RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The BEACON CRC randomised controlled trial (NCT02928224) in BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients showed improved overall survival for the combination treatment of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) with cetuximab (EGFR inhibitor) compared with cetuximab with chemotherapy (FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) or irinotecan). We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab in adult patients with BRAF-mutant mCRC after prior systemic therapy, from the perspective of the French healthcare system. DESIGN: A partitioned survival analysis model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab using data from BEACON CRC (encorafenib with cetuximab and cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan). For two further comparator treatments (FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI), a systemic literature review identified appropriate clinical trial data for indirect comparison. Piecewise modelling extrapolation was used to fulfil a lifetime horizon in the model. A discount rate of 2.5% was used. Treatment-emergent adverse events ≥grade 3 with an incidence of ≥2% were included, as well as relative dose intensity and utility values. OUTCOME MEASURES: The effectiveness outcomes of the model were expressed in terms of incremental life years gained and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. The cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results were presented probabilistically to account for parametric uncertainty. Deterministic and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The ICER for encorafenib with cetuximab versus cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan, FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI was 69 823/QALY, 70 421/QALY and 72 336/QALY, respectively. Encorafenib with cetuximab was considered cost-effective compared with the three comparators at a willingness to pay threshold of 90 000/QALY, with probabilities of being cost-effective of 89.8%, 98.2% and 86.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed encorafenib with cetuximab to be a cost-effective treatment in mCRC patients with a BRAF V600E mutation.
Assuntos
Neoplasias do Colo , Neoplasias Retais , Adulto , Humanos , Cetuximab/uso terapêutico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Proteínas Proto-Oncogênicas B-raf/genética , Irinotecano , Bevacizumab/uso terapêutico , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases , FrançaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The identification of dynamic biomarkers in advanced gastric and oesogastric junction adenocarcinoma (GOA) could help to tailor strategies for each patient. Enumeration of circulating tumour cells (CTCs) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in breast, colon and prostate cancer but is not in advanced GOA. Our study aims to establish the optimal threshold and the clinical significance of CTC count in advanced GOA before and during treatment. METHODS: One hundred six patients with untreated advanced GOA were included in the ancillary study of the PRODIGE 17-ACCORD 20 trial. CTCs were detected in the peripheral blood using the CellSearch system on day 0 (D0) and day 28 (D28). The prognostic value of CTCs at D0 and D28 was analysed by testing several thresholds. RESULTS: At baseline, median CTC count was 1 (range, 0-415). While CTCs ≥1, 2 or 3 at D0 were all significantly associated with worse overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), CTCs ≥2 were the optimal threshold, on D0 or D28. CTCs ≥2 at D28 were also predictive of disease control. Taking into account both D0 and D28 CTC count defined 3 groups (low/low, high/low and low-high/high) with significantly different PFS (p = 0.0002) and OS (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Quantification of CTCs at baseline and during treatment may be a useful prognostic tool in advanced GOA, as it is associated with worse PFS and OS. A threshold ≥2 CTCs seems to have the best discriminant value. Change in CTC count between baseline and D28 could help to tailor treatment to each individual patient.