Cost-effectiveness of ivosidenib versus chemotherapy for previously treated IDH1-mutant advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend ivosidenib followed by modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX) for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) with isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations. Taiwan National Health Insurance covers only fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) chemotherapy for this ICC group, and there has been no prior economic evaluation of ivosidenib. Therefore, we aimed to assess ivosidenib's cost-effectiveness in previously treated, advanced ICC-presenting IDH1 mutations compared with mFOLFOX or 5-FU/LV. METHODS: A 3-state partitioned survival model was employed to assess ivosidenib's cost-effectiveness over a 10-year horizon with a 3% discount rate, setting the willingness-to-pay threshold at 3 times the 2022 GDP per capita. Efficacy data for Ivosidenib, mFOLFOX, and 5-FU/LV were sourced from the ClarIDHy, ABC06, and NIFTY trials, respectively. Ivosidenib's cost was assumed to be NT$10,402/500 mg. Primary outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were employed to evaluate uncertainty and explore price reduction scenarios. RESULTS: Ivosidenib exhibited ICERs of NT$6,268,528 and NT$5,670,555 compared with mFOLFOX and 5-FU/LV, respectively, both exceeding the established threshold. PSA revealed that ivosidenib was unlikely to be cost-effective, except when it was reduced to NT$4,161 and NT$5,201/500 mg when compared with mFOLFOX and 5-FU/LV, respectively. DSA underscored the significant influence of ivosidenib's cost and utility values on estimate uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: At NT$10,402/500 mg, ivosidenib was not cost-effective for IDH1-mutant ICC patients compared with mFOLFOX or 5-FU/LV, indicating that a 50-60% price reduction is necessary for ivosidenib to be cost-effective in this patient group.

CDX2 Biomarker Testing and Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: An Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients with average-risk stage II (T3N0) colon cancer. Nevertheless, a subgroup of these patients who are CDX2-negative might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testing for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil combined with oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) for patients with stage II colon cancer. METHODS: We developed a decision model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with average-risk stage II colon cancer with 7.2% of these patients being CDX2-negative under 2 different interventions: (1) test for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for CDX2-negative patients and (2) no CDX2 testing and no adjuvant chemotherapy for any patient. We derived disease progression parameters, adjuvant chemotherapy effectiveness and utilities from published analyses, and cancer care costs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX for CDX2-negative patients had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5500/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with no CDX2 testing and no FOLFOX (6.874 vs 6.838 discounted QALYs and $89 991 vs $89 797 discounted US dollar lifetime costs). In sensitivity analyses, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY, testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX on CDX2-negative patients remains cost-effective for hazard ratios of <0.975 of the effectiveness of FOLFOX in CDX2-negative patients in reducing the rate of developing a metastatic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Testing tumors of patients with stage II colon cancer for CDX2 and administration of adjuvant treatment to the subgroup found CDX2-negative is a cost-effective and high-value management strategy across a broad range of plausible assumptions.

Patient-based cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRI versus FOLFOX7 for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma in China: A 4-year prospective randomised phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Using data from the 4-year follow-up results of an open, randomised, phase II study, this patient-based cost-effectiveness analysis compares mFOLFIRI (irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, the IRI arm) with mFOLFOX7 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, the OXA arm) as first-line treatments in patients with locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (GC). METHODS: A Markov model was created based on previous results reported at the 2016 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium to evaluate mFOLFIRI and mFOLFOX7 for advanced GC quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were examined as the primary outcomes. RESULTS: For the evaluable 128 patients, treatment efficacy was 0.59 QALYs for the IRI arm and 0.70 QALYs for the OXA arm, with a total cost of $13,861.34 for the IRI arm and $14,127.30 for the OXA arm. Hence, the ICER was $2,417.82 per QALY the OXA arm, which was below the threshold of 3 × per capita GDP of China. For subgroup analysis of those receiving mFOLFIRI followed by mFOLFOX7 (the IRI arm) and the reverse (the OXA arm), the OXA arm gained 0.44 more QALYs than the IRI arm with a total cost of $28,890.09 for the IRI arm and $31,147.30 for the OXA arm. However, the cost per QALY was also lower for the OXA arm than for the IRI arm, and the cost per QALY gained was $5,129.55 (below the Chinese WTP). CONCLUSION: mFOLFOX7 is a very high cost-effective alternative as the first-line treatment for those patients with advanced GC compared with mFOLFIRI.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) show a significant response to checkpoint inhibitor therapies, but the economic impact of these therapies is unknown. A decision analytic model was used to explore the effectiveness and cost burden of MSI-H/dMMR mCRC treatment. METHODS: The treatment of hypothetical patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC was simulated in 2 treatment scenarios: a third-line treatment and an exploratory first-line treatment. The treatments compared were nivolumab, ipilimumab and nivolumab, trifluridine and tipiracil (third-line treatment), and mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (first-line treatment). Disease progression, drug toxicity, and survival rates were based on the CheckMate 142, study of TAS-102 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapies (RECOURSE), and Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Southwest Oncology Group 80405 trials. The analyzed outcomes included survival (life-years), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Ipilimumab with nivolumab was the most effective strategy (10.69 life-years and 9.25 QALYs for the third line; 10.69 life-years and 9.44 QALYs for the first line) in comparison with nivolumab (8.21 life-years and 6.76 QALYs for the third line; 8.21 life-years and 7.00 QALYs for the first line), trifluridine and tipiracil (0.74 life-years and 0.07 QALYs), and mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (2.72 life-years and 1.63 QALYs). However, neither checkpoint inhibitor therapy was cost-effective in comparison with trifluridine and tipiracil (nivolumab ICER, $153,000; ipilimumab and nivolumab ICER, $162,700) or mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (nivolumab ICER, $150,700; ipilimumab and nivolumab ICER, $158,700). CONCLUSIONS: This modeling analysis found that both single and dual checkpoint blockade could be significantly more effective for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC than chemotherapy, but they were not cost-effective, largely because of drug costs. Decreases in drug pricing and/or the duration of maintenance nivolumab could make ipilimumab and nivolumab cost-effective. Prospective clinical trials should be performed to explore the optimal duration of maintenance nivolumab.

Comparisons of Efficacy, Safety, and Cost of Chemotherapy Regimens FOLFOX4 and FOLFIRINOX in Rectal Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND The currently available chemotherapeutic regimens do not use a specifically designed drug delivery system. The objective of this study was to compare outcome measures, adverse effects, and cost of FOLFOX4 and FOLFIRINOX treatments in rectal cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS We enrolled patients who, after surgery, did not undergo chemotherapy or radiotherapy (Control group); were administered 200 mg/m² folinic acid, 400 mg/m² fluorouracil, and 85 mg/m² oxaliplatin (FFO group); or were administered 400 mg/m² folinic acid, 400 mg/m² fluorouracil, 180 mg/m² irinotecan, and 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin (FFIO group). We recorded tumor and nodal staging, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, serum carcinoembryonic antigen, total cost of treatment, disease recurrence, overall survival, and adverse effects. We used the 2-tailed paired t test following Turkey post hoc test for adverse effects, recurrence analysis, and cost of treatment at 95% of confidence level. RESULTS Surgery (p=0.00089), FOLFOX4 (p=0.000167), and FOLFIRINOX (p=0.00013) improved disease-free conditions. Only surgery failed to maintain carbohydrate antigen and carcinoembryonic antigen 19-9 levels. The cost of chemotherapeutic treatments was in the order of FFIO group > FFO group > Control group. Non-fatal treatment-emergent adverse effects were due to chemotherapeutic drugs. However, fatal chemotherapeutic treatment-emergent adverse effects were observed only in the FFIO group. Overall survival, irrespective of cancerous condition, was higher in the FFO group. CONCLUSIONS FOLFIRINOX had less total cancer recurrence than FOLFOX4. However, FOLFIRINOX had more fatal treatment-emergent adverse effects and excessive cost of treatment than FOLFOX4 regimen.

Real-world cost analysis of chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in Japan: detailed costs of various regimens during the entire course of chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Various chemotherapy regimens for advanced colorectal cancer have been introduced to clinical practice in Japan over the past decade. The cost profiles of these regimens, however, remain unclear in Japan. To explore the detailed costs of different regimens used to treat advanced colorectal cancer during the entire course of chemotherapy in patients treated in a practical setting, we conducted a so-called "real-world" cost analysis. METHOD: A detailed cost analysis was performed retrospectively. Patients with advanced colorectal cancer who had received chemotherapy in a practical healthcare setting from July 2004 through October 2010 were extracted from the ordering system database of Showa University Hospital. Direct medical costs of chemotherapy regimens were calculated from the hospital billing data of the patients. The analysis was conducted from a payer's perspective. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients with advanced colorectal cancer were identified. Twenty patients received up to second-line treatment, and 8 received up to third-line treatment. The regimens identified from among all courses of treatment in all patients were 13 oxaliplatin-based regimens, 31 irinotecan-based regimens, and 11 regimens including molecular targeted agents. The average (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) monthly cost during the overall period from the beginning of treatment to the end of treatment was 308,363 (258,792 to 357,933) Japanese yen (JPY). According to the type of regimen, the average monthly cost was 418,463 (357,413 to 479,513) JPY for oxaliplatin-based regimens, 215,499 (188,359 to 242,639) JPY for irinotecan-based regimens, and 705,460 (586,733 to 824,187) JPY for regimens including molecular targeted agents. Anticancer drug costs and hospital fees accounted for 50 to 77% and 11 to 25% of the overall costs of chemotherapy, respectively. CONCLUSION: The costs of irinotecan-based regimens were lower than those of oxaliplatin-based regimens and regimens including molecular targeted agents in Japan. Using a lower cost regimen for first-line treatment can potentially reduce the overall cost of chemotherapy. The main cost drivers were the anticancer drug costs and hospitalization costs.

[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.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a chemoresponse assay for treatment of patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical validation of a chemoresponse assay was recently published, demonstrating a significant increase in overall survival in recurrent ovarian cancer patients treated with therapies to which their tumor was sensitive in the assay. The current study investigates the cost effectiveness of using the assay at the time of ovarian cancer recurrence from the payer's perspective. METHODS: Using a Markov state transition model, patient characteristics and survival data from the recent clinical study, the cumulative costs over the study horizon (71 months) for both the baseline (no assay) and intervention (assay consistent, hypothetical) cohorts were evaluated. RESULTS: The assay consistent cohort had an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $6206 per life year saved (LYS), as compared to the baseline cohort. Cost-effectiveness was further demonstrated in platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant populations treated with assay-sensitive therapies, with ICERs of $2773 per LYS and $2736 per LYS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a chemoresponse assay to inform treatment decisions in recurrent ovarian cancer patients has the potential to be cost-effective in both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant patients.

[Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Panitumumab Plus mFOLFOX6 Compared to Bevacizumab Plus mFOLFOX6 for First-line Treatment of Patients with Wild-type RAS Metastatic Colorectal Cancer--Czech Republic Model Adaptation]. / Analýza nákladové efektivity porovnávající panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 a bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 v první linii metastatického kolorektálního karcinomu s expresí nemutovaného typu onkogenu RAS--adaptace modelu na podmínky Ceské republiky.

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

Budget impact analysis of introducing fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and biologics in the United States from the payer perspective.

AIMS: Fruquintinib is a selective small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3 recently approved in the United States (US) for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who have previously been treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF biological therapy, and if RAS wild-type and medically appropriate, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. This study aimed to estimate the 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib from a US payer perspective (commercial and Medicare). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to compare two scenarios: a reference scenario in which patients received regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, or trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab and an alternative scenario in which patients received reference scenario treatments or fruquintinib. Market shares were evenly divided across available options. A 5-year time horizon and a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members was assumed. The model included epidemiological inputs to estimate the eligible population; clinical inputs for treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse event (AE) frequency; and cost inputs for treatment, AEs, disease management, subsequent therapy, and terminal care costs. Budget impact was reported as total, per member per year (PMPY), and per member per month (PMPM). RESULTS: The model estimated an eligible population of 194 patients (39 per year) over 5 years. In the base case, the estimated 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib was $4,077,073 ($0.82 PMPY and 0.07 PMPM) for a commercial health plan. During the first year, the estimated budget impact was $627,570 ($0.63 PMPY and 0.05 PMPM). Results were robust across sensitivity analyses. PMPM costs from the Medicare perspective were greater than the base-case (commercial) ($0.17 vs. $0.07) due to higher incidence of CRC in that population. CONCLUSIONS: Fruquintinib is associated with a low budget impact for payers based on proposed thresholds in the US.

Fruquintinib is a treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after or not responded to multiple guideline-recommended therapies. This budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the added costs a health plan would incur over a 5-year period if it chose to cover this therapy. The analysis found that the per plan member per month cost of covering fruquintinib was $0.07 for a United States commercial health plan and $0.17 for Medicare.

Adverse event costs of systemic therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and biologics in the US.

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare adverse event (AE) management costs for fruquintinib, regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) and trifluridine/tipiracil+bevacizumab (T/T+bev) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy from the US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. Materials & methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to calculate the per-patient and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) AE costs using rates of grade 3/4 AEs with incidence ≥5% in clinical trials, event-specific management costs and duration treatment. Anchored comparisons of AE costs were calculated using a difference-in-differences approach with best supportive care (BSC) as a common reference. AE rates and treatment duration were obtained from clinical trials: FRESCO and FRESCO-2 (fruquintinib), RECOURSE (T/T), CORRECT (regorafenib) and SUNLIGHT (T/T, T/T+bev). AE management costs for the commercial and Medicare perspectives were obtained from publicly available sources. Results: From the commercial perspective, the AE costs (presented as per-patient, PPPM) were: $4015, $1091 for fruquintinib (FRESCO); $4253, $1390 for fruquintinib (FRESCO-2); $17,110, $11,104 for T/T (RECOURSE); $9851, $4691 for T/T (SUNLIGHT); $8199, $4823 for regorafenib; and $11,620, $2324 for T/T+bev. These results were consistent in anchored comparisons: the difference-in-difference for fruquintinib based on FRESCO was -$1929 versus regorafenib and -$11,427 versus T/T; for fruquintinib based on FRESCO-2 was -$2257 versus regorafenib and -$11,756 versus T/T. Across all analyses, results were consistent from the Medicare perspective. Conclusion: Fruquintinib was associated with lower AE management costs compared with regorafenib, T/T and T/T+bev for patients with previously treated mCRC. This evidence has direct implications for treatment, formulary and pathways decision-making in this patient population.

Cost comparison and economic implications of commonly used originator and generic chemotherapy drugs in India.

Cancer treatments have improved outcomes but access to medications is an issue around the world and especially so in low- and middle-income countries, such as India. Generic substitution may lead to significant cost savings. The author aimed to compare the cost and estimate potential cost savings per cycle, per patient, and for the country as a whole with generic substitution of frequently used chemotherapy drugs in the treatment of common cancers in India. Generic paclitaxel (Taxol), docetaxel (Taxotere), gemcitabine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan cost from 8.9% to 36% of their equivalent branded originator drug, resulting in cost savings of ~ Indian Rupees (INR) 11,000 to >INR 90,000 (USD 200-1600, Euro 160-1300) per cycle; and ~INR 50,000 to >INR 240,000 (USD 900-4300, Euro 700-3400) per patient. Overall, potential yearly savings for health systems in India were nearly INR 47 billion (~USD 843 million, Euro 670 million). In conclusion, generic substitution for frequently used chemotherapy drugs in the treatment of common cancers has an enormous potential to generate significant cost savings and increase access to cancer treatments in India and other low- and middle-income countries.

Cost analysis of adjuvant therapy with XELOX or FOLFOX4 for colon cancer.

AIM: XELOX and FOLFOX4 have both been recommended as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer. This study compared the two regimens in terms of monetary costs, assuming equal efficacy of the therapies. METHOD: A retrospective financial audit was conducted of the medical records of patients treated with XELOX or FOLFOX4. All itemized expenses were classified as direct (chemotherapy, hospitalization, venous access and tests), related to adverse effects due to the adjuvant therapy, or societal (travel and time costs). The cost of supportive care was not included. RESULTS: XELOX involved less total cost to the patient than FOLFOX4 (a difference of US$2857.68), fewer costs related to adverse effects ($668.97), and less travel ($26.07) and time ($390.93) expenditure per patient. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that, overall, XELOX is a more affordable option than FOLFOX4 in China.

Comparative and cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based regimens compared with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone among US elderly stage IV colon cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown a statistically significant disease-free survival benefit of oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination regimens for stage IV colon cancer. Less is known regarding the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these agents among elderly patients. Whether the benefits of these agents justify the additional costs for elderly Medicare recipients is particularly policy relevant after US health care reform. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis of oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination therapy versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone in elderly stage IV colon cancer patients was performed from a US Medicare perspective. Survival and direct medical costs were estimated using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data sets for patients diagnosed from 2002 to 2005 with follow-up through 2007. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as costs per life-year gained, with sensitivity analysis estimating the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Median improved overall survival with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone, or irinotecan-based or oxaliplatin-based combination therapy was 0.99, 1.07, and 1.47 life-years, respectively. Costs per life-year gained for oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination regimens compared with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone were $78,181 and $267,938, respectively. ICERs comparing oxaliplatin-based to irinotecan-based regimens were $40,230 per life-year gained or $160,920 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination therapy improves overall survival but also substantially increases direct medical costs compared with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone when used in elderly US patients with stage IV colon cancer. Oxaliplatin-based regimens are more cost-effective than irinotecan-based regimens for treatment of elderly stage IV colon cancer patients in terms of cost per life-year gained, but not in terms of cost per QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant FOLFOX therapy for stage III colon cancer in Japan based on the MOSAIC trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant FOLFOX therapy versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FU/LV) for patients with stage III colorectal cancer. METHODS: We performed the cost-effectiveness of FOLFOX compared with standard FU/LV treatment by the retrospective analysis of patient-level data from the randomized controlled Multicenter International Study of Oxaliplatin, 5-Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer (MOSAIC) trial. Predicted mean time spent in each disease state was calculated by our statistical model, which takes into account the cure rate and treats death from causes other than colon cancer as a competing risk. We performed this analysis from the perspective of the health-care payer. Using a time horizon of 30 years, both cost and effectiveness were discounted by 3% per year. RESULTS: Estimated cure rates for colon cancer were 0.715 (FOLFOX) and 0.622 (FU/LV). Estimated medical costs of FOLFOX were JPY 3.1 million (USD 34,000) compared with JPY 1.9 million (USD 22,000) of FU/LV. The mean estimated quality-adjusted life-year was 9.83 with FOLFOX and 9.07 with that of FU/LV. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FOLFOX was JPY 1.5 million (USD 17,000) per quality-adjusted life-year compared with FU/LV, which was supported by sensitivity analysis. Even if we assume that Japanese outcomes were better than those reported by the MOSAIC trial, which would reduce the difference between cure rates for each treatment to 5%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained below 5.0 million (USD 56,000) per quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant FOLFOX is a cost-effective treatment for stage III colon cancer in Japan compared with FU/LV therapy. Even when parameters were changed to reflect smaller improvements with FOLFOX, the conclusion is the same.

The cost-effectiveness of different chemotherapy strategies for patients with poor prognosis advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the value for money of alternative chemotherapy strategies for managing advanced colorectal cancer using irinotecan or oxaliplatin, either in sequence or in combination with fluorouracil. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using data from the U.K. fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and CPT11 (irinotecan)--use and sequencing (FOCUS) trial. The analysis adopted the perspective of the U.K. National Health Service. Input parameters were derived using a system of risk equations (for probabilities), count data regression models (for resource use), and generalized linear models (for utilities). Parameter estimates were obtained using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods, propagating the simulation values through the state-transition model to characterize appropriately the joint distributions of expected cost, survival and quality-adjusted life years for each treatment strategy. An acceptability frontier was used to represent the probability that the optimal option is cost-effective at different values of the cost-effectiveness threshold. RESULTS: The base-case analysis used drug unit costs provided by a typical English hospital. First-line doublet therapy combination therapy fluorouracil (5FU) plus irinotecan was the most cost-effective strategy at standard thresholds, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £14,877 (pound sterling) compared with first-line 5FU until treatment failure followed by single agent irinotecan. Other strategies were all subject to extended dominance. A sensitivity analysis using published drug (list) prices found the most cost-effective strategy would be first-line fluorouracil until failure followed by 5FU plus irinotecan (ICER: £19,753). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of 5FU and irinotecan (whether used first or second line) appears to be more cost-effective than the single agent sequential therapies used in the FOCUS trial, or 5FU plus oxaliplatin.

Cost identification of Nordic FLIRI, Nordic FLOX, XELIRI and XELOX in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in Sweden -- a clinical practice model approach.

INTRODUCTION: The role of health-related economy is crucial due to the finite healthcare resources. Intravenous (i.v.) regimes Nordic FLOX and Nordic FLIRI, and the partly oral alternatives XELIRI and XELOX are four commonly used chemotherapies in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Scandinavian countries, all with different costs. AIM: To describe and compare costs associated with four commonly used treatments for advanced CRC in clinical routine practice. An additional aim was to evaluate the theoretical cost impact of adverse effects associated with the therapies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The retrospective study was carried out using observations and a clinical quality database of CRC patients treated with Nordic FLOX, Nordic FLIRI, XELIRI and XELOX as first line at an oncology clinic in Gothenburg, Sweden. The treatments are used in parallel in clinical practice. All patients treated from 2003 to 2009 were included. The clinical outcome of the therapies was equivalent; mean treatment time was 5.9-7.7 months. A clinical economic evaluation model was designed. All direct costs associated with the baseline treatment, administration of chemotherapy and drug costs were collected and evaluated. RESULTS: The maximum cost for the four treatments was estimated to be 72 000-75 000 SEK per patient for six months, of this approximately 8000 SEK was linked to treatment of toxicity. During six months the i.v. treatments could include 17 more outpatient visits per patient compared to the oral alternatives. During treatment at the clinic around 20% of the patients were hospitalised (XELOX excluded, because of few included patients). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the four regimens are similar in terms of treatment costs. Different costs affect the total cost. The oral alternative makes it possible to treat additional patients with the same labour force resources. Treatment of adverse effects contributes to extensive resource use at the hospital.

[Cost analysis of XELOX and FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy regimens for colorectal carcinoma]. / Porovnání nákladu u rezimu XELOX a FOLFOX-4 v lécbe kolorektálního karcinomu.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to compare healthcare-related costs of treatment with XELOX and FOLFOX4 chemotherapeutic regimens in patients with colorectal cancer. We have evaluated costs claimed to the health insurance by the hospital administering these cancer therapies. This study is a pilot project utilising the new I-COP database developed by the Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses of the Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: First, we estimated the costs based on current prices of procedures, medication, and materials from public sources. Using the I-COP database, we then carried out a matched-pair comparison of 26 patients treated with FOLFOX4 or XELOX for colorectal cancer. We evaluated a period of three months of therapy (i.e. 6 cycles of FOLFOX4 or 4 cycles of XELOX). Statistical analysis was done using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. RESULTS: The estimated cost for three months of therapy was 148,288 Czech crowns (CZK) for FOLFOX4 (including CZK 101,064 for chemotherapy drugs) and CZK 123,756 for XELOX. The overall costs claimed to the insurance companies were CZK 160,158 and CZK 151,176 for FOLFOX4 and XELOX, respectively (p = 0.221). The XELOX regimen had significantly higher costs for chemotherapy drugs (CZK 131,705 versus 114,531, p = 0.023) whereas other costs were lower than those for FOLFOX4. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOX4 and XELOX regimens can be considered as equivalent in terms of costs claimed by the hospital administering cancer treatment.

Cost-analysis of XELOX and FOLFOX4 for treatment of colorectal cancer to assist decision-making on reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: XELOX (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX 4 (5-FU + folinic acid + oxaliplatin) have shown similar improvements in survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). A US cost-minimization study found that the two regimens had similar costs from a healthcare provider perspective but XELOX had lower costs than FOLFOX4 from a societal perspective, while a Japanese cost-effectiveness study found XELOX had superior cost-effectiveness. This study compared the costs of XELOX and FOLFOX4 in patients with MCRC recently treated in two oncology departments in Hong Kong. METHODS: Cost data were collected from the medical records of 60 consecutive patients (30 received XELOX and 30 FOLFOX4) from two hospitals. Drug costs, outpatient visits, hospital days and investigations were recorded and expressed as cost per patient from the healthcare provider perspective. Estimated travel and time costs were included in a societal perspective analysis. All costs were classed as either scheduled (associated with planned chemotherapy and follow-up) or unscheduled (unplanned visits or admissions and associated tests and medicines). Costs were based on government and hospital sources and expressed in US dollars (US$). RESULTS: XELOX patients received an average of 7.3 chemotherapy cycles (of the 8 planned cycles) and FOLFOX4 patients received 9.2 cycles (of the 12 planned cycles). The scheduled cost per patient per cycle was $2,046 for XELOX and $2,152 for FOLFOX4, while the unscheduled cost was $240 and $421, respectively. Total treatment cost per patient was $16,609 for XELOX and $23,672 for FOLFOX4; the total cost for FOLFOX4 was 37% greater than that of XELOX. The addition of the societal costs increased the total treatment cost per patient to $17,836 for XELOX and $27,455 for FOLFOX4. Sensitivity analyses showed XELOX was still less costly than FOLFOX4 when using full drug regimen costs, incorporating data from a US model with costs and adverse event data from their clinical trial and with the removal of oxaliplatin from both treatment arms. Capecitabine would have to cost around four times its present price in Hong Kong for the total resource cost of treatment with XELOX to equal that of FOLFOX4. CONCLUSION: XELOX costs less than FOLFOX4 for this patient group with MCRC from both the healthcare provider and societal perspectives.

Economic and patient-reported outcomes of outpatient home-based versus inpatient hospital-based chemotherapy for patients with colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the economic- and patient-reported outcomes between outpatient home-based and inpatient hospital-based chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer patients. METHODS: A total of 80 patients from Severance Hospital in Seoul, Korea, who had stage III colorectal cancer and underwent home-based (n = 40) or hospital-based chemotherapy (n = 40) with a FOLFOX regimen between January 2007 and April 2008 were enrolled. Patient satisfaction data were collected by a self-administered questionnaire survey. Based on hospital charge records, average cost (in 2008 Korean won (KW)) per chemotherapy session was estimated and compared between home- and hospital-based chemotherapy from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Patients receiving chemotherapy at home showed higher satisfaction with their treatment (mean satisfaction score 3.58 ± 0.15, 5-point Likert-type scale, with a higher score indicating higher satisfaction) than did those treated at the hospital (3.23 ± 0.21; p < 0.01). After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups using multivariate analysis, those receiving home-based chemotherapy still showed significantly higher satisfaction than those undergoing hospital-based therapy (ß = 0.271, p < 0.001). Additionally, home-based therapy reduced the cost per chemotherapy session by 16.6%, compared with hospital-based treatment (1,694,216 versus 2,030,383 KW, 1,200 KW ≈ 1 US dollar). The largest cost reduction was attributable to medical costs (-201,122 KW), followed by caregiver's opportunity costs (-135,000 KW). CONCLUSIONS: Higher satisfaction and lower economic cost for home-based chemotherapy suggests that home-based chemotherapy could be a popular and cost-effective treatment option for colorectal cancer patients who are eligible for home-based chemotherapy.