Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer incidence is rising in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where resource limitations and cost often dictate treatment decisions. In this study, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer treatment in South Africa (ZA) and illustrate how such analyses can inform cancer treatment recommendations in a LMIC. METHODS: We created a decision-analytic Markov model to compare lifetime costs and outcomes for patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer treated with three adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in a public hospital in ZA: capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) for 3 and 6 months, and capecitabine for 6 months, compared to no adjuvant treatment. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in international dollars (I$) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold equal to the 2021 ZA gross domestic product per capita (I$13,764/DALY averted). RESULTS: CAPOX for 3 months was cost-effective for both patients with high-risk stage II and patients with stage III colon cancer (ICER = I$250/DALY averted and I$1042/DALY averted, respectively), compared to no adjuvant chemotherapy. In subgroup analyses of patients by tumor stage and number of positive lymph nodes, for patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer and T4 tumors, and patients with stage III colon cancer with T4 or N2 disease. CAPOX for 6 months was cost-effective and the optimal strategy. The optimal strategy in other settings will vary by local WTP thresholds. Decision analytic tools can be used to identify cost-effective cancer treatment strategies in resource-constrained settings. CONCLUSION: Colon cancer incidence is increasing in low- and middle-income countries, including South Africa, where resource constraints can impact treatment decisions. This cost-effectiveness study evaluates three systemic adjuvant chemotherapy options, compared to surgery alone, for patients in South African public hospitals after surgical resection for high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer. Doublet adjuvant chemotherapy (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) for 3 months is the cost-effective strategy and should be recommended in South Africa.

Endoscopic Balloon Dilation Is Cost-Effective for Crohn's Disease Strictures.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) has emerged as an alternative intervention to manage Crohn's disease (CD) strictures. We determined the cost-effectiveness of EBD versus resection surgery for patients with short (< 4-5 cm) primary or secondary/anastomotic small or large bowel strictures. METHODS: A microsimulation state-transition model analyzed the benefits and risks of EBD and resection surgery for patients with primary or anastomotic CD strictures. Our primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over ten years, and strategies were compared using a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY from a societal perspective. Costs (2021 $US) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. Deterministic 1-way and probabilistic analyses assessed model uncertainty. RESULTS: The EBD strategy cost $19,822 and resulted in 6.18 QALYs while the surgery strategy cost $41,358 and resulted in 6.37 QALYs. Surgery had an ICER of $113,332 per QALY, making EBD a cost-effective strategy. The median number of EBDs was 5 in the EBD strategy and 0 in the surgery strategy. The median number of surgeries was 2 in the surgery strategy and 1 in the EBD strategy. Of individuals who initially received EBD, 50.4% underwent subsequent surgery. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the probabilities of requiring repeated interventions, surgery mortality (< 0.7%), and quality of life after interventions were the most influential model parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses favored EBD in 50.9% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: EBD is a cost-effective strategy for managing CD strictures. Differences in patient risk and quality of life after intervention impact cost-effectiveness. Intervention decisions should consider cost-effectiveness, patient risks, and quality of life.

Cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (G-nP) for borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC). AIM: The purpose of our study was to compare treatment outcomes, toxicity profiles, costs, and quality-of-life measures between these two treatments to further inform clinical decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a decision-analytic mathematical model to compare the total cost and health outcomes of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX against G-nP over 12 years. The model inputs were estimated using clinical trial data and published literature. The primary endpoint was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY). Secondary endpoints included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), total cost of care, QALYs, PDAC resection rate, and monthly treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) costs (USD). FOLFIRINOX was the cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of $60856.47 per QALY when compared to G-nP. G-nP had an ICER of $44639.71 per QALY when compared to natural history. For clinical outcomes, more patients underwent an "R0" resection with FOLFIRINOX compared to G-nP (84.9 vs. 81.0%), but FOLFIRINOX had higher TRAE costs than G-nP ($10905.19 vs. $4894.11). A one-way sensitivity analysis found that the ICER of FOLFIRINOX exceeded the threshold when TRAE costs were higher or PDAC recurrence rates were lower. CONCLUSION: Our modeling analysis suggests that FOLFIRNOX is the cost-effective treatment compared to G-nP for BR/LA PDAC despite having a higher cost of total care due to TRAE costs. Trial data with sufficient follow-up are needed to confirm our findings.

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

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

Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX for Patients with Borderline Resectable or Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a Decision Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (nFOLFIRINOX) for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC) are unknown. Our objective was to determine whether nFOLFIRINOX is more effective or cost-effective for patients with BR/LA PDAC compared with upfront resection surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEM/CAPE) or gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a decision-analysis to assess the value of nFOLFIRINOX versus GEM/CAPE or GEM using a mathematical simulation model. Model transition probabilities were estimated using published and institutional clinical data. Model outcomes included overall and disease-free survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost in U.S. dollars, and cost-effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the uncertainty of model assumptions. RESULTS: Model results found median overall survival (34.5/28.0/22.0 months) and disease-free survival (15.0/14.0/13.0 months) were better for nFOLFIRINOX compared with GEM/CAPE and GEM. nFOLFIRINOX was the optimal strategy on an efficiency frontier, resulting in an additional 0.35 life-years, or 0.30 QALYs, at a cost of $46,200/QALY gained compared with GEM/CAPE. Sensitivity analysis found that cancer recurrence and complete resection rates most affected model results, but were otherwise robust. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found that nFOLFIRINOX was cost-effective 92.4% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: Our modeling analysis suggests that nFOLFIRINOX is preferable to upfront surgery for patients with BR/LA PDAC from both an effectiveness and cost-effectiveness standpoint. Additional clinical data that further define the long-term effectiveness of nFOLFIRINOX are needed to confirm our results. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Increasingly, neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX has been used for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer with the goal of rendering them resectable and decreasing risk of recurrence. Despite many efforts to show the benefits of neoadjuvant over adjuvant therapies, clinical evidence to guide this decision is largely lacking. Decision-analytic modeling can provide a methodologic platform that integrates the best available data to quantitatively explore clinical decisions by simulating a hypothetical clinical trial. This modeling analysis suggests that neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX is preferable to upfront surgery and adjuvant therapies by various outcome metrics including quality-adjusted life years, overall survival, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Can mucosal healing be a cost-effective endpoint for biologic therapy in Crohn's disease? A decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have demonstrated that mucosal healing (MH) may be associated with reductions in hospitalizations and surgeries for moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD). Whether treatment to achieve MH is a cost-effective endpoint has not been established previously. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model comparing two treatment strategies. In the clinical response (CR) arm, patients not in clinical remission at year 1 are dose-escalated. In the MH arm, patients with persistence of mucosal ulcerations at year 1 are escalated irrespective of clinical symptoms. Patients remain at risk for hospitalization and surgeries while they have active disease. We examined a 2-year time horizon. RESULTS: In the base case the MH strategy was more effective at 2 years (quality-adjusted life year [QALY] 0.71) compared to the CR strategy (QALY 0.69) but was also more expensive with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $49,278/QALY gained. In a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients assigned to each treatment arm, the MH strategy resulted in lower rates of hospitalization and surgery with a number needed to treat of 27 and 106, respectively. The results were sensitive to the ability of infliximab to achieve MH and the incremental benefit of MH over clinical remission. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that MH as an endpoint is a cost-effective strategy in CD patients initiating IFX therapy. Further prospective studies on durability of MH and its incremental benefit as well as the ability of other available biologic agents to achieve MH are necessary to validate our findings.

The effect of prior colonic imaging on endoscopic productivity: potential impact of computed tomographic colonography.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: If computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is used for primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a small polyp size threshold to define a CTC study as positive, a substantial portion of all colonoscopies performed annually will be to follow up positive CTC examinations. Moreover, the majority of positive CTC examinations would be false positives (FP). This case-control study was undertaken to test the hypothesis that colonoscopy examinations resulting from FP CTC studies would take longer to complete than negative screening colonoscopies. METHODS: Endoscopic records of a large, urban hospital were reviewed to identify all patients who had either a positive barium enema (BE) study or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) and a negative follow-up colonoscopy examination (these patients were used as surrogates for CTC FP cases). For each of the 28 FP patients or cases identified, 2 screening colonoscopies performed by the same endoscopist within the same time period were identified and used as matched controls. A two-way analysis of variance test was performed to assess for differences in time to complete colonoscopies between these 2 groups, controlling for the individual endoscopist. RESULTS: FP colonoscopies took an average of 24.0 minutes to complete, whereas negative screening colonoscopies took 14.9 minutes; FP colonoscopies required 61% more active time to complete. This highly statistically significant difference (P < .0001) persisted with subset analyses that only included BE or FS cases and when fellow or surgeon cases were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: FP colonoscopies take longer to perform than negative screening colonoscopies. If CTC is implemented as the primary modality for CRC screening, these FP examinations could comprise a substantial percentage of the colonoscopies performed, potentially leading to a significant decrease in endoscopic productivity.