Cost-utility analysis of stereotactic body radiotherapy plus cetuximab in previously irradiated recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plus cetuximab for patients with previously irradiated recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: We constructed a Markov health-state transition model to simulate costs and clinical outcomes of recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Model parameters were derived from the published literature and the National Health Insurance Administration reimbursement price list. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the net monetary benefit were calculated from a health payer perspective. The impact of uncertainty was modeled with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base-case, SBRT plus cetuximab compared to SBRT alone resulted in an ICER of NT$ 840,455 per QALY gained. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the utility of progression-free state for patients treated with SBRT plus cetuximab or SBRT alone and the cost of progression-free survival for SBRT+Cet were the most sensitive parameters in the model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of NT$ 2,252,340 per QALY was 100% for SBRT plus cetuximab but 0% for SBRT alone. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that SBRT+Cet was cost-effective and benefited patients with previously irradiated rSCCHN.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab combined with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer based on the TAILOR trial.

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.

Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Panitumumab Plus FOLFIRI for the Second-Line Treatment of Patients with Wild-Type Ras Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs FOLFIRI + bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in Germany: data from the FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study.

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.

Concurrent cisplatin or cetuximab with radiotherapy for HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer: Medical resource use, costs, and quality-adjusted survival from the De-ESCALaTE HPV trial.

BACKGROUND: The De-ESCALaTE HPV trial confirmed the dominance of cisplatin over cetuximab for tumour control in patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Here, we present the analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), resource use, and health care costs in the trial, as well as complete 2-year survival and recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resource use and HRQoL data were collected at intervals from the baseline to 24 months post treatment (PT). Health care costs were estimated using UK-based unit costs. Missing data were imputed. Differences in mean EQ-5D-5L utility index and adjusted cumulative quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and linear regression, respectively. Mean resource usage and costs were compared through two-sample t-tests. RESULTS: 334 patients were randomised to cisplatin (n = 166) or cetuximab (n = 168). Two-year overall survival (97·5% vs 90·0%, HR: 3.268 [95% CI 1·451 to 7·359], p = 0·0251) and recurrence rates (6·4% vs 16·0%, HR: 2·67 [1·38 to 5·15]; p = 0·0024) favoured cisplatin. No significant differences in EQ-5D-5L utility scores were detected at any time point. At 24 months PT, mean difference was 0·107 QALYs in favour of cisplatin (95% CI: 0·186 to 0·029, p = 0·007) driven by the mortality difference. Health care costs were similar across all categories except the procurement cost and delivery of the systemic agent, with cetuximab significantly more expensive than cisplatin (£7779 [P < 0.001]). Consequently, total costs at 24 months PT averaged £13517 (SE: £345) per patient for cisplatin and £21064 (SE: £400) for cetuximab (mean difference £7547 [95% CI: £6512 to £8582]). CONCLUSIONS: Cisplatin chemoradiotherapy provided more QALYs and was less costly than cetuximab bioradiotherapy, remaining standard of care for nonsurgical treatment of HPV-positive OPSCC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of selective first-line use of biologics for unresectable RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer.

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 (wtRAS 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 wtRAS 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 wtRAS 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.

Cost-effectiveness of Molecular Profile Patient Selection for First-line Treatment of Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer.

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

The Pharmacoeconomic Analysis of Cetuximab and Panitumumab in the 1st Line Treatment of mCRC in Real Clinical Practice in the Czech Republic.

BACKGROUND: The anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) drugs cetuximab and panitumumab are currently reimbursed when administered during the first and subsequent lines of treatment of patients in the Czech Republic with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Because cetuximab and panitumumab do not show significant differences in efficacy, their choice may be dependent on cost. This retrospective study analyzed the costs of first-line treatment with cetuximab and panitumumab of patients with mCRC and wild type KRAS, as well as evaluated the correlations between costs and effectiveness, as determined by progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis included 51 patients with mCRC and confirmed wild type KRAS treated at the comprehensive cancer centre in the Czech Republic between November 2011 and April 2018. Of these 51 patients, 22 were treated with cetuximab and 29 with panitumumab. Direct medical costs (medications, clinical examinations and procedures, and hospitalization) were evaluated from the initiation of treatment with anti-EGFR drug to disease progression and death. Mean follow-up was 21 months in the cetuximab group and 19 months in the panitumumab group. RESULTS: Reimbursement for anti-EGFR drugs until disease progression accounted for 71% (mean, 964,288 CZK per patient) of total costs in the cetuximab group and 77% (mean, 1,003,229 CZK per patient) of total costs in the panitumumab group, with median PFS in these two groups being 10.7 months and 8.1 months, respectively. Reimbursement of expensive center drugs from the start of anti-EGFR treatment to patient death accounted for 55% of total costs in the cetuximab group (mean, 1,752,702 CZK per patient) and 63% of total costs in the panitumumab group (mean, 1,596,919 CZK per patient), with median OS in these two groups being 20.2 months and 19.8 months, respectively. No significant between-group differences in clinical effectiveness and costs of treatment were observed (p > 0.05 each). CONCLUSION: Reimbursement for biological agents is the most expensive item in the first-line treatment of mCRC patients with wild type KRAS, both to disease progression and death. The clinical effectiveness and costs of cetuximab and panitumumab did not differ significantly. Supported by CZECRIN (identification code LM2015090); CZECRIN_4 PACIENTY (No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_013/0001826). The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study. The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE recommendation for biomedical papers. Submitted: 30. 4. 2019 Accepted: 17. 6. 2019.

The economic impact of the transition from branded to generic oncology drugs.

Background: Economic evaluations are an integral component of many clinical trials. Costs used in those analyses are based on the prices of branded drugs when they first enter the market. The effect of genericization on the cost-effectiveness (ce) or cost-utility (cu) of an intervention is unknown because economic analyses are rarely updated using the costs of generic drugs. Methods: We re-examined the ce or cu of regimens previously evaluated in Canadian Cancer Trials Group (cctg) studies that included prospective economic evaluations and where genericization has occurred or is anticipated in Canada. We incorporated the new costs of generic drugs to characterize changes in ce or cu. We also determined acceptable cost levels of generic drugs that would make regimens reimbursable in a publicly funded health care system. Results: The four randomized controlled trials included (representing 1979 patients) were cctg br.10 (early lung cancer, adjuvant vinorelbine-cisplatin vs. observation, n = 172), cctg br.21 (metastatic lung cancer, erlotinib vs. placebo, n = 731), cctg co.17 (metastatic colon cancer, cetuximab vs. best supportive care, n = 557), and cctg ly.12 (relapsed or refractory lymphoma, gemcitabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin vs. cytarabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin, n = 619). Since the initial publication of those trials, the genericization of vinorelbine, erlotinib, cetuximab, and cisplatin has taken place or is expected in Canada. Costs of generics improved the ces and cus of treatment significantly. For example, genericization of erlotinib ($1460.25 per 30 days) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $45,746 per life-year gained compared with $94,638 for branded erlotinib. Likewise, genericization of cetuximab ($275.80 per 100 mg) produced an icer of $261,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained compared with $299,613 for branded cetuximab. Decreases in the cost of generic cetuximab to $129.39 and $63.51 would further improve the icer to $150,000 and $100,000 per QALY respectively. Conclusions: Genericization of a costly oncology drug can modify the ce and cu of a regimen significantly. Failure to revisit economic analyses with the costs of generics could be a missed opportunity for funding bodies to optimize value-based allocation of health care resources. At current levels, the costs of generics might not be sufficiently low to sustain publicly funded health care systems.

Rationale and budget impact of bimonthly use of Cetuximab in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: In recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer, Cetuximab is administered once a week, followed by weekly doses. We present the clinical rationale of a different schedule of maintenance Cetuximab and we estimate the potential economic benefits on the health care budget from a societal perspective in Italy. METHODS: A budget impact (BI) excel-based model was developed comparing a base case scenario of 100% weekly administration with a dose of 250 mg/m2 to an every-other-week (EOW) administration at 50% or 100% with a dose of 500 mg/m2 . RESULTS: In the EOW, 50% scenario it was calculated a cost reduction of €347 000 of which 70% attributable to indirect costs, increasing to €694 000 after 4 months. CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis, we showed that this simplified schedule could also reduce the costs of treatments both for the health system (direct costs) and for the society (indirect costs).

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab, and Panitumumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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

Comparing outcomes of concurrent chemotherapy regimens in patients 65 years old or older with locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy of cisplatin (CDDP), carboplatin, and cetuximab (CTX) delivered concurrently with radiation for locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma continues to be evaluated. METHODS: The linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was used to identify and compare patient and disease profiles, mortality, toxicity, and overall cost for patients with oropharynx cancer undergoing definitive concurrent chemoradiation with CDDP, carboplatin, or CTX between 2006 and 2011. The human papillomavirus status was unknown. The primary outcome was 2-year overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Four hundred nine patients receiving concurrent CDDP (n = 167), carboplatin (n = 69), or CTX (n = 173) were included. Those who were older, those who were nonwhite, and those with a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 2 were less likely to receive CDDP. Two-year OS was inferior with CTX (hazard ratio [HR], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-2.60; P = .020) and no different with carboplatin (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.73-2.35; P = .362) in a Cox proportional hazards model (reference CDDP). There was no statistically significant difference between carboplatin and CTX (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.77-2.14; P = .891). Rates of antiemetic use and hospital visits for nausea/emesis/diarrhea or dehydration were statistically higher with CDDP. Pneumonia rates were higher with carboplatin. In the multivariate model, the corrected mean per-patient spending was significantly higher for CTX and carboplatin than CDDP ($61,133 and $65,721 vs $48,709). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received CDDP had improved OS. CDDP was also associated with slightly lower overall costs and higher antiemetic usage and hospital visit rates, although a strong selection bias was observed because those receiving CTX and carboplatin were older and had higher comorbidity scores.

Consequences of Biomarker Analysis on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab in Combination with FOLFIRI as a First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Personalised Medicine at Work.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of salvage therapies in locoregional previously irradiated head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to present our evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of salvage therapies for patients with recurrent head and neck cancer. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with 5 salvage treatment strategies: (1) platinum-based chemotherapy alone; (2) chemotherapy plus cetuximab; (3) stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) alone; (4) SBRT plus cetuximab; and (5) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plus chemotherapy. Clinical parameters were obtained from comprehensive literature review and 2016 Medicare reimbursement. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and evaluated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, no treatment strategy was cost-effective at a WTP threshold. The most cost-effective therapy was SBRT alone with $150 866 per QALY gained. If median survival of SBRT alone was ≥11 months, SBRT was considered to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: None of the treatment strategies were cost-effective. However, SBRT-based reirradiation has potential to be cost-effective.

Economic Analysis of First-Line Treatment with Cetuximab or Panitumumab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in England.

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.

[Economic Evaluation of mFOLFOX6-based First-line Regimens for Unresectable Advanced or Recurrent Colorectal Cancer Using Clinical Decision Analysis].

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab as First-line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating recent phase III clinical trial (FIRE-3) data to evaluate clinical and economic tradeoffs associated with first-line treatments of KRAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using FIRE-3 data to project survival and lifetime costs of FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab. Hypothetical KRAS-WT mCRC patients initiated first-line treatment and could experience adverse events, disease progression warranting second-line treatment, or clinical response and hepatic metastasectomy. Model inputs were derived from FIRE-3 and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported as US$ per life year (LY) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Scenario analyses considered patients with extended RAS mutations and CALGB/SWOG 80405 data; 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared with bevacizumab, KRAS-WT patients receiving first-line cetuximab gained 5.7 months of life at a cost of $46,266, for an ICER of $97,223/LY ($122,610/QALY). For extended RAS-WT patients, the ICER was $77,339/LY ($99,584/QALY). Cetuximab treatment was cost-effective 80.3% of the time, given a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/LY. Results were sensitive to changes in survival, treatment duration, and product costs. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of FIRE-3 data suggests that first-line treatment with cetuximab and FOLFIRI in KRAS (and extended RAS) WT mCRC patients may improve health outcomes and use financial resources more efficiently than bevacizumab and FOLFIRI. This information, in combination with other studies investigating comparative effectiveness of first-line options, can be useful to clinicians, payers, and policymakers in making treatment and resource allocation decisions for mCRC patients.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (review of technology appraisal no. 176) and panitumumab (partial review of technology appraisal no. 240) for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast, lung and prostate cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually treated with active chemotherapy as first- or second-line therapy. Targeted agents are available, including the antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents cetuximab (Erbitux®, Merck Serono UK Ltd, Feltham, UK) and panitumumab (Vecitibix®, Amgen UK Ltd, Cambridge, UK). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy and cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy for rat sarcoma (RAS) wild-type (WT) patients for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. DATA SOURCES: The assessment included a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, a review and critique of manufacturer submissions, and a de novo cohort-based economic analysis. For the assessment of effectiveness, a literature search was conducted up to 27 April 2015 in a range of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of RCTs of cetuximab or panitumumab in participants with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS WT status. All steps in the review were performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Narrative synthesis and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted for outcomes of interest. An economic model was developed focusing on first-line treatment and using a 30-year time horizon to capture costs and benefits. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses and probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The searches identified 2811 titles and abstracts, of which five clinical trials were included. Additional data from these trials were provided by the manufacturers. No data were available for panitumumab plus irinotecan-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + irinotecan) (FOLFIRI) in previously untreated patients. Studies reported results for RAS WT subgroups. First-line treatment with anti-EGFR therapies in combination with chemotherapy appeared to have statistically significant benefits for patients who are RAS WT. For the independent economic evaluation, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RAS WT patients for cetuximab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin) (FOLFOX) compared with FOLFOX was £104,205 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained; for panitumumab plus FOLFOX compared with FOLFOX was £204,103 per QALY gained; and for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI was £122,554 per QALY gained. The ICERs were sensitive to treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival (resected patients only) and resection rates. LIMITATIONS: The trials included RAS WT populations only as subgroups. No evidence was available for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI. Two networks were used for the NMA and model, based on the different chemotherapies (FOLFOX and FOLFIRI), as insufficient evidence was available to the assessment group to connect these networks. CONCLUSIONS: Although cetuximab and panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy appear to be clinically beneficial for RAS WT patients compared with chemotherapy alone, they are likely to represent poor value for money when judged by cost-effectiveness criteria currently used in the UK. It would be useful to conduct a RCT in patients with RAS WT. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016111. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab and panitumumab for chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab and panitumumab are monoclonal antibodies targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor. Both drugs are active against RAS wild type metastatic colorectal cancer after chemotherapy failure, with similar efficacy and toxicity profiles. However, their cost and limited survival benefits may compromise incorporation in the Brazilian public healthcare system, the Unified Heath System (Sistema Único de Saúde) (SUS). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model from the Brazilian Public health perspective and a lifetime horizon in patients with RAS -wt mCRC. Transition probabilities and mortality rates were extracted from randomized studies. Treatment costs were obtained from price tables regulated by the Brazilian Health Ministry. The World Health Organization recommendation of three times GDP per capita was used to define the cost-effectiveness threshold. RESULTS: The use of cetuximab or panitumumab for chemotherapy-refractory mCRC patients resulted in 0.22 additional life-years relative to BSC, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $58,240 and $52,772 per LY, respectively. That exceeds the pre-specified threshold for cost-effectiveness. Acquisition of biological agents was the major driver of increased costs. CONCLUSIONS: Our economic evaluation demonstrates that both cetuximab and panitumumab are not a cost-effective approach in RAS-wt mCRC patients. Discussion about drug price should be prioritized to enable incorporation of these monoclonal antibodies in the SUS.