of health in Canada. We used a 5-year time horizon and an annual discount rate of 1.5%., Results: Selecting patients for first-line egfri treatment based on left-sided location of their colorectal primary tumour was more effective than the standard of care, resulting in an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) of 0.226 (or 0.644 life-years gained). However, the strategy was also more expensive, costing an average of $60,639 more per patient treated. The resulting icer was $268,094 per qaly. A 35% price reduction in the cost of egfri would be needed to make this strategy cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold (wtp) of $100,000 per qaly., Conclusions: Selective use of an egfri based on ptl was more cost-effective than unselected use of those agents; however, based on traditional wtp thresholds, it was still not cost-effective. While awaiting the elucidation of more precise predictive biomarkers that might improve cost-effectiveness, the price of egfris could be reduced to meet the wtp threshold., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: WWLW has received research support from the BioCanRx network and the Canadian Liver Foundation; SRB has served on advisory boards for Amgen and Lilly. The remaining authors have no conflicts to disclose., (2019 Multimed Inc.)

Objectives: The analysis was conducted to assess the effect of front-line combination chemotherapies on progression free survival (PFS)., Methods: The analysis was restricted to phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in first-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. The European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) was applied to the above phase III RCTs. We have also calculated differences in PFS between the different arms of each trial and the pharmacological costs necessary to get the benefit in PFS, for each trial., Results: Our study evaluated 11 phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 4572 patients. Combining the costs of therapy with the measure of efficacy represented by the PFS, we have obtained 74.12 € per month of PFS gained for 5-FU, leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), 90.14 per month of PFS gained for gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) and 4708.70 € per month of PFS gained for the combination of gemcitabine plus nab-pacliatxel against gemcitabine alone., Conclusions: Combining pharmacological costs with the measure of efficacy represented by PFS, FOLFIRINOX is a cost-effective first-line for advanced pancreatic cancer., (Copyright © 2019 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The cost of topical treatments for actinic keratosis (AK) has historically been evaluated in relation to the number of lesions requiring treatment or simply by the price of a single tube/sachet of the drug used., Objective: To demonstrate a new method of costing topical treatments in AK, which takes into account the actual cancerization area treated., Methods: In order to evaluate the actual cost of each treatment, the official approval status of the drug was used to estimate the amount of cream needed per one cm 2 . This value was then applied to the hypothetical cancerization area sizes to demonstrate the impact of the size treated on the actual cost of treatment. The price considered was the ex-factory price in Italy., Results: Areas which could be treated with a single tube/sachet of Metvix ® , Picato ® , Aldara ® , Solaraze ® and Zyclara ® were 200, 25, 25, 33.3 and 200 cm 2 , respectively. For the treatment of smaller areas (<100 cm 2 ), treatment with Metvix ® was the most costly topical option in Italy. However, for the treatment of cancerization areas larger than 100 cm 2 , Metvix ® was the least expensive treatment option. Treatment with Metvix ® was least long, requiring a single day of treatment for an area of up to 200 cm 2 , compared with up to 224 days of treatment with Aldara ® for the treatment of a similar size., Conclusion: Changing treatment costing strategy in the management of multiple AKs towards costing per cancerization area instead of costing per lesion is a much more accurate representation of the 'real world cost' for AK., (© 2018 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) show a significant response to checkpoint inhibitor therapies, but the economic impact of these therapies is unknown. A decision analytic model was used to explore the effectiveness and cost burden of MSI-H/dMMR mCRC treatment., Methods: The treatment of hypothetical patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC was simulated in 2 treatment scenarios: a third-line treatment and an exploratory first-line treatment. The treatments compared were nivolumab, ipilimumab and nivolumab, trifluridine and tipiracil (third-line treatment), and mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (first-line treatment). Disease progression, drug toxicity, and survival rates were based on the CheckMate 142, study of TAS-102 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapies (RECOURSE), and Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Southwest Oncology Group 80405 trials. The analyzed outcomes included survival (life-years), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)., Results: Ipilimumab with nivolumab was the most effective strategy (10.69 life-years and 9.25 QALYs for the third line; 10.69 life-years and 9.44 QALYs for the first line) in comparison with nivolumab (8.21 life-years and 6.76 QALYs for the third line; 8.21 life-years and 7.00 QALYs for the first line), trifluridine and tipiracil (0.74 life-years and 0.07 QALYs), and mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (2.72 life-years and 1.63 QALYs). However, neither checkpoint inhibitor therapy was cost-effective in comparison with trifluridine and tipiracil (nivolumab ICER, $153,000; ipilimumab and nivolumab ICER, $162,700) or mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (nivolumab ICER, $150,700; ipilimumab and nivolumab ICER, $158,700)., Conclusions: This modeling analysis found that both single and dual checkpoint blockade could be significantly more effective for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC than chemotherapy, but they were not cost-effective, largely because of drug costs. Decreases in drug pricing and/or the duration of maintenance nivolumab could make ipilimumab and nivolumab cost-effective. Prospective clinical trials should be performed to explore the optimal duration of maintenance nivolumab., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

Pancreatic cancer is typically diagnosed in the late stage of the disease, making it the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. It is also one of the few cancers with an increasing incidence, particularly in the younger population. By 2030, it is expected to become the second leading cause of cancer-related death. Patients with pancreatic cancer encounter monthly medical costs 15 times higher than those without, with costs highest in the later stages of the disease. Treatments for pancreatic cancer include surgery (available to fewer than 20% of newly diagnosed patients) and, for advanced disease, chemotherapy with gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel or FOLFIRINOX, which can increase overall survival (OS) by a few months. Economic and outcome analyses of clinical data find no significant difference in OS between the 2 regimens, although FOLFIRINOX carries a much higher rate of serious adverse effects, limiting its use to patients with good performance status. In 2017, the FDA approved immunotherapy for patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient solid tumors, which occurs in approximately 1% of pancreatic cancer diagnoses. Several immunotherapies and targeted therapies are currently in clinical trials and may significantly alter the trajectory of the disease. However, they typically cost more than $100,000 per year, putting significant strain on payers. Thus, it is important that payers plan now for the potential arsenal of new treatments and identify opportunities to manage their utilization as well as patients with the disease to contain costs.

Aim: Oral uracil-tegafur/leucovorin (UFT/LV) and intravenous 5-fluorouracil (FU)/LV are common adjuvant therapies for Stages II and III colorectal cancer. This study aims to determine the most cost-effective treatment alternative between UFT/LV and 5-FU/LV in Stages II and III colorectal cancer from Taiwan's National Health Insurance perspective., Patients & Methods: The costs were referenced directly from the National Health Insurance reimbursement price. Chemotherapy regimen considered for the cost analysis calculation was adapted from NSABP-C-06 study, and, a time saving calculation was also included. In addition, we compare the treatment outcome., Result: A total cost saving of US$3620.80-$3709.16 per patient per treatment was achieved with the UFT/LV treatment. UFT/LV provides the comparable outcome to 5-FU/LV., Conclusion: UFT/LV was the more cost-effective treatment as adjuvant chemotherapy.

Background: The last decade has seen the increasing use of biological medicines in combination with chemotherapy containing 5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin or irinotecan for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). These combinations have resulted in increased progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with mCRC; however, there are remaining concerns over the extent of their effect on overall survival (OS). Published studies to date suggest no major differences between the three currently available monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs); however, there are differences in costs. In addition, there is rising litigation in Brazil in order to access these medicines as they are currently not reimbursed., Objective: The aim was to investigate the comparative effectiveness and safety of three MoAbs (bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab) associated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens and compared to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy alone in patients with mCRC, through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of concurrent or non-concurrent observational cohort studies, to guide authorities and the judiciary., Method: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on cohort studies published in databases up to November 2017. Effectiveness measures included OS, PFS, post-progression survival (PPS), Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), response rate, metastasectomy and safety. The methodological quality of the studies was also evaluated., Results: A total of 21 observational cohort studies were included. There were statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits in patients treated with bevacizumab versus no bevacizumab mainly around OS, PFS, PPS and the metastasectomy rate, but not for the disease control rates. However, there was an increase in treatment-related toxicities and concerns with the heterogeneity of the studies., Conclusion: The results pointed to an advantage in favor of bevacizumab for OS, PFS, PPS, and metastasectomy. Although this advantage may be considered clinically modest, bevacizumab represents a hope for increased survival and a chance of metastasectomy for patients with mCRC. However, there are serious adverse events associated with its use, especially severe hypertension and gastrointestinal perforation, that need to be considered.

Background: Gemcitabine (GEM), oxaliplatin plus GEM (OX + GEM), cisplatin plus GEM (CIS + GEM), capecitabine plus GEM (CAP + GEM), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and nab-paclitaxel plus GEM (NAB-P + GEM) are the most commonly used regimens as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) in the UK. Independent economic evaluation of these regimens simultaneously has not been conducted for the UK., Objective: Using data from a network meta-analysis as efficacy measures, we estimated the cost effectiveness and cost utility of these regimens for the UK., Methods: A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed-disease, and death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained and life-years [LYs]) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for patients with MPC, from the payer perspective. The model was specified to calculate total costs in 2017 British pounds (GBP, £). All values were discounted at 3.5% per year over a full lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results., Results: FFX was the most effective regimen, NAB-P + GEM was the most costly regimen, and GEM was the least costly and least effective regimen. OX + GEM, CIS + GEM, and NAB-P + GEM were dominated by CAP + GEM and FFX. Compared with GEM, the ICUR for CAP + GEM and FFX was £28,066 and £33,020/QALY gained, respectively; compared with GEM, the ICER for CAP + GEM and FFX was £17,437 and £22,291/LY gained, respectively; and compared with CAP + GEM, the ICUR and ICER for FFX were £34,947/QALY gained and 24,414/LY gained, respectively., Conclusions: At a threshold value of £30,000/QALY, CAP + GEM was found to be the only cost-effective regimen in the management of MPC in the UK.

As part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Celgene Ltd to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles (Nab-Pac) in combination with gemcitabine (Nab-Pac + Gem) for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The STA was a review of NICE's 2015 guidance (TA360) in which Nab-Pac + Gem was not recommended for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The review was prompted by a proposed Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount on the price of Nab-Pac and new evidence that might lead to a change in the guidance. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission for Nab-Pac + Gem, and the Appraisal Committee (AC) decision. The final scope issued by NICE listed three comparators: gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem), gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine (Gem + Cap), and a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX). Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was from the phase III CA046 randomized controlled trial. Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) showed statistically significant improvement for patients treated with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus FOLFIRINOX and versus Gem + Cap was derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results of the NMA did not indicate a statistically significant difference in OS or PFS for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus either Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The ERG's main concerns with the clinical effectiveness evidence were difficulties in identifying the patient population for whom treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem is most appropriate, and violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption in the CA046 trial. The ERG highlighted methodological issues in the cost-effectiveness analysis pertaining to the modelling of survival outcomes, estimation of drug costs and double counting of adverse-event disutilities. The AC accepted all the ERG's amendments to the company's cost-effectiveness model; however, these did not make important differences to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The company's base-case ICER was £46,932 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem was dominated both by treatment with Gem + Cap and with FOLFIRINOX in the company's base case. The AC concluded that the most plausible ICER for treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was in the range of £41,000-£46,000 per QALY gained. The AC concluded that Nab-Pac + Gem was not cost effective compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX, and accepted that treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem met the end-of-life criteria versus Gem but did not consider Nab-Pac + Gem to meet the end-of-life criteria compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The AC also concluded that although patients who would receive Nab-Pac + Gem rather than FOLFIRINOX or Gem + Cap were difficult to distinguish, they were identifiable in clinical practice. The AC recommended treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer for whom other combination chemotherapies were unsuitable and who would otherwise receive Gem.

Background: It is unknown whether treatment costs for keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) and actinic keratosis (AK) can be lowered by spending more on chemoprevention., Objective: To examine the impact of 1-course treatment with topical fluorouracil (5-FU) on the face and ears on KC and AK treatment costs over 3 years., Methods: The Veterans Affairs Keratinocyte Carcinoma Chemoprevention trial compared the efficacy of topical 5-FU 5% with that of vehicle control cream for reducing KC risk. Trial data and administrative data on costs and utilization were analyzed to measure postrandomization encounters and treatment costs for KC and AK care. Adjusted models were used to test for statistically significant differences between treatment arms for number of treatment encounters and costs., Results: One year after randomization, the control arm had a higher mean number of treatment encounters for squamous cell carcinoma (0.04) than the intervention arm (0.01) (P < .01). At 1 year, the intervention arm had lower treatment and dermatologic costs: $2106 (standard deviation, $2079) compared with $2444 (standard deviation, $2716) for the control patients (P = .02). After 3 years, the intervention arm incurred a cost of $771 less per patient., Limitations: Care not provided or paid for by the Department of Veterans Affairs was not included. Results may not be generalizable to other payers., Conclusion: We found significant cost savings for patients treated with 5-FU., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Therapies may be more efficacious when targeting a patient subpopulation with specific attributes, thereby enhancing the cost-effectiveness of treatment. In the CRYSTAL study, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were treated with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFIRI alone until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects or withdrawal of consent., Objective: To determine if stratified use of cetuximab based on genetic biomarker detection improves cost-effectiveness., Methods: We used individual patient data from CRYSTAL to compare the cost-effectiveness, cost per life-year (LY) and cost per quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained of cetuximab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI alone in three cohorts of patients with mCRC: all randomised patients (intent-to-treat; ITT), tumours with no detectable mutations in codons 12 and 13 of exon 2 of the KRAS protein ('KRAS wt') and no detectable mutations in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and exons 2, 3 and 4 of NRAS ('RAS wt'). Survival analysis was conducted using RStudio, and a cost-utility model was modified to allow comparison of the three cohorts., Results: The deterministic base-case ICER (cost per QALY gained) was £130,929 in the ITT, £72,053 in the KRAS wt and £44,185 in the RAS wt cohorts for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI alone. At a £50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, cetuximab plus FOLFIRI has a 2.8, 20 and 63% probability of being cost-effective for the ITT, KRAS wt and RAS wt cohorts, respectively, versus FOLFIRI alone., Conclusion: Screening for mutations in both KRAS and NRAS may provide the most cost-effective approach to patient selection.

Background: The aim was to compare health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and cost-effectiveness between cytoreductive surgery with intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + IPC) and systemic chemotherapy for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases., Methods: Patients included in the Swedish Peritoneal Trial comparing CRS + IPC and systemic chemotherapy completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and SF-36 questionnaires at baseline, 2, 4, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. HRQOL at 24 months was the primary endpoint. EORTC sum score, SF-36 physical and mental component scores at 24 months were calculated and compared for each arm and then referenced against general population values. Two quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) indices were applied (EORTC-8D and SF-6D) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was calculated. A projected life-time ICER per QALY gained was calculated using predicted survival according to Swedish population statistics., Results: No statistical differences in HRQOL between the arms were noted at 24 months. Descriptively, survivors in the surgery arm had higher summary scores than the general population at 24 months, whereas survivors in the chemotherapy arm had lower scores. The projected life-time QALY benefit was 3.8 QALYs in favor of the surgery arm (p=0.06) with an ICER per QALY gained at 310,000 SEK (EORTC-8D) or 362,000 SEK (SF-6D) corresponding to 26,700-31,200 GBP., Conclusion: The HRQOL in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases undergoing CRS + IPC appear similar to those receiving systemic chemotherapy. Two-year survivors in the CRS + IPC arm have comparable HRQOL to a general population reference. The treatment is cost-effective according to NICE guidelines., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: Combination therapies with cetuximab (Erbitux ® ; Merck Serono UK Ltd) and panitumumab (Vectibix ® ; Amgen UK Ltd) are shown to be less effective in adults with metastatic colorectal cancer who have mutations in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and NRAS oncogenes from the rat sarcoma (RAS) family., Objective: The objective of the study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of these drugs in patients with previously untreated RAS wild-type (i.e. non-mutated) metastatic colorectal cancer, not eligible for liver resection at baseline, from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective., Methods: We constructed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the long-term costs and benefits of cetuximab and panitumumab combined with either FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin) or FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) vs. FOLFOX or FOLFIRI alone. The economic analysis was based on three randomised controlled trials. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted at 3.5% per annum., Results: Based on the evidence available, both drugs fulfil the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's end-of-life criteria. In the analysis, assuming discount prices for the drugs from patient access schemes agreed by the drug manufacturers with the Department of Health, predicted mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cetuximab + FOLFOX, panitumumab + FOLFOX and cetuximab + FOLFIRI compared with chemotherapy alone appeared cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, applicable to end-of-life treatments., Conclusion: Cetuximab and panitumumab were recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with previously untreated RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, not eligible for liver resection at baseline, for use within the National Health Service in England. Both treatments are available via the UK Cancer Drugs Fund.

BACKGROUND The currently available chemotherapeutic regimens do not use a specifically designed drug delivery system. The objective of this study was to compare outcome measures, adverse effects, and cost of FOLFOX4 and FOLFIRINOX treatments in rectal cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS We enrolled patients who, after surgery, did not undergo chemotherapy or radiotherapy (Control group); were administered 200 mg/m² folinic acid, 400 mg/m² fluorouracil, and 85 mg/m² oxaliplatin (FFO group); or were administered 400 mg/m² folinic acid, 400 mg/m² fluorouracil, 180 mg/m² irinotecan, and 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin (FFIO group). We recorded tumor and nodal staging, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, serum carcinoembryonic antigen, total cost of treatment, disease recurrence, overall survival, and adverse effects. We used the 2-tailed paired t test following Turkey post hoc test for adverse effects, recurrence analysis, and cost of treatment at 95% of confidence level. RESULTS Surgery (p=0.00089), FOLFOX4 (p=0.000167), and FOLFIRINOX (p=0.00013) improved disease-free conditions. Only surgery failed to maintain carbohydrate antigen and carcinoembryonic antigen 19-9 levels. The cost of chemotherapeutic treatments was in the order of FFIO group > FFO group > Control group. Non-fatal treatment-emergent adverse effects were due to chemotherapeutic drugs. However, fatal chemotherapeutic treatment-emergent adverse effects were observed only in the FFIO group. Overall survival, irrespective of cancerous condition, was higher in the FFO group. CONCLUSIONS FOLFIRINOX had less total cancer recurrence than FOLFOX4. However, FOLFIRINOX had more fatal treatment-emergent adverse effects and excessive cost of treatment than FOLFOX4 regimen.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Shire Pharmaceuticals) of pegylated liposomal irinotecan hydrochloride trihydrate (liposomal irinotecan) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for its use in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and folic acid/leucovorin (LV) for treating patients with pancreatic cancer following prior treatment with gemcitabine as part of the institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the company's evidence, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance (TA440), issued on 26 April 2017. Clinical evidence for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus 5-FU/LV was derived from 236 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the multinational, open-label, randomised controlled NAPOLI-1 trial. Results from analyses of progression-free survival and overall survival showed statistically significant improvements for patients treated with liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV compared with those treated with 5-FU/LV. However, 5-FU/LV alone is rarely used in National Health Service clinical practice for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine. The company, ERG and Appraisal Committee (AC) all agreed that oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV is the most commonly used treatment. Oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV was compared with 5-FU/LV in two trials identified by the company. However, the company and the ERG both considered attempts to compare the efficacy of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV with oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV to be methodologically flawed; not only was there heterogeneity between trials and their populations but also the proportional hazards assumption required to conduct a robust indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was violated. Nonetheless, data derived from an ITC were used to inform the company's economic model. Using the discounted patient access scheme price for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV, the company reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £54,412 for the comparison with oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV. The ERG considered that the company's base-case cost-effectiveness results for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV were underestimates and should be interpreted with extreme caution. Following implementation of a number of model amendments, the ERG's modified exploratory ICER for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV was £106,898 per QALY gained. The AC accepted the majority of the ERG's amendments to the model, and also highlighted that the total QALYs for oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV were lower than for 5-FU/LV in the company's model, which the AC considered to be clinically implausible. The AC therefore considered results from exploratory analyses, undertaken by the ERG, which included altering the QALY difference between liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV by ± 10%. These analyses resulted in ICERs for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV of between £201,019 per QALY gained to liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV being dominated by oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV. Therefore, despite uncertainty around the clinical-effectiveness evidence and cost-effectiveness results, the AC was confident that the ICER was in excess of £50,000 per QALY gained. The final guidance issued by NICE is that liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV is not recommended within its marketing authorisation for treating metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas in adults whose disease has progressed after gemcitabine-based therapy.

This retrospective study investigated the efficiency of nutritional support in unresectable locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (LAOSCC) patients who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) based on 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin. In the routine care group, 63 patients served as historical controls and received nutrition support in a reactive manner. In addition, 57 patients in the nutritional support group received timely diet counselling, oral nutritional supplements, enteral nutrition and/or parenteral nutrition during CCRT. This support was based on scores from nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS-2002) after June 2014. The nutritional support group had significant advantages over the routine care group with respect to the incidence of neutropenia, the objective response rate, the change in serum albumin and the lengths of hospital stay. In addition, the nutritional support group had significantly higher levels of IgG and IL-2, higher proportions of NK, CD3 + and CD4 + cells as well as a higher ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + cells than the routine care group (p < .05). In contrast, the nutritional support group had a significantly lower level of IL-6. In conclusion, the current nutritional care programme could bring benefits of improving treatment compliance, reducing toxicity and lengths of hospital stay and enhancing the immune response., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

We evaluated four representative chemotherapy regimens for unresectable advanced or recurrent KRAS-wild type colorectal cancer: mFOLFOX6, mFOLFOX6+bevacizumab (Bmab), cetuximab (Cmab), or panitumumab (Pmab). We employed a decision analysis method in combination with clinical and economic evidence. The health outcomes of the regimens were analyzed on the basis of overall and progression-free survival. The data were drawn from the literature on randomized controlled clinical trials of the above-mentioned drugs. The total costs of the regimens were calculated on the basis of direct costs obtained from the medical records of patients diagnosed with unresectable advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer at Yamagata University Hospital and Yamagata Prefecture Central Hospital. Cost effectiveness was analyzed using a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method. The study was designed from the viewpoint of public medical care. The MCMC analysis revealed that expected life months and expected cost were 20 months/3,527,119 yen for mFOLFOX6, 27 months/8,270,625 yen for mFOLFOX6+Bmab, 29 months/13,174,6297 yen for mFOLFOX6+Cmab, and 6 months/12,613,445 yen for mFOLFOX6+Pmab. Incremental costs per effectiveness ratios per life month against mFOLFOX6 were 637,592 yen for mFOLFOX6+Bmab, 1,075,162 yen for mFOLFOX6+Cmab, and 587,455 yen for mFOLFOX6+Pmab. Compared to the conventional mFOLFOX6 regimen, molecular-targeted drug regimens provide better health outcomes, but the cost increases accordingly. mFOLFOX 6+Pmab is the most cost-effective regimen among those surveyed in this study.

Background: Metastatic colorectal cancer imposes a substantial burden on patients and society. Over the last years, progresses in the treatment have been made especially due to the introduction of monoclonal antibodies, such as bevacizumab which, on the other hand, has considerably increased the costs of treatment. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab plus XELOX in comparison with XELOX alone in metastatic colorectal cancer in first-line therapy, from the perspective of a public hospital school in Brazil., Methods: This was a cost-effectiveness analysis performed by a decision tree and Markov models. Costs were expressed in local currency and outcomes were expressed in months of life gained. The model was constructed using the TreeAge Pro 2013® software., Results: The incremental difference in years of life gained was 2.25 months, with an extra cost of 47,833.57 BRL, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness of 21,231.43 BRL per month of life gained., Conclusions: Although the XELOX plus bevacizumab regimen is a more expensive and more effective treatment than XELOX, it does not fit the reimbursement values fixed by the public healthcare system in Brazil.

Background: The economic burden of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is substantial while treatment options are limited. Little is known about the treatment patterns and healthcare costs among mPC patients who initiated first-line gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-P + G) and FOLFIRINOX., Methods: The MarketScan® claims databases were used to identify adults with ≥2 claims for pancreatic cancer, 1 claim for a secondary malignancy, completed ≥1 cycle of nab-P + G or FOLFIRINOX during 4/1/2013 and 3/31/2015, and had continuous plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and 3 months after the first-line treatment. Duration of therapy, per patient per month (PPPM) costs of total healthcare, mPC-related treatment, and supportive care were measured during first-line therapy., Results: 550 mPC patients met selection criteria (nab-P + G, n = 294; FOLFIRINOX, n = 256). There was no difference in duration of therapy (p = 0.60) between nab-P + G and FOLFIRINOX. Compared with FOLFIRINOX, patients with nab-P + G had higher chemotherapy drug costs but lower treatment administration costs and supportive care costs (all p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Patients treated with nab-P + G (vs FOLFIRINOX) had similar treatment duration but lower costs of outpatient prescriptions, treatment administration and supportive care. Lower supportive care costs in the nab-P + G cohort were mainly driven by lower utilization of pegfilgrastim and anti-emetics.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) vs bevacizumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Spain., Methods: A semi-Markov model was developed including the following health states: Progression free; Progressive disease: Treat with best supportive care; Progressive disease: Treat with subsequent active therapy; Attempted resection of metastases; Disease free after metastases resection; Progressive disease: after resection and relapse; and Death. Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression free survival and overall survival data from the PEAK Phase II clinical trial were used to estimate health state transitions. Additional data from the PEAK trial were considered for the dose and duration of therapy, the use of subsequent therapy, the occurrence of adverse events, and the incidence and probability of time to metastasis resection. Utility weightings were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials evaluating first-, second-, and third-line treatments. The study was performed from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective including only direct costs. A life-time horizon was applied. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model., Results: Based on the PEAK trial, which demonstrated greater efficacy of panitumumab vs bevacizumab, both in combination with mFOLFOX6 first-line in wild-type RAS mCRC patients, the estimated incremental cost per life-year gained was €16,567 and the estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was €22,794. The sensitivity analyses showed the model was robust to alternative parameters and assumptions., Limitations: The analysis was based on a simulation model and, therefore, the results should be interpreted cautiously., Conclusions: Based on the PEAK Phase II clinical trial and taking into account Spanish costs, the results of the analysis showed that first-line treatment of mCRC with panitumumab + mFOLFOX6 could be considered a cost-effective option compared with bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 for the Spanish NHS.

Background: We compared real-world treatment patterns, resource utilization, and cost of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with first-line nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin)., Methods: This was a retrospective study of inpatient and hospital-based outpatient data in the United States. Primary endpoints included median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and total cost of care per patient per month. Secondary endpoints included supportive care costs and hospitalization rate and length., Results: Overall, 345 patients were included (nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, n = 182; FOLFIRINOX, n = 163). Median TTD was significantly longer with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine vs FOLFIRINOX (4.3 vs 2.8 months; P = .0009). Mean acquisition cost was higher with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine ($10,643 vs $6549; P = .0043), but mean total cost of care was lower ($16,628 vs $19,936; P = .1740). Supportive care cost was significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine ($1995 vs $6456; P < .0001). Hospitalization rate and length were both significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine., Conclusions: Despite higher acquisition costs with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX-treated patients had higher total costs driven by supportive care. Toxicity-related costs and drug acquisition costs should be considered when evaluating total cost of care.

Background: EOX (epirubicin, oxaliplatin, Xeloda; capecitabine) and FOLFOX4 (5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin, oxaliplatin) are the common chemotherapy regimens used in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (aGC) in Hong Kong. This study aimed to compare the costs of these therapies for aGC patients from both the healthcare and societal perspectives. It should be noted that, while FOLFOX4 is routinely administered in an outpatient setting in North America and Europe, inpatient setting is adopted in Hong Kong instead, incurring hospitalization cost as a result., Methods: Fifty-eight patients were identified from the electronic records in two public tertiary hospitals, with 45 and 13 receiving EOX and FOLFOX4 regimens, respectively. Healthcare cost was direct medical costs including drugs, clinic follow-up, hospitalization, diagnostic laboratories, and radiographs. Societal cost refers to indirect costs such as patient time and travel costs. Cost items were further classified as "expected" or "unexpected". All cost data was expressed in US dollars., Results: Patients in the EOX and FOLFOX4 arm received an average of 5.3 and 7.8 cycles of treatment, respectively. The capecitabine-based regimen group had a higher expected medication cost per cycle when compared to the 5-FU-based treatment group (US$290.3 vs US$66.9, p < .001), but lower expected hospitalization costs (US$76.9 vs US$1,269.2, p < .001). The total healthcare cost and total societal cost per patient was reduced by 67.2% (US$5,691.9 vs US$17,357.4, p < .001) and 25.3% (US$3,090.5 vs US$4,135.1, p = .001), respectively, in the capecitabine-based regimen group. Sensitivity analyses based on full cycle regimen costs and net capecitabine or 5-FU/leucovorin costs still showed EOX to be less costly than FOLFOX4., Conclusion: The capecitabine-based regimen, EOX, was found to generate significant cost saving from both the healthcare and societal perspectives in regions in which FOLFOX4 is given in an inpatient setting.

Background: Metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is associated with low survival, with less than 10% of patients surviving 5 years. Recent therapies improve survival outcomes where few alternative therapies exist, but few economic analyses measure the value of survival gains attributable to new therapies., Objective: To estimate the value of survival gains in advanced or mPC attributable to the introduction of novel treatment regimens., Methods: Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate real-world survival gains associated with the introduction of gemcitabine (GEM) for patients diagnosed with stage IV or unstaged mPC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program cancer registries. Then, evidence from clinical trials was used to evaluate the survival gains associated with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine (nP +GEM) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) relative to GEM. The survival estimates and clinical trial evidence were used to calibrate an economic model and assess the cumulative value of survival gains in mPC to patients. Costs of treatment were calculated based on published cost-effectiveness studies., Results: We estimated that the introduction of GEM in 1996 was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.920 (P < 0.05) and an increase in median survival from 3.1 to 4.5 months. Results suggested that the value of survival gains attributable to GEM equaled about $71,000 per patient, while the value attributable to nP + GEM was an additional $56,700. Estimates for the value of survival gains per patient, net of total incremental lifetime treatment costs (drugs, adverse events, and other costs), were $50,294 for GEM and an additional $31,900 for nP + GEM. Clinical trials and cost-effectiveness studies reported an overall survival gain from FFX that was larger than, but statistically similar to, nP + GEM and had greater risk of adverse events and total incremental costs. We estimated that the total value of survival gains to mPC patients, net of total costs, associated with GEM was up to $47.6 billion, and the additional values attributable to nP+GEM and FFX were up to $39.0 billion and $26.3 billion, respectively., Conclusions: Historically, mPC patients have faced high disease burden and had few treatment options. Treatments introduced since 1996 have led to improved survival, with varying costs associated with treatment and adverse events. Accounting for total incremental costs, the majority of the value of survival gains from GEM and nP+GEM was retained by mPC patients, highlighting the value of innovation in settings where survival is low and few alternative therapies exist., Disclosures: Support for this research was provided by Celgene. Precision Health Economics was compensated by Celgene for work on this study. MacEwan is an employee of, and Yin is a consultant to, Precision Health Economics. Kaura and Khan are employees of Celgene. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Yin and MacEwan, along with Kaura and Khan. MacEwan collected the data, and data interpretation was performed primarily by MacEwan and Yin, along with Kaura and Khan. The manuscript was written and revised by MacEwan, Yin, Kaura, and Khan.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the pharmaco-economic implications of FOLFOX4 or sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China., Methods: To conduct the analysis, we performed a Markov model to simulate the process of advanced HCC treated with sorafenib or FOLFOX4. Clinical data were obtained from the ORIENTAL trial and the EACH trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was regarded as the primary outcome in the analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis as well as probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the impact of essential variables on the results of the analysis., Results: Treatment with sorafenib provided an effectiveness gain of 0.3935 quality-adjusted life year at an average cost of $18,748.00, whereas chemotherapy of FOLFOX4 brought 0.3808 quality-adjusted life year at a cost of $6876.02. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FOLFOX4 versus sorafenib was $934,801.57/QALY. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on a Monte Carlo simulation of 1000 items, the probabilities of FOLFOX4 and sorafenib being cost-effective were 100% and 0% using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,301.00 per quality-adjusted life year., Conclusions: FOLFOX4 chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China., (Copyright © 2016 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-N) have shown a significant survival benefit for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX versus GEM-N for treating metastatic pancreatic cancer based on the PRODIGE and MPACT trials., Methods: A decision model was performed to compare FOLFIRINOX with GEM-N. Primary base case data were identified from PRODIGE and MPACT trials. Costs were estimated and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated at West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China. Survival benefits were reported in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Finally, sensitive analysis was performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters in the model., Results: The base-case analysis showed that FOLFIRINOX cost $37,203.75 and yielded a survival of 0.67 QALY, and GEM-N cost $32,080.59 and yielded a survival of 0.51 QALY in the entire treatment. Thus, the ICER of FOLFIRINOX versus GEM-N was $32,019.75 per QALY gained., Conclusions: The GEM-N regimen was more cost-effective compared with the FOLFIRINOX regimen for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer from a Chinese perspective.