Out-of-Pocket Cost Modeling of Adjuvant Antiestrogen and Radiation Therapy After Lumpectomy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Across Medicaid and Medicare Plans.

PURPOSE: The optimal adjuvant therapy (antiestrogen therapy [ET] + radiation therapy or ET alone, or in some reports radiation therapy alone) in older women with early-stage breast cancer has been highly debated. However, granular details on the role of insurance in the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving ET with or without radiation therapy are lacking. This project disaggregates out-of-pocket costs by insurance plans to increase treatment cost transparency. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Several radiation therapy schedules are accepted standards as per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. For our financial estimate model, we used the 5-fraction and 15-fraction radiation therapy and ET prescribed over a 5-year duration. The total aggregate out-of-pocket costs were determined from the sum of treatment costs, deductibles, and copays/coinsurance based on Medicaid, Original Medicare, Medigap Plan G, and Medicare Part D Rx plans. The model assumes a Medicare- and/or Medicaid-eligible patient ≥70 years of age with node-negative, early-stage estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Patient out-of-pocket costs were estimated from publicly available insurance data from plan-specific benefit coverage materials using a 5-year time horizon. RESULTS: Original Medicare beneficiaries face a total out-of-pocket treatment charge of $2738.52 for ET alone, $2221.26 for 5-fraction radiation therapy alone, $2573.92 for 15-fraction radiation therapy alone, $3361.26 for combined ET+ 5-fraction radiation therapy, and $3713.92 for combined ET + 15-fraction radiation therapy. Medigap Plan G beneficiaries have an out-of-pocket charge of $1130.00 with radiation therapy alone and face an out-of-pocket of $2270.00 for ET alone and combined ET+ radiation therapy. For Medicaid beneficiaries, all treatments approved by Medicaid are covered without limit, resulting in no out-of-pocket expense for either adjuvant treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: This model (based on actual cost estimates per insurance plan rather than claims data), by estimating expenses within Medicare and Medicaid plans, provides a level of transparency to patient cost. With knowledge of the costs borne by patients themselves, treatment decisions informed by patients' individual priorities and preferences may be further enhanced.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line vs third-line ibrutinib in patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The ALLIANCE A041202 trial found that continuously administered ibrutinib in the first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line setting, compared with a strategy of using ibrutinib in the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a US payer perspective. First-line ibrutinib was associated with an improvement of 0.26 QALYs and 0.40 life-years compared with using ibrutinib in the third-line setting. However, using ibrutinib in the first-line led to significantly higher health care costs (incremental cost of $612 700), resulting in an ICER of $2 350 041 per QALY. The monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be decreased by 72% for first-line ibrutinib therapy to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. In a scenario analysis where ibrutinib was used in the second-line in the delayed ibrutinib arm, first-line ibrutinib had an incremental cost of $478 823, an incremental effectiveness of 0.05 QALYs, and an ICER of $9 810 360 per QALY when compared with second-line use. These data suggest that first-line ibrutinib for unselected older adults with CLL is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying ibrutinib for most patients with CLL until later lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit health care costs without compromising clinical outcomes.

Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Before the approval of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination, there were no approved therapies in the adjuvant setting that target the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma from a U.S. commercial payer perspective using data from the COMBI-AD trial, as well as other sources. METHODS: The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive, resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma was evaluated from the perspective of a hypothetical population of 1 million members with demographic characteristics consistent with those of a commercially insured U.S. insurance plan (i.e., adults aged less than 65 years) using an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. The model compared melanoma-related health care costs over a 3-year projection period under 2 scenarios: (1) a reference scenario in which dabrafenib and trametinib are assumed to be unavailable for adjuvant therapy and (2) a new scenario in which the combination is assumed to be available. Treatments potentially displaced by dabrafenib and trametinib were assumed to include observation, high-dose interferon alpha-2b, ipilimumab, and nivolumab. Costs considered in the model include those of adjuvant therapies and treatment of locoregional and distant recurrences. The numbers of patients eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib were based on data from cancer registries, published sources, and assumptions. Treatment mixes under the reference and new scenarios were based on market research data, clinical expert opinion, and assumptions. Probabilities of recurrence and death were based on data from the COMBI-AD trial and an indirect treatment comparison. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost prices. Costs of distant recurrence were from a health insurance claims study. RESULTS: In a hypothetical population of 1 million commercially insured members, 48 patients were estimated to become eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib in combination over the 3-year projection period; in the new scenario, 10 patients were projected to receive such treatment. Cumulative costs of melanoma-related care were estimated to be $6.3 million in the reference scenario and $6.9 million in the new scenario. The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination was an increase of $549 thousand overall and 1.5 cents per member per month. CONCLUSIONS: For a hypothetical U.S. commercial health plan of 1 million members, the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment for melanoma is likely to be relatively modest and within the range of published estimates for oncology therapies. These results may assist payers in making coverage decisions regarding the use of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib in melanoma. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided to Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI) by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Stellato, Moynahan, and Delea are employed by PAI. Ndife, Koruth, Mishra, and Gunda are employed by Novartis. Ghate was employed by Novartis at the time of this study and is shareholder in Novartis, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, and Mannkind Corporation. Gerbasi was employed by PAI at the time of this study and is currently an employee, and stockholder, of Sage Therapeutics. Delea reports grant funding from Merck and research funding from Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Jazz, EMD Serono, and 21st Century Oncology, unrelated to this work.

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus palliative systemic chemotherapy in stomach cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination, the study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (PERISCOPE II).

BACKGROUND: At present, palliative systemic chemotherapy is the standard treatment in the Netherlands for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination. In contrast to lymphatic and haematogenous dissemination, peritoneal dissemination may be regarded as locoregional spread of disease. Administering cytotoxic drugs directly into the peritoneal cavity has an advantage over systemic chemotherapy since high concentrations can be delivered directly into the peritoneal cavity with limited systemic toxicity. The combination of a radical gastrectomy with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results in patients with gastric cancer in Asia. However, the results obtained in Asian patients cannot be extrapolated to Western patients. The aim of this study is to compare the overall survival between patients with gastric cancer with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy, and those treated with gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised controlled two-armed phase III trial, 106 patients will be randomised (1:1) between palliative systemic chemotherapy only (standard treatment) and gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC (experimental treatment) after 3-4 cycles of systemic chemotherapy.Patients with gastric cancer are eligible for inclusion if (1) the primary cT3-cT4 gastric tumour including regional lymph nodes is considered to be resectable, (2) limited peritoneal dissemination (Peritoneal Cancer Index < 7) and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology are confirmed by laparoscopy or laparotomy, and (3) systemic chemotherapy was given (prior to inclusion) without disease progression. DISCUSSION: The PERISCOPE II study will determine whether gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with systemic chemotherapy, gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC have a survival benefit over patients treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy only. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03348150 ; registration date November 2017; first enrolment November 2017; expected end date December 2022; trial status: Ongoing.

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.

Impacts of Early Guideline-Directed 21-Gene Recurrence Score Testing on Adjuvant Therapy Decision Making.

PURPOSE: The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay is used to help formulate adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations for patients with estrogen receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Most frequently, medical oncologists order RS after surgery. Results take an additional 2 weeks to return, which can delay decision making. We conducted a prospective quality-improvement project to assess the impact of early guideline-directed RS ordering by surgeons before the first visit with a medical oncologist on adjuvant therapy decision making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surgical oncologists ordered RS testing following National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines at time of diagnosis or at time of surgery between July 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015. We measured the testing rate of patients eligible for RS, time to chemotherapy decisions, rates of chemotherapy use, accrual to RS-based clinical trials, cost, and physician acceptance of the policy and compared the results to patients who met eligibility criteria for early guideline-directed testing during the 6 months before the project. RESULTS: Ninety patients met eligibility criteria during the testing period. RS was ordered for 91% of patients in the early testing group compared with 76% of historical controls ( P < .001). Median time to chemotherapy decision was significantly shorter in the early testing group (20 days; 95% CI, 17 to 23 days) compared with historical controls (32 days; 95% CI, 29 to 35 days; P < .001). There were no significant differences in time to chemotherapy initiation, chemotherapy use, RS-based trial enrollment, or calculated costs between the groups. CONCLUSION: Early guideline-directed RS testing in selected patients is an effective way to shorten time to treatment decisions.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients receiving FEC-D.

5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide â†’ docetaxel (FEC-D) has been associated with higher-than-expected rates of febrile neutropenia (FN) that meet the current guideline threshold of 20 % for primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). We examined the cost-effectiveness of FEC-D with varying strategies of G-CSF prophylaxis from the perspective of the public payer in Ontario, Canada. A state-transition model was developed to compare three strategies: FEC-D with secondary prophylaxis (SP) only, PP starting with the first cycle of D, and PP starting with the first cycle of FEC. Analysis was conducted for a hypothetical cohort of 50-year-old early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy, at a 10-year horizon. Results were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and 2013 Canadian dollars. Costs and benefits were discounted at 5 %. Event rates, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Using filgrastim, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for starting PP with the first cycle of D and starting PP with the first cycle of FEC, compared to using SP only, were $57,886/QALY and $116,186/QALY, respectively. With pegfilgrastim, the ICERs for the same strategies were $90,735/QALY and $149,483/QALY. Compared to using filgrastim SP only, starting PP with D had a 24 % chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY, and a 99 % chance at a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results were sensitive to FN-related parameters, such as the risk of FN per cycle with D and the associated mortality, but were robust to uncertainty in parameters related to breast cancer, such as the utilities and hazard of relapse. FEC-D with PP starting with the first cycle of D is most likely to be cost-effective, especially with increased risk of FN and mortality from FN.

Cost-utility analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: In Thailand, there has been no economic evaluation study of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer patients after resection. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the cost-utility of all chemotherapy regimens currently used in Thailand compared with the adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) plus capecitabine as the first-line therapy for metastatic disease in patients with stage III colon cancer after resection. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed to estimate the relevant lifetime costs and health outcomes of chemotherapy regimens based on a societal perspective using a Markov model. RESULTS: The results suggested that the adjuvant 5-FU/LV plus capecitabine as the first-line therapy for metastatic disease would be the most cost-effective chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The adjuvant FOLFOX and FOLFIRI as the first-line treatment for metastatic disease would be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 299,365 Thai baht per QALY gained based on a societal perspective if both prices of FOLFOX and FOLFIRI were decreased by 40%.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of prognostic gene expression signature-based stratification of early breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The individual risk of recurrence in hormone receptor-positive primary breast cancer patients determines whether adjuvant endocrine therapy should be combined with chemotherapy. Clinicopathological parameters and molecular tests such as EndoPredict(®) (EPclin) can support decision making in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative cancer. OBJECTIVE: Using a life-long Markov state transition model, we determined the health economic impact and incremental cost effectiveness of EPclin-based risk stratification in combination with clinical guidelines [German-S3, National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network (NCCN), and St. Gallen] to decide on chemotherapy use. METHODS: Information on overall and metastasis-free survival came from Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group clinical trials 6/8 (n = 1,619) and published literature. Effectiveness was assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs (2010) were assessed from a German third-party payer perspective. RESULTS: Lifetime costs per patient ranged from 28,268 (St.Gallen and EPclin) to 33,756 (NCCN). Due to an imperfect prognostic value and differences in chemotherapy use, strategies achieved between 13.165 QALYs (NCCN) and 13.173 QALYs (EPclin alone) per patient. Using German-S3 as reference, three strategies showed dominant results (St. Gallen and EPclin, German-S3 and EPclin, EPclin alone). Compared to German-S3, the addition of EPclin saved 3,388 and gained 0.002 QALYs per patient. Combining guidelines with EPclin remained preferable in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that molecular markers can be sensibly combined with clinical guidelines to determine the risk profile of adjuvant breast cancer patients. Compared with the current German best practice (German-S3), combinations of EPclin with the St. Gallen, German-S3 or NCCN guideline and EPclin alone were dominant from the perspective of the German healthcare system.

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 adjuvant chemotherapies in patients presenting with gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: To analyze and compare the economic outcomes of adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (referred to as the XELOX strategy) and of S-1 (the S-1 strategy) for gastric cancer patients after D2 gastrectomy. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the lifetime disease course associated with stage II or III gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy. The lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), associated costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. The clinical data were derived from the results of pilot studies. Direct costs were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, and the utility data were measured from end-point observations of Chinese patients. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty on the model's outcomes. RESULTS: The combined adjuvant chemotherapy strategy with XELOX yielded the greatest increase in QALYs over the course of the disease (8.1 QALYs compared with 7.8 QALYs for the S-1 strategy and 6.2 for surgery alone). The incremental cost per QALY gained using the XELOX strategy was significantly lower than that for the S-1 strategy ($3,502 vs. $6,837, respectively). The results were sensitive to the costs of oxaliplatin and the hazard ratio of relapse-free survival. CONCLUSION: The observations reported herein suggest that adjuvant therapy with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin is a highly cost-effective strategy and more favorable treatment option than the S-1 strategy in patients with stage II or III gastric cancer who have undergone D2 gastrectomy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy in the treatment of post-menopausal women with hormone receptor positive breast cancer.

Five years of Tamoxifen (Standard TAM) is a common treatment option for early-stage, hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). Extending Standard TAM by 5 additional years (Extended TAM) can improve survival and BC recurrences. In postmenopausal women, the use of extended aromatase inhibitors (Extended AI) after Standard TAM is an alternative to Extended TAM. This study examines the cost-effectiveness (CE) of extending Standard TAM with Extended TAM vs. Extended AI in postmenopausal HR+ early-stage BC patients. Three treatments were assessed: (1) Standard TAM; (2) Extended TAM; (3) Extended AI through a Markov model using a Canadian health system perspective, lifetime time-horizon, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and a 5 % discount rate for future costs and utilities. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and the impact of parameter uncertainty was assessed through probabilistic sensitivity analyses (SA) using conventional CE thresholds. The estimated total per person costs in 2012 Canadian dollars [$1.00 CAD = $0.99 US 2012] were the least for Extended TAM ($8,623 CAD) and most for Extended AI ($9,432 CAD). Extended AI was the most effective regimen, while Standard TAM was the least. Extended AI was cost-effective at conventional thresholds vs. Extended TAM (ICER: $3,402 CAD/QALY) which was robust to the SA. This study suggests that Extended AI and Extended TAM result in improved QALYs and lower healthcare costs vs Standard TAM. Extended AI results in the greatest improvement in QALYs and is the most cost-effective treatment alternative despite its higher drug costs.

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-utility analysis of the newly recommended adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer patients in the 2011 Chinese National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin was first recommended for resectable gastric cancer patients in the 2011 Chinese National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Gastric Cancer, but the economic influence of this therapy in China is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin after a gastrectomy with extended (D2) lymph-node dissection, compared with a D2 gastrectomy alone, for patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer. METHODS: On the basis of data from the CLASSIC trial, a Markov model was created to determine economic and clinical data for patients in the chemotherapy and surgery group (CSG) and the surgery-only group (SOG). The costs, presented in 2010 US dollars and estimated from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system, were obtained from the published literature and the local health system. The utilities were based on published literature. Costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated. A lifetime horizon and a 3 % annual discount rate were used. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: For the base case, the CSG compared with SOG would increase LYs and QALYs in a 3-, 5-, 10- or 30-year time horizon (except the QALYs at 3 or 5 years). In the short run (such as in 3 or 5 years), the medical costs would increase owing to adjuvant chemotherapy of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin after D2 gastrectomy, but in the long run the costs would decline. The ICERs suggested that the SOG was dominant at 3 or 5 years and the CSG was dominant at 10 or 30 years. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the utility of disease-free survival for 1-10 years for the SOG and the cost of oxaliplatin were the most influential parameters. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted a 98.6 % likelihood that the ICER for the CSG would be less than US$13,527/QALY (three times the per capita gross domestic product of China). CONCLUSION: For patients in China with resectable disease, our results suggest that adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin after a D2 gastrectomy is cost-saving and dominant in the long run on the basis of a current clinical trial, compared with treatment with a D2 gastrectomy alone.

Economic evaluation of first-line adjuvant chemotherapies for resectable gastric cancer patients in China.

BACKGROUND: First-line postoperative adjuvant chemotherapies with S-1 and capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) were first recommended for resectable gastric cancer patients in the 2010 and 2011 Chinese NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Gastric Cancer; however, their economic impact in China is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy with XELOX, with S-1 and no treatment after a gastrectomy with extended (D2) lymph-node dissection among patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer. METHODS: A Markov model, based on data from two clinical phase III trials, was developed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of patients in the XELOX group, S-1 group and surgery only (SO) group. The costs were estimated from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The utilities were assumed on the basis of previously published reports. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated with a lifetime horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: For the base case, XELOX had the lowest total cost ($44,568) and cost-effectiveness ratio ($7,360/QALY). The relative scenario analyses showed that SO was dominated by XELOX and the ICERs of S-1 was $58,843/QALY compared with XELOX. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the most influential parameter was the utility of disease-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted a 75.8% likelihood that the ICER for XELOX would be less than $13,527 compared with S-1. When ICER was more than $38,000, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness achieved by S-1 group was greater than 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that for patients in China with resectable disease, first-line adjuvant chemotherapy with XELOX after a D2 gastrectomy is a best option comparing with S-1 and SO in view of our current study. In addition, S-1 might be a better choice, especially with a higher value of willingness-to-pay threshold.

Cost effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced operable head and neck cancer followed by surgery and postoperative radiotherapy: a Markov model-based decision analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Head and neck carcinomas are among the most frequent tumor diseases and, because of different multimodal therapy options, cause enormous costs. For this reason, we examined whether in operable advanced head and neck carcinomas, neoadjuvant induction chemotherapy is cost effective in comparison with surgery followed by postoperative radio(chemo)therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed with paclitaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil as induction therapy. The legal health insurance in Germany was chosen for cost perspectives, and a willingness-to-pay limit at EUR 38,000 was set. RESULTS: Total costs for surgery with postoperative radiochemotherapy amounted to EUR 13,999. Prior induction chemotherapy raised the costs to EUR 17,377, with a higher effectiveness by 0.1 years of life. Costs per year of life gained are EUR 33,780. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) with variations in side effects for surgery and postoperative chemotherapy amounted to between EUR 31,520 and 36,050. With variations in side effects for induction chemotherapy, the ICER amounted to EUR 30,060-37,520. The Monte Carlo simulation disclosed cost effectiveness for 55.4% of the patients; for 44.6%, there was no cost effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The Markov-modeled cost effectiveness analysis indicates that with operable head and neck tumors, induction therapy with paclitaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil is cost effective.

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.