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.

The Association of Drug-Funding Reimbursement With Survival Outcomes and Use of New Systemic Therapies Among Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

Importance: Gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) both improve survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer when compared with single-agent gemcitabine in clinical trials. Objective: To describe changes in the survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer associated with sequential drug-funding approvals and to determine if there exist distinct patient populations for whom GEMNAB and FOLFIRINOX are associated with survival benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective cohort study examined all incident cases of advanced pancreatic cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada (2008-2018) that were identified from the Cancer Care Ontario (Ontario Health) New Drug Funding Program database. Statistical analysis was performed from October 2020 to January 2021. Exposures: First-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the proportion of patients treated with each chemotherapy regimen over time and overall survival for each regimen. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare overall survival between treatment regimens after adjustment for confounding variables, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and matching. Results: From 2008 to 2018, 5465 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada. The median (range) age of patients was 66.9 (27.8-93.4) years; 2447 (45%) were female; 878 (16%) had prior pancreatic resection, and 328 (6%) had prior adjuvant gemcitabine. During the time period when only gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX were funded (2011-2015), 49% (929 of 1887) received FOLFIRINOX. When GEMNAB was subsequently funded (2015-2018), 9% (206 of 2347) received gemcitabine, 44% (1034 of 2347) received FOLFIRINOX, and 47% (1107 of 2347) received GEMNAB. The median overall survival increased from 5.6 months (95% CI, 5.1-6.0 months) in 2008 to 2011 to 6.9 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.4 months) in 2011 to 2015 to 7.6 months (95% CI, 7.1-8.0 months) in 2015 to 2018. Patients receiving FOLFIRINOX were younger and healthier than patients receiving GEMNAB. After adjustment and weighting, FOLFIRINOX was associated with better overall survival than GEMNAB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69-0.81]). In analyses comparing patients treated with GEMNAB and gemcitabine, GEMNAB was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy within a universal health care system found that drug funding decisions were associated with increased uptake of new treatment options over time and improved survival. Both FOLFIRINOX and GEMNAB were associated with survival benefits in distinct patient populations.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in the United States based on PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

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.

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 minimization comparison of oral UFT/leucovorin versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin as adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer in Taiwan.

AIM: Oral uracil-tegafur/leucovorin (UFT/LV) and intravenous 5-fluorouracil (FU)/LV are common adjuvant therapies for Stages II and III colorectal cancer. This study aims to determine the most cost-effective treatment alternative between UFT/LV and 5-FU/LV in Stages II and III colorectal cancer from Taiwan's National Health Insurance perspective. PATIENTS & METHODS: The costs were referenced directly from the National Health Insurance reimbursement price. Chemotherapy regimen considered for the cost analysis calculation was adapted from NSABP-C-06 study, and, a time saving calculation was also included. In addition, we compare the treatment outcome. RESULT: A total cost saving of US$3620.80-$3709.16 per patient per treatment was achieved with the UFT/LV treatment. UFT/LV provides the comparable outcome to 5-FU/LV. CONCLUSION: UFT/LV was the more cost-effective treatment as adjuvant chemotherapy.

Cost comparison by treatment arm and center-level variations in cost and inpatient days on the phase III high-risk B acute lymphoblastic leukemia trial AALL0232.

The Children's Oncology Group (COG) develops and implements multi-institutional clinical trials with the primary goal of assessing the efficacy and safety profile of treatment regimens for various pediatric cancers. However, the monetary costs of treatment regimens are not measured. AALL0232 was a COG randomized phase III trial for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia that found that dexamethasone (DEX) was a more effective glucocorticoid than prednisone (PRED) in patients younger than 10 years, but PRED was equally effective and less toxic in older patients. In addition, high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) led to better survival than escalating doses of methotrexate (C-MTX). Cost data from the Pediatric Health Information System database were merged with clinical data from the COG AALL0232 trial. Total and component costs were compared between treatment arms and across hospitals. Inpatient costs were higher in the HD-MTX and DEX arms when compared to the C-MTX and PRED arms at the end of therapy. There was no difference in cost between these arms at last follow-up. Considerable variation in total costs existed across centers to deliver the same therapy that was driven by differences in inpatient days and pharmacy costs. The more effective regimens were found to be more expensive during therapy but were ultimately cost-neutral in longer term follow-up. The variations in cost across centers suggest an opportunity to standardize resource utilization for patients receiving similar therapies, which could translate into reduced healthcare expenditures.

The Value of Survival Gains in Pancreatic Cancer from Novel Treatment Regimens.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is associated with low survival, with less than 10% of patients surviving 5 years. Recent therapies improve survival outcomes where few alternative therapies exist, but few economic analyses measure the value of survival gains attributable to new therapies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the value of survival gains in advanced or mPC attributable to the introduction of novel treatment regimens. METHODS: Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate real-world survival gains associated with the introduction of gemcitabine (GEM) for patients diagnosed with stage IV or unstaged mPC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program cancer registries. Then, evidence from clinical trials was used to evaluate the survival gains associated with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine (nP +GEM) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) relative to GEM. The survival estimates and clinical trial evidence were used to calibrate an economic model and assess the cumulative value of survival gains in mPC to patients. Costs of treatment were calculated based on published cost-effectiveness studies. RESULTS: We estimated that the introduction of GEM in 1996 was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.920 (P < 0.05) and an increase in median survival from 3.1 to 4.5 months. Results suggested that the value of survival gains attributable to GEM equaled about $71,000 per patient, while the value attributable to nP + GEM was an additional $56,700. Estimates for the value of survival gains per patient, net of total incremental lifetime treatment costs (drugs, adverse events, and other costs), were $50,294 for GEM and an additional $31,900 for nP + GEM. Clinical trials and cost-effectiveness studies reported an overall survival gain from FFX that was larger than, but statistically similar to, nP + GEM and had greater risk of adverse events and total incremental costs. We estimated that the total value of survival gains to mPC patients, net of total costs, associated with GEM was up to $47.6 billion, and the additional values attributable to nP+GEM and FFX were up to $39.0 billion and $26.3 billion, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Historically, mPC patients have faced high disease burden and had few treatment options. Treatments introduced since 1996 have led to improved survival, with varying costs associated with treatment and adverse events. Accounting for total incremental costs, the majority of the value of survival gains from GEM and nP+GEM was retained by mPC patients, highlighting the value of innovation in settings where survival is low and few alternative therapies exist. DISCLOSURES: Support for this research was provided by Celgene. Precision Health Economics was compensated by Celgene for work on this study. MacEwan is an employee of, and Yin is a consultant to, Precision Health Economics. Kaura and Khan are employees of Celgene. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Yin and MacEwan, along with Kaura and Khan. MacEwan collected the data, and data interpretation was performed primarily by MacEwan and Yin, along with Kaura and Khan. The manuscript was written and revised by MacEwan, Yin, Kaura, and Khan.

Population-Based Cost-Minimization Analysis of CAPOX Versus Modified FOLFOX6 in the Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) has efficacy similar to 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer. CAPOX is partly administered orally and associated with a 3-week rather than a 2-week treatment cycle. A population-based cost-minimization analysis was conducted from the health care payer and societal perspectives to evaluate the potential cost savings of replacing mFOLFOX6 with CAPOX. METHODS: We applied treatment and toxicity data from phase III trials of CAPOX and FOLFOX-based regimens to the adjuvant colon cancer population in British Columbia, Canada. In this cost-minimization analysis we compared the total costs associated with chemotherapy medications, drug administration and delivery, hospital and clinic visits, treatment-related toxicities, and central venous access devices. Costs to patients in terms of lost time and travel were also considered. It was assumed that patients would receive either 8 cycles of CAPOX or 12 cycles of mFOLFOX6. RESULTS: From the payer perspective, the use of CAPOX resulted in cost savings of $5339 CAD per patient compared with the use of mFOLFOX6. From a societal perspective, CAPOX was also associated with savings of $6080 CAD per patient. The greatest cost savings with CAPOX were attributed to fewer visits for chemotherapy treatment and decreased central venous access device usage. CAPOX was also associated with reduced loss of time and decreased travel for patients because of the requirement of fewer clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: Replacement of mFOLFOX6 with CAPOX in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer might be associated with potential cost savings from the payer and societal perspectives.

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 colon cancer treatments from MOSIAC and No. 16968 trials.

AIM: To compare XELOX and FOLFOX4 as colon cancer adjuvant chemotherapy based on MOSAIC and No. 16968 trails from Chinese cost-effectiveness perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to compare the FOLFOX4 and XELOX regimens based MOSAIC and No. 16968 trial. Five states were included in our Markov model: well (state 1), minor toxicity (state 2), major toxicity (state 3), quitting adjuvant chemotherapy (state 4), and death due to adjuvant chemotherapy (state 5). Transitions among the 5 states were assumed to be Markovian. Costs were calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health-care payer. The utility data were taken from published studies. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty factors in this cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: Total direct costs of FOLFOX4 and XELOX per patient were $19884.96 ± 4280.30 and $18113.25 ± 3122.20, respectively. The total fees related to adverse events per patient during the entire treatment were $204.75 ± 16.80 for the XELOX group, and $873.72 ± 27.60 for the FOLFOX4 group, and the costs for travel and absenteeism per patient were $18495.00 for the XELOX group and $21,352.68 for the FOLFOX4 group. The base-case analysis showed that FOLFOX4 was estimated to produce an additional 0.06 in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of $3950.47 when compared to the XELOX regimen over the model time horizon. The cost per QALY gained was $8047.30 in the XELOX group, which was $900.98 less than in the FOLFOX4 group ($8948.28). The one way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the utility for the well state and minor toxicity state greatly influenced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FOLFOX4. CONCLUSION: In term of cost-comparison, XELOX is expected to dominate FOLFOX4 regimes; Therefore, XELOX provides a more cost-effective adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer patients in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). DESIGN: A semi-Markov model was constructed from a French health collective perspective, with health states related to first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, resection of metastases, disease-free after successful resection and death. METHODS: Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression-free and overall survival data from the only head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab and bevacizumab (PEAK) were performed to estimate transitions to disease progression and death. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and French public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second- and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was applied. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Based on a head-to-head clinical trial that demonstrates better efficacy outcomes for patients with wild-type RAS mCRC who receive panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6, the incremental cost per life-year gained was estimated to be €26,918, and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was estimated to be €36,577. Sensitivity analyses indicate the model is robust to alternative parameters and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental cost per QALY gained indicates that panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 represents good value for money in comparison to bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 and, with a willingness-to-pay ranging from €40,000 to €60,000, can be considered cost-effective in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Stage III Colon Cancer Treatment at Veterans Affairs Medical Centers.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the real-world cost effectiveness of adjuvant stage III colon cancer chemotherapy regimens, given that previous analyses have been based on data from clinical trials. The study was designed using integrated decision tree and Markov model, which was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV), capecitabine, and the combination of each with oxaliplatin. The analysis was performed from a US Veterans Affairs perspective via retrospectively collected data, over a 5-year model time horizon. Outcome and cost data were used to calculate cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY), and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. In the base case analysis, capecitabine and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin both cost more and were less effective than other regimens, and 5-FU/LV plus oxaliplatin, compared to 5-FU/LV alone, resulted in a cost of $25,997 per QALY gained. Model results were generally robust to parameter variation. Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin could be economically reasonable if full dosing occurred ≥76% of the time (base case 42%). In a real-world setting, the addition of oxaliplatin to 5-FU/LV is more effective but also more costly than 5-FU/LV alone. If full dosing of capecitabine-containing regimens can be assured, they may also be cost-effective strategies.

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.

[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.

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.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of oral capecitabine compared with intravenous bolus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer in Taiwan from payer (Bureau of National Health Insurance [BNHI]) perspectives. METHODS: A health state-transition model was developed to estimate the incremental costs and effectiveness of capecitabine versus 5-FU/LV. The time horizons studied were: treatment duration (24 weeks) plus 36 months, 48 months, 60 months, 120 months, and lifetime. Costs were expressed in Taiwanese new dollars (NT$). Clinical outcomes, medical resource use, and utilities were extracted from published sources. Unit costs were estimated from BNHI fee schedules, published sources, and local expert opinion. Outcomes and future costs were discounted at 3%. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-month (QALM). The effects of uncertainty were explored through a one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: For the 24-week time period, drug acquisition costs were higher for capecitabine than 5-FU/LV (NT$114,405 vs. NT$4,904 per patient); however, these were offset by the higher administration costs of 5-FU/LV (NT$2,573 vs. NT$204,201 per patient). Overall direct costs for the 24-week treatment period were less with capecitabine than 5-FU/LV (NT$129,327 vs. NT$233,873 per patient). Cost savings with capecitabine were also evident when longer time horizons were considered. Over a lifetime, the projected survival benefit for capecitabine was 7 QALMs. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspectives of the BNHI and society in Taiwan, capecitabine not only saves costs but also improves health outcomes compared with 5-FU/LV in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of oxaliplatin compared with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer in the US.

BACKGROUND: The MOSAIC trial demonstrated that oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FU/LV) (FOLFOX4) as adjuvant treatment of TNM stage II and III colon cancer significantly improves disease-free survival compared with 5-FU/LV alone. For stage III patients the 4-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 69% in the FOLFOX4 arm vs 61% in the LV5FU2 arm, P = .002). The cost-effectiveness of FOLFOX4 in stage III patients was evaluated from a US Medicare perspective. METHODS: By using individual patient-level data from the MOSAIC trial (median follow-up: 44.2 months), DFS and overall survival (OS) were estimated up to 4 years from randomization. DFS was extrapolated from 4 to 5 years by fitting a Weibull model and subsequent survival was estimated from life tables. OS beyond 4 years was predicted from the extrapolated DFS estimates and observed survival after recurrence. Costs were calculated from trial data and external estimates of resources to manage recurrence. RESULTS: Patients on FOLFOX4 were predicted to gain 2.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63, 3.37) years of DFS over those on 5-FU/LV. The predicted life expectancy of stage III patients on FOLFOX4 and 5-FU/LV was 17.61 and 16.26 years, respectively. Mean total lifetime disease-related costs were $56,300 with oxaliplatin and $39,300 with 5-FU/LV. Compared with 5-FU/LV, FOLFOX4 was estimated to cost $20,600 per life-year gained and $22,800 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, discounting costs and outcomes at 3% per annum. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOX4 is likely to be cost-effective compared with 5-FU/LV in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compares favorably with other funded interventions in oncology.

Cost consequences of adjuvant capecitabine, Mayo Clinic and de Gramont regimens for stage III colon cancer in the French setting.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare the cost consequences of oral capecitabine and two different intravenous regimens of 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (de Gramont and Mayo Clinic regimens) as adjuvant therapy in stage III colon cancer in France. METHODS: Clinical efficacy and safety data were taken from published clinical trials. Medical resource use was estimated from published data and expert opinion. Direct costs (drug acquisition, inpatient and home drug administration, laboratory tests, transportation, and management of adverse events) were considered over a time horizon of 46 months (3.8 years). The perspective taken was that of the French Sickness Funds. RESULTS: In patients treated with capecitabine, relapse-free survival was 1.3 months longer than with the Mayo Clinic regimen, which has been shown to be as effective as the de Gramont regimen. In the base case analysis, capecitabine was less costly (3,654 EUR/patient) than the Mayo Clinic (10,481 EUR/ patient) and de Gramont (7,204 EUR/patient) regimens. In the sensitivity analysis, capecitabine remained dominant except when the intravenous regimens were assumed to be administered at home in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: In France, capecitabine is more effective and less costly than both the Mayo Clinic and de Gramont regimens as adjuvant therapy for colon cancer.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of adjuvant oral capecitabine vs intravenous 5-FU/LV in Dukes' C colon cancer: the X-ACT trial.

Oral capecitabine (Xeloda) is an effective drug with favourable safety in adjuvant and metastatic colorectal cancer. Oxaliplatin-based therapy is becoming standard for Dukes' C colon cancer in patients suitable for combination therapy, but is not yet approved by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the adjuvant setting. Adjuvant capecitabine is at least as effective as 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV), with significant superiority in relapse-free survival and a trend towards improved disease-free and overall survival. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant capecitabine from payer (UK National Health Service (NHS)) and societal perspectives. We used clinical trial data and published sources to estimate incremental direct and societal costs and gains in quality-adjusted life months (QALMs). Acquisition costs were higher for capecitabine than 5-FU/LV, but higher 5-FU/LV administration costs resulted in 57% lower chemotherapy costs for capecitabine. Capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV-associated adverse events required fewer medications and hospitalisations (cost savings pound3653). Societal costs, including patient travel/time costs, were reduced by >75% with capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV (cost savings pound1318), with lifetime gain in QALMs of 9 months. Medical resource utilisation is significantly decreased with capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV, with cost savings to the NHS and society. Capecitabine is also projected to increase life expectancy vs 5-FU/LV. Cost savings and better outcomes make capecitabine a preferred adjuvant therapy for Dukes' C colon cancer. This pharmacoeconomic analysis strongly supports replacing 5-FU/LV with capecitabine in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer in the UK.