Search

We compared the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) and modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX)-standard first-line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan. This retrospective cohort study included patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated at the National Cancer Center Hospital East in Japan between December 2013 and February 2017. A partitioned survival model, featuring five mutually exclusive health states, was developed. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A 2% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Parameter uncertainty effect was assessed using a one-way sensitivity analysis. mFFX treatment involved intravenous infusions of oxaliplatin, levofolinate, and irinotecan, whereas GnP treatment involved weekly intravenous administration of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. Dosages were adjusted based on observed adverse events. The total costs of the mFFX and GnP arms were JPY 3,193,597 (USD 31,006) and JPY 3,913,171 (USD 37,992), respectively. Incremental total costs of JPY 719,574 (USD 6,986) were associated with GnP compared to mFFX. Total QALYs were 0.427 and 0.435 for mFFX and GnP, respectively. Therefore, GnP has slightly higher QALYs than mFFX in Japanese real-world clinical practice, suggesting it has a potentially better safety profile, although the impact on healthcare costs persists., Competing Interests: Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study was conducted with the approval of the ethics committee of the National Cancer Center Hospital East (NCCHE) and the need to obtain informed consent was waived by the committee. The study was conducted in accordance with epidemiological research guidelines (2019 − 179). This hospital makes research proposals approved by the IRB available to the public. For studies utilizing medical information without obtaining an ICF, patients can access a PDF summary of the research and opt out of participation., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Aims: This systematic review summarizes real-world clinical outcomes and economic burden of first-line FOLFIRINOX (FFX)/modified FFX (mFFX) and nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (GnP) in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the US., Methods: Embase and MEDLINE were searched for materials published since 2014; citations were reviewed in a two-step process. Included studies were qualitatively synthesized., Results: Searches yielded 2,528 citations; 29 were included (17 clinical studies/12 economic studies). In 9/17 clinical studies, median overall survival (mOS) ranged from 4.7 months to 11.4 months for FFX/mFFX, with the unweighted median of the estimates within this range being 9.2 months; for GnP mOS ranged from 3.6 to 9.8 months, and the unweighted median of the estimates was 6.9 months. In 8/17 studies, grade 3/4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were the most commonly reported adverse events. Across economic burden studies, total costs were similar between the 2 groups. Outpatient, supportive care, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor costs were higher for the FFX generic regimen, and chemotherapy costs were higher for the GnP branded regimen., Conclusions: Real-world OS in FFX- and GnP-treated populations was shorter than that in clinical trials, and total costs of FFX and GnP were similar, but with differences in cost components.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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: 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.

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: 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.

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.)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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.

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.

The Children's Oncology Group (COG) develops and implements multi-institutional clinical trials with the primary goal of assessing the efficacy and safety profile of treatment regimens for various pediatric cancers. However, the monetary costs of treatment regimens are not measured. AALL0232 was a COG randomized phase III trial for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia that found that dexamethasone (DEX) was a more effective glucocorticoid than prednisone (PRED) in patients younger than 10 years, but PRED was equally effective and less toxic in older patients. In addition, high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) led to better survival than escalating doses of methotrexate (C-MTX). Cost data from the Pediatric Health Information System database were merged with clinical data from the COG AALL0232 trial. Total and component costs were compared between treatment arms and across hospitals. Inpatient costs were higher in the HD-MTX and DEX arms when compared to the C-MTX and PRED arms at the end of therapy. There was no difference in cost between these arms at last follow-up. Considerable variation in total costs existed across centers to deliver the same therapy that was driven by differences in inpatient days and pharmacy costs. The more effective regimens were found to be more expensive during therapy but were ultimately cost-neutral in longer term follow-up. The variations in cost across centers suggest an opportunity to standardize resource utilization for patients receiving similar therapies, which could translate into reduced healthcare expenditures., (© 2017 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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: 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.

Purpose: Patients with unresectable wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer benefit from fluoropyrimidines (FP), oxaliplatin (O), irinotecan (I), bevacizumab (Bev), and epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI). The most cost-effective regimen remains unclear., Methods: A Markov model was constructed to examine the costs and outcomes of three treatment strategies: strategy A (reference strategy): EGFRI monotherapy in third line ([3L]; ie, first-line [1L]: Bev + FOLFIRI [FP + I] or FOLFOX [FP + O]; second line [2L]: FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: EGFRI); strategy B: EGFRI and I in 3L (ie, 1L: Bev + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 2L: FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: EGFRI + I); and strategy C: EGFRI in 1L (ie, 1L: EGFRI + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 2L: Bev + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: best supportive care). Efficacy data of the treatments were obtained from the literature. Health system resource use information was derived from chart review and the literature. Using Euro-QOL 5 Dimensions, utilities were obtained by surveying medical oncologists and costs from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the literature. The perspective of the Canadian public health care system was used over a 5-year time horizon with a 5% discount in 2012 Canadian dollars., Results: All three strategies had similar efficacy, but strategy C was most expensive. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for strategies B and C compared with A were 119,623 and 3,176,591, respectively. The model was primarily driven by the acquisition cost of the drugs. Strategy B was most cost effective when the willingness-to-pay threshold was > $130,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analysis showed that strategy C would be cost-effective only when the progression-free survival of EGFRI is better than Bev in 1L with hazard ratio < 0.23 at willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year., Conclusion: First-line use of EGFRI in metastatic colorectal cancer is not cost effective at its current pricing relative to Bev., (Copyright © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Evidence suggests that CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) has efficacy similar to 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer. CAPOX is partly administered orally and associated with a 3-week rather than a 2-week treatment cycle. A population-based cost-minimization analysis was conducted from the health care payer and societal perspectives to evaluate the potential cost savings of replacing mFOLFOX6 with CAPOX., Methods: We applied treatment and toxicity data from phase III trials of CAPOX and FOLFOX-based regimens to the adjuvant colon cancer population in British Columbia, Canada. In this cost-minimization analysis we compared the total costs associated with chemotherapy medications, drug administration and delivery, hospital and clinic visits, treatment-related toxicities, and central venous access devices. Costs to patients in terms of lost time and travel were also considered. It was assumed that patients would receive either 8 cycles of CAPOX or 12 cycles of mFOLFOX6., Results: From the payer perspective, the use of CAPOX resulted in cost savings of $5339 CAD per patient compared with the use of mFOLFOX6. From a societal perspective, CAPOX was also associated with savings of $6080 CAD per patient. The greatest cost savings with CAPOX were attributed to fewer visits for chemotherapy treatment and decreased central venous access device usage. CAPOX was also associated with reduced loss of time and decreased travel for patients because of the requirement of fewer clinic visits., Conclusions: Replacement of mFOLFOX6 with CAPOX in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer might be associated with potential cost savings from the payer and societal perspectives., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness between actinomycin D (Act-D) and methotrexate-folinic acid (MTX-FA) in the treatment of low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) in the Thai population., Study Design: A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective. A decision tree model was developed comparing 2 alternative treatment options: initial 5-day Act-D and 8-day MTX-FA. Treatment would be switched to another regimen in case of resistance. The outcome of interest is number of days to remission. Clinical data was obtained from our previous study in which Act-D demonstrated 100% remission rates as compared to 73.6% for MTX-FA. Cost of treatment data, which includes chemotherapeutics, accessory medications, laboratory tests, and hospital fees, was obtained from a university hospital. Patient-related travel cost and opportunity cost due to absence from work were also included. All costs were calculated to 2015 base year., Result: Costs per treatment cycle were $308.01 and $227.20 US dollars (USD) for 5-day Act-D and 8-day MTX-FA, respectively. Expected time toward treatment completion for Act-D was 12.6 days shorter than for MTX-FA. Expected costs toward remission for initial treatment with Act-D and MTX-FA were $1,078.04 and $1,064.56 USD, respectively, i.e., an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1.07 USD/day of earlier treatment completion. After sensitivity analysis, remission rate of lower than 72% would make initial treatment with MTX-FA more expensive than with Act-D., Conclusion: Treatment costs of low-risk GTN are almost equal between the 2 treatment options with different time to remission. Initial treatment with MTX-FA is slightly less expensive, but there is longer time to remission. The ICER of initial treatment with Act-D over MTX-FA is $1.07 USD/day of earlier treatment completion.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer death. Recently, MM-398 (nanoliposomal irinotecan) was shown to be associated with significant improvement in outcome measures with acceptable toxicities when combined with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) compared to 5-FU/LV alone in patients failing one line of gemcitabine-based therapy. There is a paucity of data evaluating the role of irinotecan in combination with 5FU in advanced pancreas cancer (APC). We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who received mFOLFIRI (minus bolus 5FU and LV). All patients with metastatic disease who had failed at least one line of gemcitabine-based therapy prior to receiving mFOLFIRI were included in this study. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the continuous variables and adverse events (AEs), and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Forty patients were included in this analysis. Patients received 1-5 lines of prior therapy (25 % with more than 3 lines of prior therapy). The mean age at diagnosis was 60, and 98 % had ECOG of 1. The mean CA 19-9 at the start of therapy was 33,169 U/ml. The median PFS was 2.59 months [95 % confidence interval (CI) (1.90, 3.54)], and OS was 4.75 months [95 % CI (3.14, 8.98)]. The most common AEs included fatigue (98 %), neuropathy (83 %), anorexia (68 %), nausea (60 %) and constipation (55 %). Grade 3 toxicities included fatigue (13 %) and rash (3 %). There were no observed grade 4 toxicities. In this single-institution retrospective analysis, mFOLFIRI was found to be both tolerable and relatively effective in a heavily pretreated patient population with APC. Future prospective studies should consider evaluating the role of mFOLFIRI in refractory APC.

To evaluate, from a US payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), we performed a systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses. We identified 14 papers that fulfilled our search criteria and revealed varying levels of value among current treatment strategies. Older agents such as 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin provide high-value treatments. More modern agents targeting the EGFR or VEGF pathways, such as bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab, do not appear to be cost-effective treatments at their current costs. The analytical methods used within the papers varied widely, and this variation likely plays a significant role in the heterogeneity in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The cost-effectiveness of current treatment strategies for mCRC is highly variable. Drugs recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for mCRC are not cost-effective, and this is primarily driven by high drug costs., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of aflibercept (Sanofi) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for aflibercept in combination with irinotecan and fluorouracil-based therapy [irinotecan/5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (FOLFIRI)] for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer which has progressed following prior oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance TA307 issued in March 2014. The ERG critically reviewed the evidence presented in the manufacturer's submission and identified areas requiring clarification, for which the manufacturer provided additional evidence. The clinical effectiveness data were derived from one good-quality double-blind randomised controlled trial (RCT), the VELOUR trial, which compared aflibercept plus FOLFIRI with placebo plus FOLFIRI. This RCT found a small but statistically significant increase in overall survival (OS); the difference in median OS was 1.44 months (13.5 months in the aflibercept group and 12.06 months in the placebo group). There was also a statistically significant increase in progression-free survival (PFS) with aflibercept; the difference in median PFS was 2.23 months (6.9 months in the aflibercept group and 4.67 months in the placebo group). However, grade 3-4 adverse events were more frequent in the aflibercept group than the placebo group: 83.5% compared with 62.5%. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 26.8% of patients in the aflibercept group and 12.1% of patients in the placebo group. The manufacturer's submission included an estimation of mean OS benefit based on extrapolation of the data, which was considerably longer than the median OS benefit reported (4.7 vs. 1.44 months). The ERG considered this to be an over estimate. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the overall population was reported by the manufacturer to be £36,294 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). After correcting the model programming and updating the model to include the ERG's preferred parameter estimates, the ICER from the ERG's alternative base case was £54,368 per QALY. The extrapolation of the OS curves was the key cost-effectiveness driver and a major source of uncertainty in the model. Additional scenarios related to the extrapolation of OS undertaken by the ERG resulted in ICERs between £62,894 and £92,089 per QALY. After consideration of the manufacturer's submission and the ERG's critique, and submissions from other stakeholders, the NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that aflibercept in combination with irinotecan and fluorouracil-based therapy could not be considered a cost effective use of National Health Service resources for treating metastatic colorectal cancer that is resistant to or has progressed after an oxaliplatin-containing regimen. Aflibercept in combination with irinotecan and fluorouracil-based therapy is not recommended for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer that is resistant to or has progressed after an oxaliplatin-containing regimen in NICE guidance TA307.

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

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and costs associated with 2 adjuvant chemotherapy regimens [capecitabine-based therapy versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV)-based therapy] in stage III colorectal cancer patients., Methods: We conducted a prospective, open-label, observational, multicenter study from July 2008 to July 2011. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38 questionnaires was used to assess HRQoL before, during, and after treatment. The direct and indirect costs of adjuvant treatment were estimated from a specially prepared questionnaire, the National Health Insurance Research Database, and other published sources. We used propensity scoring to match samples between groups and performed multivariate analyses to adjust for differences in patient demographics and clinical characteristics., Results: A total of 497 patients were enrolled, and 356 completed the surveys. Following propensity score matching, 239 patients were included in the analysis (122 in the capecitabine-based group, 117 in the 5-FU/LV-based group). Global HRQoL scores did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, compared to patients in the 5-FU/LV-based group, patients in the capecitabine-based group had less nausea and vomiting (mid-term, P = 0.024; final, P = 0.013), appetite loss (mid-term, P < 0.0001; final, P = 0.001), and fewer side effects from chemotherapy (mid-term, P = 0.017). In addition, the monthly cost of capecitabine-based therapy was lower than those of 5-FU/LV-based therapy [NT$31,895.46 (US$1063.18) vs. NT$79,159.24 (US$2638.64) per patient]., Conclusions: Capecitabine is a reasonable alternative and cost-effective treatment option under current conditions for patients with stage III colorectal cancer.

Background: Pharmacoeconomic assessments are a part of the decision process not only during reimbursement setting, but in clinical practice as well. The presented cost-effectiveness analysis assesses panitumumab+mFOLFOX6 vs. bevacizumab+mFOLFOX6 in 1st line treatment of patients with wildtype RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the Czech environment., Material and Methods: The adaptation of a Markov model considers the healthcare perspective; clinical data (efficacy, healthcare utilization and adverse events) are derived from a head-to-head comparison (PEAK study). Health states included in the model: progression free on treatment, progression (with/ without active treatment), resection of metastases, disease-free after successful resection and death. Actual reimbursement levels were used to estimate costs, published literature to estimate duration of 2nd line treatment. The analysis assumes a lifetime horizon; uncertainty was limited by performing one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Analysis outcomes are life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)., Results: Panitumumab+mFOLFOX6 is more effective and more costly in 1st line patients with wildtype RAS mCRC. Incremental costs per QALY are 837,270 CZK, per LYG 615,022 CZK; however, below the willingness-to-pay threshold applied in the Czech Republic., Conclusions: Panitumumab+mFOLFOX6 is cost-effective in 1st line treatment of patients with wildtype RAS mCRC compared to bevacizumab+mFOLFOX6 in the Czech setting.

Aim: To compare XELOX and FOLFOX4 as colon cancer adjuvant chemotherapy based on MOSAIC and No. 16968 trails from Chinese cost-effectiveness perspective., Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to compare the FOLFOX4 and XELOX regimens based MOSAIC and No. 16968 trial. Five states were included in our Markov model: well (state 1), minor toxicity (state 2), major toxicity (state 3), quitting adjuvant chemotherapy (state 4), and death due to adjuvant chemotherapy (state 5). Transitions among the 5 states were assumed to be Markovian. Costs were calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health-care payer. The utility data were taken from published studies. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty factors in this cost-effectiveness analysis., Results: Total direct costs of FOLFOX4 and XELOX per patient were $19884.96 ± 4280.30 and $18113.25 ± 3122.20, respectively. The total fees related to adverse events per patient during the entire treatment were $204.75 ± 16.80 for the XELOX group, and $873.72 ± 27.60 for the FOLFOX4 group, and the costs for travel and absenteeism per patient were $18495.00 for the XELOX group and $21,352.68 for the FOLFOX4 group. The base-case analysis showed that FOLFOX4 was estimated to produce an additional 0.06 in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of $3950.47 when compared to the XELOX regimen over the model time horizon. The cost per QALY gained was $8047.30 in the XELOX group, which was $900.98 less than in the FOLFOX4 group ($8948.28). The one way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the utility for the well state and minor toxicity state greatly influenced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FOLFOX4., Conclusion: In term of cost-comparison, XELOX is expected to dominate FOLFOX4 regimes; Therefore, XELOX provides a more cost-effective adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer patients in China.

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Design: A semi-Markov model was constructed from a French health collective perspective, with health states related to first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, resection of metastases, disease-free after successful resection and death., Methods: Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression-free and overall survival data from the only head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab and bevacizumab (PEAK) were performed to estimate transitions to disease progression and death. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and French public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second- and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was applied. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: Based on a head-to-head clinical trial that demonstrates better efficacy outcomes for patients with wild-type RAS mCRC who receive panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6, the incremental cost per life-year gained was estimated to be €26,918, and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was estimated to be €36,577. Sensitivity analyses indicate the model is robust to alternative parameters and assumptions., Conclusions: The incremental cost per QALY gained indicates that panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 represents good value for money in comparison to bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 and, with a willingness-to-pay ranging from €40,000 to €60,000, can be considered cost-effective in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To estimate the incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) of aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI as second-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients previously treated with oxaliplatin., Methods: Based on clinical trial VELOUR results, a three-state Markov model (stable disease, progression and death) with 2-week cycle duration was designed. Transition to health state «progression» implied the interruption of second-line treatment and administration of a third-line treatment (post-second line chemotherapy). Cost estimation included disease management cost (pharmaceutical, adverse event management, administration costs, etc.). Both cost and outcomes were discounted (3% annually). Sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed to test model robustness., Results: Administration of aflibercept + FOLFIRI as second-line treatment provided 1.78 LYG (21 life-months gained). With FOLFIRI 1.43 LYG (17 months) were obtained. The cost of the clinical management of aflibercept + FOLFIRI implied an additional investment of Euros 13,564 compared with FOLFIRI for a lifetime horizon, being total costs for aflibercept + FOLFIRI of Euros 38,346, compared to Euros 24,782 with FOLFIRI. In the cost-effectiveness analysis Euros 38,931/LYG was obtained with aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI., Conclusion: Aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI increased overall survival versus FOLFIRI, so it is an effective strategy in the treatment of patients with mCRC. Aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI is an efficient strategy for second-line mCRC treatment from the National Health System perspective., (Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.)