The cost-effectiveness of zolbetuximab in CLDN18.2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of zolbetuximab plus capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma from the perspective of Chinese payers.Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of zolbetuximab plus CAPOX versus placebo plus CAPOX. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of model.Results: Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX gained an additional cost of $91,551 and an extra health benefit of 0.24 QALY over placebo plus CAPOX, producing an ICER of $388,186/QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,223/QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that the model was generally robust.Conclusion: Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX would not be a cost-effective first-line treatment regimen in CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma in China.

[Box: see text].

Comprehensive pharmacological geriatric assessment compared to usual care in an older adult with cancer in the absence of polypharmacy.

INTRODUCTION: Medication reconciliation as part of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment by a specialist pharmacist is a process that has been shown to be beneficial in terms of medication adherence in patients taking oral anticancer medication and potentially cost-effective in cancer patients. Medication review guidelines in older adults with cancer suggest using polypharmacy (≥ 5 medications) as an indication for medication review in older adults with cancer. CASE REPORT: We present a case where a medication review as part of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in the absence of polypharmacy resulted in two pharmacist interventions when standard care resulted in no intervention. A 71-year-old male prescribed capecitabine for rectal cancer had a medication reconciliation done as standard care before starting an oral anticancer medication. He then proceeded to get a medication review as part of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and was deemed to have a potentially excessive anticholinergic burden and underprescribed gastro protection. This case is interesting as it occurred in a patient who would not have met the current inclusion criteria for a medication review as part of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: As a result of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, a letter was written to the patient's general practitioner, recommending a change to anti-depressant therapy to optimise anticholinergic burden, as well as introducing a proton-pump inhibitor upon completion of the Capecitabine protocol concurrent with radiotherapy, to confer gastro-protection against the antidepressant medication, as per the START criteria. Upon discharge from medical oncology, neither of the changes had been adopted by the patient's general practitioner. This highlights one of the challenges facing clinical pharmacists in an outpatient setting, where evidence-based recommendations are not always implemented as care transitions from tertiary to primary care. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment is a process that identifies potential issues in older adults with cancer that aren't identified with standard medication review. This is also evident for medication reviews as part of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, and where resources allow, and recommendations are likely to be accepted, it should be offered to all older adults with cancer. Pharmacists are still faced with challenges in implementing recommendations from medication reviews, particularly in healthcare systems where pharmacist prescribing has yet to be introduced.

Short-Term Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness between Long-Course Chemoradiation and Short-Course Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) has been widely recommended in a majority of rectal cancer patients. Recently, encouraging data on short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) for rectal cancer has emerged. In this study, we aimed to compare these two methods in terms of short-term outcomes and cost analysis under the Korean medical insurance system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-two patients with high-risk rectal cancer, who underwent either SCRT or LCRT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME), were classified into two groups. Twenty-seven patients received 5 Gy×5 with two cycles of XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m² and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² every 3 weeks) followed by TME (SCRT group). Thirty-five patients received capecitabine-based LCRT followed by TME (LCRT group). Short-term outcomes and cost estimation were assessed between the two groups. RESULTS: Pathological complete response was achieved in 18.5% and 5.7% of patients in the SCRT and LCRT groups, respectively (p=0.223). The 2-year recurrence-free survival rate did not show significant difference between the two groups (SCRT vs. LCRT: 91.9% vs. 76.2%, p=0.394). The average total cost per patient for SCRT was 18% lower for inpatient treatment (SCRT vs. LCRT: $18787 vs. $22203, p<0.001) and 40% lower for outpatient treatment (SCRT vs. LCRT: $11955 vs. $19641, p<0.001) compared to LCRT. SCRT was shown to be the dominant treatment option with fewer recurrences and fewer complications at a lower cost. CONCLUSION: SCRT was well-tolerated and achieved favorable short-term outcomes. In addition, SCRT showed significant reduction in the total cost of care and distinguished cost-effectiveness compared to LCRT.

Adjuvant 5-Fluorouracil/leucovorin, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin-related regimens for stage II/III colon cancer patients 66 years or older.

Adjuvant chemotherapy of leucovorin-modulated 5-fluorouracil (5-FU/LV), capecitabine, and adding oxaliplatin to 5-FU/LV or capecitabine (FLOX/OX) have been standard regimens for high-risk stage II or III colon cancer (CC). We aimed to evaluate their patterns of use, association with survival, and rate of emergency room visit (ER) or hospitalization during the treatment period. High-risk stage II or III patients aged >65 years diagnosed between 2007 and 2015, underwent colectomy, and received any of these three regimens were selected from SEER and Texas Cancer Registry (TC) linked with Medicare data. Chi-square test, Kaplan-Meier survival curves, Cox regression, and logistic regression were used in data analysis. A total of 5621 (1080 stage II and 4541 stage III) patients with median age of 72 years were included in this study. For stage II, 24.4% used 5-FU/LV, 31.2% used capecitabine, and 44.4% used FLOX/OX; the respective numbers for stage III were 13.8%, 17.9%, and 68.3%. Patients aged <70 years, not in the West region, not in Medicare state-buy-in program, and with no comorbidity were more likely to use FLOX/OX. FLOX/OX was associated with improved overall survival (OS) in stage II and III patients and improved cancer-specific survival in stage III patients compared with 5-FU/LV. The survival benefit of FLOX/OX was sustained in stage III patients aged ≥70 years. Capecitabine had the lowest ER/hospitalization rate with 19.2% in stage II and 28.9% in III. The use of FLOX/OX was associated with improved survival compared with 5-FU/LV among CC patients. Capecitabine was associated with the lowest ER/hospitalization rate.

Neratinib plus capecitabine versus lapatinib plus capecitabine as the third-line therapy for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Neratinib plus capecitabine (Ner+Cap) were proved to be clinically beneficial as a third-line treatment for women with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Ner+Cap from the Chinese healthcare perspective. DESIGN: A three-state Markov simulation model was performed based on the results of NALA trial. The utilities of health state and disutilities of adverse events were derived from the published literature. Direct costs of anticancer agents, drug administration, routine follow-up and serious adverse events management were calculated in the model. Uncertainty was evaluated through univariate and probability sensitivity analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with confirmed HER2-positive MBC who previously received at least two HER2-targeted treatments and were aged ≥18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1. A total of 621 patients were enrolled in the NALA trial. INTERVENTIONS: Third-line treatment with Ner+Cap or lapatinib plus capecitabine (Lap+Cap). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary health outcomes of the model were costs, expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: When compared with Lap+Cap, Ner+Cap provided an additional 0.431 LYs and 0.339 QALYs, and increased the cost by $4299.2. The corresponding ICERs were 9970.1/LY and $12 670.2/QALY. Univariate sensitivity analyses suggested that the results were generally robust. Besides, Ner+Cap had a 100% probability of being cost-effective according to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Ner+Cap was likely to be a cost-effective regimen as the third-line therapy for women with HER2-positive MBC at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37 653.0/QALY in China.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine maintenance therapy versus routine follow-up for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer patients after standard treatment from a perspective of Chinese society.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine maintenance therapy is safe and efficacious for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients, but the cost-effectiveness of its long-term use has not been investigated. Here, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of capecitabine maintenance therapy, compared with routine follow-up, in early-stage TNBC patients after standard treatment from a perspective of Chinese society. METHODS: A three-state Markov model based on the data from the SYSUCC-001 trial was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of capecitabine maintenance therapy in a month cycle over a period of 30-year time horizon. A 5% annual discount rate was set for all costs and benefits. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the model uncertainties. The main outcomes include quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one additional event. RESULTS: Compared with routine follow-up, 1-year capecitabine maintenance therapy yielded an additional 1.29 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of $3391.70, with an ICER of $2630.53 (95% CI: $1159.81-$5090.12) per QALY gained. The ICER was considerably lower than the recommended willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (i.e., $28,130.00 per QALY). The results were sensitive to the discount rate, drug cost, and treatment cost after relapse. Further, the NNT to prevent one additional relapse case was 29.2 (95% CI: 13.2-196.6), 16.7 (95% CI: 8.4-111.6), and 12.0 (95% CI: 5.7-82.6) at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: One-year capecitabine maintenance therapy for early-stage TNBC after standard treatment, compared with routine follow-up, was found to be highly cost-effective with promising clinical benefits and acceptable increased costs. Real-world studies are warranted to validate our findings in the future.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pyrotinib Plus Capecitabine versus Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine for the Treatment of HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer in China: A Scenario Analysis of Health Insurance Coverage.

BACKGROUND: The overexpression of the human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) gene is present in 20~25% of breast cancer (BC) patients, contributing to an inferior prognosis. Recent clinical trials showed that pyrotinib has promising antitumor activities and acceptable tolerability for those patients (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03080805 and NCT02422199). Therefore, this study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of pyrotinib plus capecitabine versus lapatinib plus capecitabine for patients with HER2-positive metastatic BC after prior trastuzumab. METHODS: A lifetime-partitioned survival model was established to evaluate health and economic outcomes with different treatment strategies. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Data were derived from the published literature, clinical trials, expert opinions, and other local charges. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the findings. Scenario analyses were developed to make further evaluations. RESULTS: The pyrotinib regimen had significant advantages over the lapatinib regimen after enrolling in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), with cost savings of USD 15,599.27 and a gain of 0.53 QALYs. Meanwhile, before enrolling in NRDL, the pyrotinib regimen afforded the same QALYs at a higher incremental cost of USD 45,400.64 versus the lapatinib regimen, producing an ICER of USD 85,944.79 per QALY. Scenario analyses yielded similar results. Sensitivity analyses suggested stability in the cost-effectiveness findings. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to lapatinib plus capecitabine, the pyrotinib plus capecitabine enrolled in NRDL is a cost-effective alternative second-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive metastatic BC in China.

Eficacia y seguridad de bevacizumab más capecitabina para el tratamiento de pacientes adultos mayores con cáncer colorrectal metastásico, ECOG 0-2, sin tratamiento previo, no tributario a quimioterapia basada en platino (oxaliplatino) ni irinotecán / Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus capecitabine for the treatment of older adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, ECOG 0-2, treatment-naïve, not amenable to platinum-based chemotherapy (oxaliplatin) or irinotecan

ANTECEDENTES: En el marco de la metodología ad hoc para evaluar solicitudes de tecnologías sanitarias, aprobada mediante Resolución de Institución de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación N° 111-IETSI-ESSALUD-2021, se ha elaborado el presente dictamen que expone la evaluación de la eficacia y seguridad de bevacizumab más capecitabina para el tratamiento de pacientes adultos mayores con cáncer colorrectal metastásico, ECOG 0-2, sin tratamiento previo, no tributario a quimioterapia basada en platino (oxaliplatino) ni irinotecán. Así, el médico Nelson Cuevas Muñoz, especialista en oncología médica del Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins, siguiendo la Directiva N° 003-IETSIESSALUD-2016, envió al Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación - IETSI la solicitud de uso por fuera del Petitorio Farmacológico de EsSalud el producto farmacéutico producto bevacizumab más capecitabina. ASPECTOS GENERALES: En el Dictamen Preliminar N° 002-SDEPFYOTS-DETS-IETSI-2017 se detallan los aspectos generales del cáncer colorrectal metastásico (CCRM). Brevemente, en Perú, en el 2020, el CCR fue la quinta causa de muerte por cáncer en pacientes mayores de 65 años, con una tasa de muerte estandarizada por edad de 52 muertes por cada 100000 habitantes, y una incidencia ajustada por edad de 95 casos por cada 100000 habitantes (GLOBOCAN, 2020). En Estados Unidos, se ha estimado que el 20 % de los pacientes con CCR presentan enfermedad metastásica (Siegel et al., 2022), y que la sobrevida de cinco años en pacientes con CCRM es del 15 %, siendo la más baja comparada con el CCR localizado o regional (NIH, 2022). METODOLOGÍA: La búsqueda bibliográfica exhaustiva se llevó a cabo con el objetivo de identificar la mejor evidencia disponible sobre la eficacia y seguridad de bevacizumab más capecitabina para el tratamiento de pacientes adultos mayores con cáncer colorrectal metastásico, ECOG 0-2, sin tratamiento previo, no tributario a quimioterapia basada en platino (oxaliplatino) ni irinotecán. La búsqueda bibliográfica se realizó en las bases de datos PubMed, The Cochrane Library y LiLACS. Adicionalmente, se amplió la búsqueda revisando la evidencia generada por grupos internacionales que realizan revisiones sistemáticas, evaluaciones de tecnologías sanitarias y guías de práctica clínica, tales como: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tecnológica en Salud (CENETEC), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), lnstitute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ), National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), Canadian Medical Association (CMA), American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guidelines, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO), y Comissáo nacional de incorporagáo de tecnologías no sus (CONITEC). Adicionalmente, se realizó una búsqueda manual en las bases The Guidelines International Network (G-I-N), el portal de la Base Regional de Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud de las Américas (BRISA), y el repositorio institucional de la Dirección General de .... V Medicamentos, Insumos y Drogas (DIGEMID). Finalmente, se realizó una búsqueda ... A manual en el portal ClinicalTrials.govdel National Institutes of Health (NIH) para identificar ensayos clínicos en desarrollo o que aún no hayan sido publicados. RESULTADOS: Luego de la búsqueda bibliográfica, se incluyeron seis GPC elaboradas por The Cancer Council Australia Colorectal Cancer Guidelines Working Party (CCACCGWP) (Nott et al., 2017), ASCO (Chiorean et al., 2020), The Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) (Hashiguchi et al., 2020), SIGN (SIGN, 2016), y la NCCN, que elaboró dos GPC, una para pacientes con cáncer de colon (NCCN, 2022a) y otra para pacientes con cáncer rectal (NCCN, 2022b). Además, se incluyó una ETS elaborada por CADTH (CADTH, 2015), y el ECA de fase III, denominado AVEX (Cunningham et al., 2013). CONCLUSIÓN: Por lo expuesto, el Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación no aprueba el uso de bevacizumab más capecitabina para el tratamiento de pacientes adultos mayores con cáncer colorrectal metastásico, ECOG 0-2, sin tratamiento previo, no tributario a quimioterapia basada en platino (oxaliplatino) ni irinotecán.

Cost Effectiveness of Ribociclib and Palbociclib in the Second-Line Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Post-Menopausal Indian Women.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we evaluate the cost and outcomes of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) plus fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and conventional chemotherapy as the second-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in India. METHODS: Using a Markov model, the clinical effectiveness of managing HR+, HER2- MBC in postmenopausal women with either a CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) and fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and chemotherapy (single-agent paclitaxel or capecitabine) was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The costs were estimated from two different points of view: scenario I, as per the prevailing market prices of the drugs; and scenario II, as per the reimbursement rates set up by the publicly financed national health insurance scheme. Incremental cost per QALY gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and was assessed for cost effectiveness using a threshold of 1-time the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in India from a societal perspective. RESULTS: In scenario I, an MBC patient was found to incur a lifetime cost of Indian Rupees (₹) 2.54 million ($34,644), ₹2.53 million ($34,496), ₹512,598 ($6,984), ₹326,026 ($4,442) and ₹237,115 ($3,230) for the ribociclib and palbociclib combination arms, fulvestrant monotherapy, single-agent paclitaxel and the single-agent capecitabine treatment arms, respectively. The lifetime cost for CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant monotherapy, paclitaxel, and capecitabine arms was estimated to be ₹1.94 million ($26,459), ₹1.92 million ($26,220), ₹315,387 ($4,296), ₹187,392 ($2,553) and ₹153,263 ($2,088), respectively, in scenario II. The mean QALYs lived per MBC patient with CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant, paclitaxel and capecitabine were estimated to be 1.4, 1.0, 0.9 and 0.7, respectively. None of the treatment arms are cost effective at current prices and reimbursement rates at a threshold of 1-time the per capita GDP of India. However, a 78% reduction in the current market price or a 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate of fulvestrant in the government-funded insurance program will make it a cost-effective treatment option for HR+, HER2- MBC patients in India. CONCLUSION: CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) therapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for MBC patients. A 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate for fulvestrant monotherapy will make it a cost-effective treatment option in the Indian context.

Capecitabine in the treatment of anal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) is a rare tumor; it accounts for about 2% of gastrointestinal tumors. The goal of the treatment is to preserve the anal sphincter and maintain the quality of life; surgical excision is therefore reserved only for very early stages and in vast majority of cases concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is indicated, i.e. pelvic irradiation and concomitant mitomycin-based chemotherapy. Technological development in the field of radiodia-gnostics, nuclear medicine and radiation therapy has improved the disease staging and enabled more gentle treatment. The standard regimen of chemotherapy has been based on the combination of mitomycin C (MMC) with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for many years, with high toxicity. PURPOSE: The administration of 5-FU + capecitabine regimen provided an opportunity to reduce acute haematological toxicity. A prospective randomized phase II trial EXTRA demonstrated the oncological safety and good toxicity profile of oral capecitabine administered instead of 5-FU. The reduction of severe haematological toxicity and oncological non-inferiority of the capecitabine regimen was also demonstrated by other nine analyses presented in this article. CONCLUSION: Most international guidelines published by societies such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the European Society for Medical Oncology or the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology have accepted capecitabine as a safe alternative to 5-FU in the treatment of ASCC and CRT regimen with oral capecitabine becoming the standard. The advantages are: proven excellent treatment results (non-inferiority towards standard regimens), significant reduction of various types of toxicity and the convenience of outpatient oral capecitabine.

Assessment of Capecitabine and Bevacizumab With or Without Atezolizumab for the Treatment of Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Cotargeting vascular endothelial growth factor and programmed cell death 1 or programmed cell death ligand 1 may produce anticancer activity in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The clinical benefit of atezolizumab combined with chemotherapy and bevacizumab remains unclear for the treatment of mCRC. Objectives: To assess whether the addition of atezolizumab to capecitabine and bevacizumab therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with refractory mCRC and to perform exploratory analyses among patients with microsatellite-stable (MSS) disease and liver metastasis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind phase 2 randomized clinical trial enrolled 133 patients between September 25, 2017, and June 28, 2018 (median duration of follow-up for PFS, 20.9 months), with data cutoff on May 4, 2020. The study was conducted at multiple centers through the Academic and Community Cancer Research United network. Adult patients with mCRC who experienced disease progression while receiving fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, bevacizumab, and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody therapy (if the patient had a RAS wild-type tumor) were included. Interventions: Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive capecitabine (850 or 1000 mg/m2) twice daily on days 1 to 14 and bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) on day 1 plus either atezolizumab (1200 mg; investigational group) or placebo (placebo group) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was PFS; 110 events were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 with 80% power (1-sided α = .10). Secondary end points were objective response rate, overall survival (OS), and toxic effects. Results: Of 133 randomized patients, 128 individuals (median age, 58.0 years [IQR, 51.0-65.0 years]; 77 men [60.2%]) were assessed for efficacy (82 in the investigational group and 46 in the placebo group). Overall, 15 patients (11.7%) self-identified as African American or Black, 8 (6.3%) as Asian, 1 (0.8%) as Pacific Islander, 101 (78.9%) as White, 1 (0.8%) as multiple races (Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and White), and 2 (1.6%) as unknown race or unsure of race. Microsatellite-stable disease was present in 110 patients (69 in the investigational group and 41 in the placebo group). Median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 4.1-6.4 months) in the investigational group and 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.2-6.2 months) in the placebo group (1-sided log-rank P = .07, a statistically significant result; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.52-1.09). Among patients with MSS and proficient mismatch repair, the HR for PFS was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.44-0.99). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events in the investigational vs placebo groups were hypertension (6 patients [7.0%] vs 2 patients [4.3%]), diarrhea (6 patients [7.0%] vs 2 patients [4.3%]), and hand-foot syndrome (6 patients [7.0%] vs 2 patients [4.3%]). One treatment-related death occurred in the investigational group. In the investigational group, the response rate was higher among patients without liver metastasis (3 of 13 individuals [23.1%]) vs with liver metastasis (4 of 69 individuals [5.8%]). The benefit of atezolizumab for PFS and OS was greater among patients without vs with liver metastasis (primary analysis of PFS: HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.27-1.47] vs 0.77 [95% CI, 0.51-1.17]; OS: HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.11-1.02] vs 1.14 [95% CI, 0.72-1.81]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the addition of atezolizumab to capecitabine and bevacizumab therapy provided limited (ie, not clinically meaningful) clinical benefit. Patients with MSS and proficient mismatch repair tumors and those without liver metastasis benefited more from dual inhibition of the vascular endothelial growth factor and programmed cell death 1 or programmed cell death ligand 1 pathways. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02873195.

Cost-effectiveness of 12 months of capecitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer: preplanned cost-effectiveness analysis of the JFMC37-0801 study.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a 12-month regimen of oral capecitabine versus a standard 6-month regimen as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer. METHODS: We utilized patient-level data from a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial (JFMC37-0801) that investigated prolonged oral fluoropyrimidine monotherapy. The analysis considered three health states: stable disease, post-metastasis, and death. A parametric statistical model with a cure model was used to estimate the survival curve. The analysis was conducted from the Japanese public healthcare payer's perspective, considering only direct medical costs. A lifetime horizon was used, with a discount rate of 2% for both cost and health outcomes. Health outcomes were evaluated in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The estimated cure rates for colon cancer were 0.726 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.676-0.776] and 0.694 (95% CI 0.655-0.733) with the 12- and 6-month regimens, respectively; and the estimated 5-year relapse-free survival rates were 74.4% and 69.8%, respectively. The estimated lifetime cost for 12 months of capecitabine was JPY 3.365 million (USD 31,159), compared with JPY 3.376 million (USD 31,262) for 6 months. The estimated QALY were 12.48 and 11.77 for the 12- and 6-month regimens, respectively. Thus, the 12-month capecitabine regimen was dominant. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of JPY 5 million per QALY, we determined a 97.4% probability that the 12-month capecitabine regimen is more cost-effective than the 6-month regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve months of capecitabine is the favorable option for postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer from the perspective of cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine maintenance therapy plus best supportive care vs. best supportive care alone as first-line treatment of newly diagnosed metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Objectives: Maintenance therapy with capecitabine after induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (mNPC) has been confirmed to be effective. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of capecitabine as maintenance therapy for patients with mNPC from the Chinese payers' perspective. Methods: Markov model was conducted to simulate the disease progress and evaluated the economic and health outcomes of capecitabine maintenance plus best-supported care (CBSC) or best-supported care (BSC) alone for patients with mNPC. Survival data were derived from the NCT02460419 clinical trial. Costs and utilities were obtained from the standard fee database and published literature. Measured outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model robustness. Additional subgroup cost-effectiveness analyses were accomplished. Results: Throughout the course of the disease, the CBSC group provide an incremental cost of $9 734 and additional 1.16 QALYs (1.56 LYs) compared with the BSC group, resulting in an ICUR of $8 391/QALY and ICER of $6 240/LY. Moreover, the INHB was 0.89 QALYs, and the INMB was $32 034 at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $36 007/QALY. Subgroup analyses revealed that CBSC presented a positive trend of gaining an INHB in all subgroups compared with the BSC group. The results of sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of our model. Conclusion: Compared with BSC, after induction chemotherapy, CBSC as a first-line treatment was cost-effective for newly diagnosed mNPC. These results suggest capecitabine maintenance therapy after induction chemotherapy as a new option for patients with newly diagnosed mNPC.

Assessment of Drug-drug Interaction and Optimization in Capecitabine and Irinotecan Combination Regimen using a Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model.

Capecitabine and irinotecan (CPT-11) combination regimen (XELIRI) is used for colorectal cancer treatment. Capecitabine is metabolized to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) by three enzymes, including carboxylesterase (CES). CES can also convert CPT-11 to 7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptotecin (SN-38). CES is involved in the metabolic activation of both capecitabine and CPT-11, and it is possible that drug-drug interactions occur in XELIRI. Here, a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was developed to evaluate drug-drug interactions. Capecitabine (180 mg/kg) and CPT-11 (180 mg/m2) were administered to rats, and blood (250 µL) was collected from the jugular vein nine times after administration. Metabolic enzyme activities and Ki values were calculated through in vitro experiments. The plasma concentration of 5-FU in XELIRI was significantly decreased compared to capecitabine monotherapy, and metabolism of capecitabine by CES was inhibited by CPT-11. A PBPK model was developed based on the in vivo and in vitro results. Furthermore, a PBPK model-based simulation was performed with the capecitabin dose ranging from 0 to 1000mol/kg in XELIRI, and it was found that an approximately 1.7-fold dosage of capecitabine was required in XELIRI for comparable 5-FU exposure with capecitabine monotherapy. PBPK model-based simulation will contribute to the optimization of colorectal cancer chemotherapy using XELIRI.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. METHODS: A Partitioned Survival Model followed by state transition Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and effectiveness of the use of PIPAC C/D versus palliative chemotherapy in the UK. The intervention was assessed at two different levels of care, including upfront therapy (PIPAC C/D plus Oxaliplatin in combination with Capecitabine (XELOX) chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy alone) and second-line therapy (PIPAC C/D alone versus second-line chemotherapy (ramucirumab monotherapy)). Data from multiple sources, including published literature and UK-based databases, were used to inform the economic model. RESULTS: For the upfront therapy analysis, the estimated total costs in the intervention and comparator arms were £32,606 (SD: £3877) and £17,844 (SD: £920), respectively. PIPAC C/D plus XELOX led to an increase of 0.46 in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £31,868. For the second-line therapy analysis, the use of PIPAC C/D led to an increase of 0.19 in QALYs and a £21,474 reduction in costs, meaning the intervention was a dominant strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness results for the upfront therapy analysis indicate that PIPAC C/D plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective strategy. Additionally, PIPAC C/D alone as a second-line therapy has the potential to reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes for patients with advanced gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis.

Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage III Colon Cancer in South African Public Hospitals.

PURPOSE: Cancer incidence is rising in low- and middle-income countries, where resource constraints often complicate therapeutic decisions. Here, we perform a cost-effectiveness analysis to identify the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy strategy for patients with stage III colon cancer treated in South African (ZA) public hospitals. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to compare lifetime costs and outcomes for patients with stage III colon cancer treated with six adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in ZA public hospitals: fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin for 3 and 6 months; capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) for 3 and 6 months; capecitabine for 6 months; and fluorouracil/leucovorin for 6 months. Transition probabilities were derived from clinical trials to estimate risks of toxicity, disease recurrence, and survival. Societal costs and utilities were obtained from literature. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in international dollars (I$) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, compared with no therapy, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of I$13,006.56. RESULTS: CAPOX for 3 months was cost-effective (I$5,381.17 and 5.74 DALYs averted) compared with no adjuvant chemotherapy. Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin for 6 months was on the efficiency frontier with 5.91 DALYs averted but, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of I$99,021.36/DALY averted, exceeded the WTP threshold. CONCLUSION: In ZA public hospitals, CAPOX for 3 months is the cost-effective adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. The optimal strategy in other settings may change according to local WTP thresholds. Decision analytic tools can play a vital role in selecting cost-effective cancer therapeutics in resource-constrained settings.

Cost-minimisation analysis of rectal cancer neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy based on fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil).

OBJECTIVES: The current standard treatment for patients with rectal cancer stage II-III is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy can be performed with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine (CPC) considered to be equivalent therapies. Medication cost is higher for CPC than for 5-FU, however, the administration of continuous 5-FU intravenous infusion is related to other costs such as those associated with outpatient facilities or central venous catheter insertion. METHODS: This retrospective study analysed the direct sanitary costs associated with the treatments and their complications from a hospital perspective. Costs in patients treated with 5-FU or CPC were measured between January 2010 and July 2018 at Mataró Hospital. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-minimisation analysis between the two treatments. We aimed to assess the cost associated with the complications related to each drug and the economic impact of applying the most efficient option. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were analysed: 32 were treated with CPC and 66 with 5-FU. Treatment cost was significantly higher for 5-FU than for CPC (2560.86±99.17 and 563.10±9.52 respectively, P=0.0001). No significant differences were found in the costs associated with treatment complications between groups (148.21±934.91 and 41.41±102.50 euros respectively, P=0.322). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the clinical equivalence shown in the available trials and previous reviews, the most efficient treatment is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with CPC. Complications associated with the treatments did not significantly modify these results. Other studies gave similar results both in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant context, reaffirmed in this study.

Effectiveness and healthcare costs of eribulin versus capecitabine among metastatic breast cancer patients in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the real-world effectiveness and costs of eribulin to those of capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes. METHODS: This study extracted data from the Health and Welfare Database in Taiwan to identify MBC patients, and then eribulin and capecitabine users were matched at a 1:1 ratio by age, residential region, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and molecular subtype of BC cell. The overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Healthcare utilization and costs between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 24,550 MBC patients were identified, and 298 patients were enrolled in each group after matching. The median OS was 11.8 months for eribulin (95%CI: 11.5-13.5 months) and 15.2 months for capecitabine (95%CI: 15.3-17.9 months; HR = 1.7, p < 0.0001). The median TTD was 4.0 months for eribulin and 6.6 months for capecitabine (HR = 1.6; p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found between the two groups in patients with >4 prior chemotherapy agents (OS: HR 1.1, 95%CI 0.8-1.5; TTD: HR 1.2, 95%CI 0.9-1.7). The total healthcare costs per patient during the treatment period were NT$580,523.8 for eribulin versus NT$497,223.8 for capecitabine (p < 0.0001), and total medication costs were NT$438,335.8 and NT$348,438.4 (p < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although eribulin showed an attenuated effect in the real-world setting in Taiwan, it may serve as an alternative for capecitabine in a heavy pretreated population. The total healthcare and medication costs were found to be higher with eribulin treatment.

3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk stage II and III colorectal cancer: 3-year follow-up of the SCOT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy administered over 6 months is the standard adjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk stage II or III colorectal cancer. However, the regimen is associated with cumulative toxicity, characterised by chronic and often irreversible neuropathy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of 3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer and to compare the toxicity, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the durations. DESIGN: An international, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, Phase III, parallel-group trial. SETTING: A total of 244 oncology clinics from six countries: UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years who had undergone curative resection for high-risk stage II or III adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum. INTERVENTIONS: The adjuvant treatment regimen was either oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil or oxaliplatin and capecitabine, randomised to be administered over 3 or 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Overall survival, adverse events, neuropathy and health-related quality of life were also assessed. The main cost categories were chemotherapy treatment and hospitalisation. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through incremental cost comparisons and quality-adjusted life-year gains between the options and was reported as net monetary benefit using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year per patient. RESULTS: Recruitment is closed. In total, 6088 patients were randomised (3044 per group) between 27 March 2008 and 29 November 2013, with 6065 included in the intention-to-treat analyses (3-month analysis, n = 3035; 6-month analysis, n = 3030). Follow-up for the primary analysis is complete. The 3-year disease-free survival rate in the 3-month treatment group was 76.7% (standard error 0.8%) and in the 6-month treatment group was 77.1% (standard error 0.8%), equating to a hazard ratio of 1.006 (95% confidence interval 0.909 to 1.114; p-value for non-inferiority = 0.012), confirming non-inferiority for 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy. Frequent adverse events (alopecia, anaemia, anorexia, diarrhoea, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, sensory neuropathy, neutropenia, pain, rash, altered taste, thrombocytopenia and watery eye) showed a significant increase in grade with 6-month duration; the greatest difference was for sensory neuropathy (grade ≥ 3 was 4% for 3-month vs.16% for 6-month duration), for which a higher rate of neuropathy was seen for the 6-month treatment group from month 4 to ≥ 5 years (p < 0.001). Quality-of-life scores were better in the 3-month treatment group over months 4-6. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed 3-month treatment to cost £4881 less over the 8-year analysis period, with an incremental net monetary benefit of £7246 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The study achieved its primary end point, showing that 3-month oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy is non-inferior to 6 months of the same regimen; 3-month treatment showed a better safety profile and cost less. For future work, further follow-up will refine long-term estimates of the duration effect on disease-free survival and overall survival. The health economic analysis will be updated to include long-term extrapolation for subgroups. We expect these analyses to be available in 2019-20. The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study translational samples may allow the identification of patients who would benefit from longer treatment based on the molecular characteristics of their disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59757862 and EudraCT 2007-003957-10. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This research was supported by the Medical Research Council (transferred to NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre - Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; grant reference G0601705), the Swedish Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK Core Clinical Trials Unit Funding (funding reference C6716/A9894).

Patients diagnosed with bowel cancer are likely to have surgery to remove the tumour. Patients diagnosed with a more advanced stage of the disease are then likely to be offered what is known as adjuvant chemotherapy ­ chemotherapy to kill any cancer cells that have already spread but cannot be seen. Adjuvant chemotherapy is usually given over 6 months using two medicines known as oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine. This chemotherapy has side effects of diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, and it reduces the numbers of cells in the blood. It can also damage nerves, which causes discomfort, numbness and tingling; in some cases, this can go on for years. These side effects are more likely to develop with longer treatment. This study looked at whether or not shortening the time over which patients were given oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy reduced its effectiveness. In this large study of over 6000 patients, half of the patients were allocated by chance to be treated for 3 months and the other half to be treated for 6 months. Reducing the time that patients had chemotherapy from 6 months to 3 months did not make the treatment less effective. When patients treated with chemotherapy over 3 months were compared with those treated over 6 months, 77% of patients in both groups were well with no detectable disease 3 years after surgery. Patients were less likely to get side effects with 3-month chemotherapy. In particular, the chance of persistent long-term nerve damage was lower, resulting in patients with 3-month chemotherapy having better health-related quality of life. Overall, the study showed that 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with bowel cancer is as effective as 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy and causes fewer side effects.