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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Hepatic Arterial Chemotherapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China: A Comparative Analysis of HAIC-FO and Sorafenib.

BACKGROUND The FOHAIC-1 trial showed hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (HAIC-FO) improved survival, compared with sorafenib, in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness comparison between HAIC-FO and sorafenib from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. MATERIAL AND METHODS The economic evaluation was conducted between July 2023 and February 2024, spanning a 10-year investment horizon. A Markov model was developed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of HAIC-FO vs sorafenib. Health states incorporated in the model comprised progression-free disease, progressed disease, and death. Transition probabilities were derived from data obtained from the FOHAIC-1 trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Additionally, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the model's robustness. RESULTS The HAIC-FO group accrued a total cost of $22,781, whereas the sorafenib group totaled $18,795. In terms of effectiveness, the HAIC-FO group achieved 1.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), whereas the sorafenib group attained 0.65 QALYs. Compared with sorafenib, HAIC-FO yielded an additional 0.41 QALYs at a cost of additional $3,985, resulting in an incremental cost of $9,720 per QALY gained. The one-way sensitivity analysis revealed the final ICER remained below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,492 per QALY, when considering parameter fluctuations. Additionally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 99.8% probability that the ICER for HAIC-FO compared with sorafenib would fall below the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS Compared with sorafenib, HAIC-FO emerged as a cost-effective first-line treatment option for patients facing advanced HCC in China.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FOLFIRI-Based First-Line Regimens for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Using Clinical Decision Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Metastatic colorectal cancer with KRAS wild type is treated using a range of drug regimens, including fluorouracil, irinotecan, and Leucovorin(FOLFIRI)plus bevacizumab(Bmab), cetuximab(Cmab), or panitumumab(Pmab). The present study aimed to identify the optimal regimen using a decision analysis method, in combination with clinical and economic evidence. METHOD: A simple Markov model with a monthly cycle time was constructed. Probabilistic variables for input into the model were derived from randomized controlled trials. Direct costs for the drugs, laboratory analyses, and medical staff were calculated and used in the model. RESULTS: The expected survival times and costs of FOLFIRI alone and combination therapies were 20.9 months and 2,299,198 yen for FOLFIRI, 29.9 months and 8,929,888 yen for Bmab, 27.8 months and 11,811,849 yen for Cmab, and 22.6 months and 8,795,622 yen for Pmab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to FOLFIRI were 736,743 yen/month for Bmab, 1,378,645 yen/month for Cmab, and 3,821,426 yen/month for Pmab. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggested that these regimens were not sufficiently cost-effective, although they have excellent therapeutic efficacy. From the economic point of view, these combination regimens were inferior to FOLFIRI alone.

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.

Conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv enables budget-neutral access to FOLFIRINOX treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Aim: To estimate the cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that can be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: Simulation modeling in a panel of 2500 FOLFIRINOX-treated patients, using varying treatment duration (1-12 cycles) and conversion rates (10-100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional FOLFIRINOX treatment that could be budget neutral. Results: In a 2500-patient panel at 100% conversion, savings of US$6,907.41 per converted patient over 12 cycles of prophylaxis translate to US$17.3 million and could provide 72,273 additional FOLFIRINOX doses or 6023 full 6-month regimens. Conclusion: Conversion to biosimilar CIN/FN prophylaxis can generate significant cost-savings and provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Lay abstract Pegfilgrastim is used to prevent low white blood cell count in patients receiving chemotherapy. Comparable to a generic version of a drug, a biosimilar is a follow-on version of a biologic treatment. The authors calculated the savings from using biosimilar pegfilgrastim in a hypothetical group of 2500 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and then computed the number of additional doses of FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy that could be purchased with those savings. Using biosimilar pegfilgrastim for 12 cycles could save US$6,907.41 per patient. If all 2500 patients were treated with biosimilar pegfilgrastim, US$17.3 million could be saved. This could provide 72,273 additional FOLFIRINOX doses. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim can generate significant savings to purchase chemotherapy for additional patients cost-free.

The economic burden of metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Objectives: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a costly disease with a limited life-expectancy as it generally presents as an advanced, metastatic disease. Though current literature suggests cost varies by first line treatment, there is limited real-world knowledge about the economic burden of pancreatic cancer. This study describes the economic burden of pancreatic cancer patients overall and by observed first line treatments. METHODS: The IBM MarketScan databases were used to identify adult metastatic PC patients from January 1, 2010 through 3/31/2017. Those without other primary cancers, pregnancy, or prior PC treatment, and with 6 months of continuous enrollment prior to PC were included. Treatment patterns and healthcare utilization and expenditures were measured during the variable-length follow-up period. Continuous measures were presented as per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: A total of 6,360 patients met all inclusion criteria. Almost half (46.8%) of patients were untreated. Gemcitabine alone (15.6%) and FOLFIRINOX (11.4%) were the most commonly observed first line regimens. Treated patients incurred $17,513 PPPM (Gemcitabine alone) to $27,889 PPPM (FOLFIRINOX) during follow-up. Untreated patients incurred the highest unadjusted ($30,777 PPPM) and adjusted ($20,392 PPPM) cost. CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic PC patients incur a high economic burden driven by high utilization of healthcare resources, which varies by first line treatment. Also, the high proportion of untreated patients is alarming as these patients may be the most expensive of all patients. There is an unmet need in these patients for effective treatments that also reduce their economic burden.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line FOLFIRI Combined With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab in Patients With RAS Wild-Type Left-Sided Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The FIRE-3 phase III clinical trial demonstrated the marked advantage of prolonging the median overall survival of patients with final RAS wild-type (WT) left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) by 38.3 months after treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab and by 28.0 months after treatment with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. However, the substantial cost increase and economic impact of using cetuximab imposes a considerable burden on patients and society. METHODS: A Markov model based on the data collected in the FIRE-3 trial was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of treating patients with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters. RESULTS: In our analysis, the total treatment costs in the bevacizumab and cetuximab groups were $92 549.31 and $94 987.31, respectively, and the QALYs gained were 1.58 and 2.05. In the base-case analysis, compared with bevacizumab, left-sided RAS WT patients receiving cetuximab gained 0.47 more QALYs at an ICER of $5187.23/QALY ($3166.23/LY). The 1-way sensitivity analysis showed that the most influential parameter was the cost of cetuximab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost-effective probability of cetuximab group was 92.8% under the willingness-to-pay threshold of $24 081. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in Chinese patients with left-sided RAS WT mCRC may improve health outcomes and use financial resources more efficiently than FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab.

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.

FOLFIRINOX is a cost-effective combination chemotherapy in first-line for advanced pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The analysis was conducted to assess the effect of front-line combination chemotherapies on progression free survival (PFS). METHODS: The analysis was restricted to phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in first-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. The European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) was applied to the above phase III RCTs. We have also calculated differences in PFS between the different arms of each trial and the pharmacological costs necessary to get the benefit in PFS, for each trial. RESULTS: Our study evaluated 11 phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 4572 patients. Combining the costs of therapy with the measure of efficacy represented by the PFS, we have obtained 74.12 € per month of PFS gained for 5-FU, leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), 90.14 per month of PFS gained for gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) and 4708.70 € per month of PFS gained for the combination of gemcitabine plus nab-pacliatxel against gemcitabine alone. CONCLUSIONS: Combining pharmacological costs with the measure of efficacy represented by PFS, FOLFIRINOX is a cost-effective first-line for advanced pancreatic cancer.

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.

Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness Between Actinomycin D Versus Methotrexate-Folinic Acid in the Treatment of Low-Risk Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness between actinomycin D (Act-D) and methotrexate-folinic acid (MTX-FA) in the treatment of low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) in the Thai population. STUDY DESIGN: A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective. A decision tree model was developed comparing 2 alternative treatment options: initial 5-day Act-D and 8-day MTX-FA. Treatment would be switched to another regimen in case of resistance. The outcome of interest is number of days to remission. Clinical data was obtained from our previous study in which Act-D demonstrated 100% remission rates as compared to 73.6% for MTX-FA. Cost of treatment data, which includes chemotherapeutics, accessory medications, laboratory tests, and hospital fees, was obtained from a university hospital. Patient-related travel cost and opportunity cost due to absence from work were also included. All costs were calculated to 2015 base year. RESULT: Costs per treatment cycle were $308.01 and $227.20 US dollars (USD) for 5-day Act-D and 8-day MTX-FA, respectively. Expected time toward treatment completion for Act-D was 12.6 days shorter than for MTX-FA. Expected costs toward remission for initial treatment with Act-D and MTX-FA were $1,078.04 and $1,064.56 USD, respectively, i.e., an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1.07 USD/day of earlier treatment completion. After sensitivity analysis, remission rate of lower than 72% would make initial treatment with MTX-FA more expensive than with Act-D. CONCLUSION: Treatment costs of low-risk GTN are almost equal between the 2 treatment options with different time to remission. Initial treatment with MTX-FA is slightly less expensive, but there is longer time to remission. The ICER of initial treatment with Act-D over MTX-FA is $1.07 USD/day of earlier treatment completion.

Health-related quality of life and cost comparison of adjuvant capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in stage III colorectal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and costs associated with 2 adjuvant chemotherapy regimens [capecitabine-based therapy versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV)-based therapy] in stage III colorectal cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, open-label, observational, multicenter study from July 2008 to July 2011. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38 questionnaires was used to assess HRQoL before, during, and after treatment. The direct and indirect costs of adjuvant treatment were estimated from a specially prepared questionnaire, the National Health Insurance Research Database, and other published sources. We used propensity scoring to match samples between groups and performed multivariate analyses to adjust for differences in patient demographics and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 497 patients were enrolled, and 356 completed the surveys. Following propensity score matching, 239 patients were included in the analysis (122 in the capecitabine-based group, 117 in the 5-FU/LV-based group). Global HRQoL scores did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, compared to patients in the 5-FU/LV-based group, patients in the capecitabine-based group had less nausea and vomiting (mid-term, P = 0.024; final, P = 0.013), appetite loss (mid-term, P < 0.0001; final, P = 0.001), and fewer side effects from chemotherapy (mid-term, P = 0.017). In addition, the monthly cost of capecitabine-based therapy was lower than those of 5-FU/LV-based therapy [NT$31,895.46 (US$1063.18) vs. NT$79,159.24 (US$2638.64) per patient]. CONCLUSIONS: Capecitabine is a reasonable alternative and cost-effective treatment option under current conditions for patients with stage III colorectal cancer.

[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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of KRAS testing in metastatic colorectal cancer patients in the United States and Germany.

The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of testing for KRAS mutations before administering EGFR inhibitors such as cetuximab and panitumumab for patients with advanced metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the United States and Germany. We developed a lifetime Markov model of costs and survival associated with treating mCRC patients to assess the impact of KRAS testing before administering EGFR inhibitor-containing chemotherapy regimens. Overall, combination therapies involving cetuximab plus irinotecan/FOLFIRI had a better life expectancy (25.83 weeks) than cetuximab or panitumumab alone. Use of KRAS testing (assuming KRAS mutant patients receive only irinotecan) was equally effective and saved $12,428 per patient in the United States. When KRAS mutant patients received best supportive care, the life expectancy decreased slightly (24.26 weeks vs. 25.83 weeks) and the costs decreased by $13,501 in the United States and €9,560 in Germany. For patients treated with cetuximab alone, use of KRAS testing to identify mutations lowered costs by $8,040 per patient in the U.S. analysis and €3,856 per patient in the German analysis. For patients treated with panitumumab alone, use of KRAS testing to identify mutations lowered costs by $7,546 per patient in the U.S. analysis and €4,612 per patient in the German analysis. Model results were sensitive to the cost of chemotherapy regimens and the prevalence of KRAS mutations in the population. Under most scenarios, using KRAS testing to select patients for EGFR inhibitor therapy saved $7,500-$12,400 per patient in the United States and €3,900-€9,600 per patient in Germany with equivalent clinical outcomes.

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.

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.

[A retrospective study of UFT and oral leucovorin plus PSK combination adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer].

OBJECTIVE: To perform a retrospective analysis of UFT and oral leucovorin plus PSK combination adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer in order to evaluate both treatment efficacy and toxicity. SUBJECTS: Between 2003 and 2009, 273 stage III colon cancer patients underwent surgery in our institute, and we studied 156 of them. RESULTS: Patients' median age was 72 years old; 87 men and 69 women. Of all patients, 119 had stage IIIa and 37 had stage IIIb. The 3-year disease, free survival rates for stage III, stage IIIa and stage IIIb patients were 73. 9%and 80. 6%and 51. 4%, respectively, and the 3-year overall survival rates for stage III was 97. 6%. With regard to toxicity, liver function disorder was observed in 9. 6%of the patients as the most frequent adverse event, but there was no grade 3 or 4 toxicity. CONCLUSION: UFT and oral leucovorin plus PSK combination adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer showed a good response especially for stage III a.