S-1 or gemcitabine adjuvant therapy in resected pancreatic cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the JASPAC-01 trial.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant treatments in resected pancreatic cancer.Methods: A Markov model was developed to mimic the disease process of postoperative pancreatic cancer, encompassing three health states (relapse-free survival, recurrent disease, and death). Health outcomes and utility scores were derived from the phase III trial and available literature. Cost data were calculated using standard fee data from the West China Hospital for 2017. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed to explore model uncertainty.Results: Treatment with S-1 was estimated to yield 1.61 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a cost of $25,696, whereas treatment with gemcitabine yielded 1.27 QALYs at a cost of $28,930. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of S-1 versus gemcitabine was $-9,490 per QALY. Based on the willingness-to-pay threshold of $25,841 per QALY, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was $15,786 for S-1 and $3,727 for gemcitabine, generating the incremental NMB of $12,059. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probabilities of S-1 and gemcitabine being cost-effective were 92% and 8%, respectively. Results were robust to changes in parameters.Conclusion: Adjuvant therapy using S-1 is a cost-effective alternative compared to gemcitabine in patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer from the Chinese societal perspective.

[Comparison of the Cost-Effectiveness of the SOX and COX Regimens in Patients with Unresectable Advanced and Recurrent Colorectal Cancer Using a Clinical Decision Analysis Approach].

Phase III clinical trials have comfirmed that the S-1 plus oxaliplatin(SOX)is inferior to the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (COX)regimen in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.On the basis of these findings, we compared, using a clinical decision analysis-based approach, the cost-effectiveness of the SOX and COX regimens.Herein, we simulated the expected effects and costs of the SOX and COX regimens using the markov model.Clinical data were obtained from Hong's 2012 report.The cost data comprised the costs for pharmacist labor, material, inspection, and treatment for adverse event, as well as the total cost of care at the advanced stage.The result showed that the expected cost of the SOX and COX regimen was 1,538,330 yen, and 1,429,596 yen, respectively, with an expected survival rate of 29.18 months, and 28.63 months, respectively.The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the SOX regimen was 197,698 yen/month; thus, the SOX regimen was found to be more cost-effective that the COX regimen.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant chemotherapies in patients presenting with gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: To analyze and compare the economic outcomes of adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (referred to as the XELOX strategy) and of S-1 (the S-1 strategy) for gastric cancer patients after D2 gastrectomy. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the lifetime disease course associated with stage II or III gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy. The lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), associated costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. The clinical data were derived from the results of pilot studies. Direct costs were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, and the utility data were measured from end-point observations of Chinese patients. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty on the model's outcomes. RESULTS: The combined adjuvant chemotherapy strategy with XELOX yielded the greatest increase in QALYs over the course of the disease (8.1 QALYs compared with 7.8 QALYs for the S-1 strategy and 6.2 for surgery alone). The incremental cost per QALY gained using the XELOX strategy was significantly lower than that for the S-1 strategy ($3,502 vs. $6,837, respectively). The results were sensitive to the costs of oxaliplatin and the hazard ratio of relapse-free survival. CONCLUSION: The observations reported herein suggest that adjuvant therapy with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin is a highly cost-effective strategy and more favorable treatment option than the S-1 strategy in patients with stage II or III gastric cancer who have undergone D2 gastrectomy.

Economic evaluation of first-line adjuvant chemotherapies for resectable gastric cancer patients in China.

BACKGROUND: First-line postoperative adjuvant chemotherapies with S-1 and capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) were first recommended for resectable gastric cancer patients in the 2010 and 2011 Chinese NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Gastric Cancer; however, their economic impact in China is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy with XELOX, with S-1 and no treatment after a gastrectomy with extended (D2) lymph-node dissection among patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer. METHODS: A Markov model, based on data from two clinical phase III trials, was developed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of patients in the XELOX group, S-1 group and surgery only (SO) group. The costs were estimated from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The utilities were assumed on the basis of previously published reports. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated with a lifetime horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: For the base case, XELOX had the lowest total cost ($44,568) and cost-effectiveness ratio ($7,360/QALY). The relative scenario analyses showed that SO was dominated by XELOX and the ICERs of S-1 was $58,843/QALY compared with XELOX. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the most influential parameter was the utility of disease-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted a 75.8% likelihood that the ICER for XELOX would be less than $13,527 compared with S-1. When ICER was more than $38,000, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness achieved by S-1 group was greater than 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that for patients in China with resectable disease, first-line adjuvant chemotherapy with XELOX after a D2 gastrectomy is a best option comparing with S-1 and SO in view of our current study. In addition, S-1 might be a better choice, especially with a higher value of willingness-to-pay threshold.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for curatively resected gastric cancer with S-1.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of specific regimens of adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer has not been verified by large clinical trials. Recently, several large trials attempted to verify the effectiveness of adjuvant therapy. The Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial of TS-1 for Gastric Cancer in Japan, a randomized controlled trial of adjuvant S-1 therapy for resected gastric cancer, demonstrated significant improvement in overall and relapse-free survival, compared to surgery alone. To evaluate value for money of S-1 therapy, cost-effective analysis was carried out. METHODS: The analysis was carried out from a payer's perspective. As an economic measure, cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was estimated. Overall survival was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, up to 5-year observation. Beyond this period, it was simulated by the modified Boag model. Utility score is derived from interviews with sampled patients using a time trade-off method. Costs were estimated from trial data during observation, while in the period beyond observation they were estimated using simulation results. To explore uncertainty of the results, qualitative and stochastic sensitivity analyses were done. RESULTS: Adjuvant S-1 therapy gained 1.24 QALYs per patient and increased costs by $3,722 per patient for over lifetime (3% discount rate for both effect and costs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (95% confidence intervals) for over lifetime was estimated to be $3,016 ($1,441, $8,840) per QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of these results. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant S-1 therapy for curatively resected gastric cancer is likely cost-effective. This therapy can be accepted for wide use in Japan.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of chemotherapy with GEM or S-1 for patients with non-resectable pancreatic cancer].

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy for patients with non-resectable pancreatic cancer, we compared two regimens containing either gemcitabine (GEM) or S-1. METHODS: We developed a decision tree that showed the clinical processes of non-resectable pancreatic cancer patients. We calculated the probabilities of endpoint and life months gained (LMG) based on previously reported articles. To estimate the costs, we analyzed medical records of 44 inpatients with non-resectable pancreatic cancer treated with GEM(n=34)or S-1(n=10). Sensitivity analysis was used to check the robustness of the results. RESULTS: In the GEM group and S-1 group, costs were 1,636,393 and 985,042 yen, and LMG was 6. 0 and 9. 0 months, respectively. Thus, the cost-effectiveness ratio(CER)was calculated to be 272,732 and 109,449 yen/LMG, respectively, and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was -217,117 yen/LMG. The sensitivity analysis showed that the result was definitely robust. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the markedly cost-effective S-1 regimen could prolong LMG with less cost than the GEM regimen.

[A case of recurrent rectal cancer with multiple lung metastases successfully treated with S-1 and CPT-11 combination chemotherapy].

We report a case of recurrent rectal cancer with multiple lung metastases successfully treated with S-1 and CPT-11 combination chemotherapy. Rectal amputation was carried out on the rectal cancer patient, a 63-year-old man. CT scan revealed multiple lung metastases after 20 months of surgery. The patient was treated with S-1 and CPT-11 combination chemotherapy. S-1(100mg/body/day)was orally administered for 2 weeks followed by a 1-week interval, and CPT-11 (120 mg/body on day 1)was simultaneously administered. After completion of 8 courses, CT scan showed no lung metastases, and the patient was judged to have achieved a complete response (CR). The CR interval was maintained for twelve months until 20 courses of chemotherapy had been completed. This chemotherapy was expected to have a potent therapeutic efficacy for recurrent rectal cancer, considering the convenience, cost benefit and no severe adverse event.

[Pharmacoeconomic study of chemotherapy for gastric cancer: analysis of medical costs for oral fluoropyrimidine TS-1 and conventional i.v therapy].

To evaluate the economic impact of TS-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine, on the treatment of gastric cancer, the medical costs required for TS-1 treatment were compared with those for the conventional chemotherapy employed before the launch of TS-1 in patients with advanced and recurrent gastric cancer. The medical costs for 13 patients receiving TS-1 and 10 patients undergoing the conventional chemotherapy were extracted from the ordering system data, and the costs were compared using the fee schedule of the Japanese national health insurance. The monthly medical costs for the TS-1 group and conventional chemotherapy group were 327, 640 +/- 47,647 (mean +/- SE) yen and 852,874 +/- 62,412 yen, respectively. Medical costs appeared to have decreased because TS-1 is an oral preparation, permitting an easy transfer from inpatient treatment to ambulatory treatment, and because only small amounts of medication and blood transfusion were used for supportive care. Consequently, the medical costs for the TS-1 group were significantly lower than for the conventional chemotherapy group. Therefore, the administration of TS-1 leads to a reduction in medical costs.