Cost-effectiveness of Capecitabine + Irinotecan Versus Leucovorin + Fluorouracil + Irinotecan in the Second-line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in China.

PURPOSE: The AXEPT trial demonstrated that modified XELIRI (mXELIRI; capecitabine + irinotecan) was noninferior to standard treatment with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil + leucovorin + irinotecan), both ± bevacizumab, in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The present study was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mXELIRI versus FOLFIRI as a second-line treatment of mCRC. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate the costs and health outcomes of mXELIRI and FOLFIRI in patients with mCRC from the Chinese payer perspective. Survival data, transition probabilities, and health utility values were obtained from published studies. The costs of drugs were obtained from the West China Hospital. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values were regarded as the primary end points. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainty of parameters in the analysis. FINDINGS: The effectiveness was found to be 0.48 QALYs (1.14 LYs) in the mXELIRI arm and 0.41 QALYs (1.05 LYs) in the FOLFIRI arm, with total costs of 29,896.41 US dollars (USD) in the mXELIRI arm and 28,894.68 USD in the FOLFIRI arm. The ICER and ICUR with mXELIRI versus FOLFIRI were 11,130.33 USD/LY and 14,310.43 USD/QALY gained, which were less than the willingness-to-pay threshold in China (25,840.88 USD/QALY). IMPLICATIONS: Based on the results of this study, mXELIRI was found to be a cost-effective alternative to FOLFIRI as a second-line treatment of mCRC in patients in China.

Comparative Cost-effectiveness of Aflibercept and Ramucirumab in Combination with Irinotecan and Fluorouracil-based Therapy for the Second-line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Japan.

PURPOSE: The addition of aflibercept (AFL) or ramucirumab (RAM) to folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) prolongs overall survival and progression-free survival compared with FOLFIRI alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) as second-line therapy. Although these combination regimens are recommended among the standard therapies, significant additional cost is a concern. The comparative cost-effectiveness of AFL and RAM was examined from the perspective of the Japanese health care payer. METHODS: A partitioned survival analysis was constructed. The data sources were the VELOUR (Aflibercept Versus Placebo in Combination With Irinotecan and 5-FU in the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer After Failure of an Oxaliplatin Based Regimen) and RAISE (Ramucirumab Versus Placebo in Combination With Second-Line FOLFIRI in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma That Progressed During or After First-Line Therapy With Bevacizumab, Oxaliplatin, and a Fluoropyrimidine) trials, which compared FOLFIRI alone with AFL or RAM in second-line treatment for mCRC. The cost and effectiveness of the combination of AFL or RAM with FOLFIRI were compared with those of FOLFIRI alone and examined between both agents in a 10-year time horizon. The health outcomes were life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The costs were 2019 revisions to the drug prices and medical fees. The robustness of the model was verified by 1-way sensitivity analyses and a probability sensitivity analysis. A 2% annual discount was applied to the expenses and QALYs. A willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥7.5 million was used. FINDINGS: Compared with FOLFIRI alone, combination AFL or RAM with FOLFIRI had incremental effects of 0.173 QALYs (0.253 LYs) and 0.137 QALYs (0.197 LYs), incremental costs of ¥3,423,481 (US $31,010) and ¥5,766,106 (US $52,229), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ¥19, 836, 504 (US $179,678) and ¥41, 947, 989 (US $379,964) per QALY, respectively. Results of 1-way sensitivity analyses and probability sensitivity analysis all exceeded a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥7.5 million. In the comparison of the 2 agents, AFL was a dominant over RAM. IMPLICATIONS: Adding AFL or RAM to FOLFIRI in the second line of mCRC treatment was not cost-effective in the Japanese health care system. On the basis of the results of this study, in the treatment of mCRC, it will be necessary to adjust the prices of AFL and RAM with the improvement of clinical parameters, such as survival time and adverse events. Of the 2 agents, AFL was more cost-effective than RAM.

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.

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-effectiveness analysis of selective first-line use of biologics for unresectable RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer.

Background: Evidence from a retrospective analysis of multiple large phase iii trials suggested that primary tumour location (ptl) in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (wtRAS mcrc) might have predictive value with respect to response to drug therapies. Recent studies also show a potential preferential benefit for epidermal growth factor inhibitors (egfris) for left-sided tumours. In the present study, we aimed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) for the first-line use of an egfri for patients with left-sided wtRAS mcrc. Methods: We developed a state-transition model to determine the cost effectiveness of alternative treatment strategies in patients with left-sided mcrc:■ Standard of care■ Use of an egfri in first-line therapyThe cohort for the study consisted of patients diagnosed with unresectable wtRAS mcrc with an indication for chemotherapy and previously documented ptl. Model parameters were obtained from the published literature and calibration. The perspective was that of a provincial ministry of health in Canada. We used a 5-year time horizon and an annual discount rate of 1.5%. Results: Selecting patients for first-line egfri treatment based on left-sided location of their colorectal primary tumour was more effective than the standard of care, resulting in an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) of 0.226 (or 0.644 life-years gained). However, the strategy was also more expensive, costing an average of $60,639 more per patient treated. The resulting icer was $268,094 per qaly. A 35% price reduction in the cost of egfri would be needed to make this strategy cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold (wtp) of $100,000 per qaly. Conclusions: Selective use of an egfri based on ptl was more cost-effective than unselected use of those agents; however, based on traditional wtp thresholds, it was still not cost-effective. While awaiting the elucidation of more precise predictive biomarkers that might improve cost-effectiveness, the price of egfris could be reduced to meet the wtp threshold.

Quality of life and cost of strategies of two chemotherapy lines in metastatic colorectal cancer: results of the FFCD 2000-05 trial.

Objectives: This study compared the cost and quality of life (QoL) of 407 advanced colorectal cancer patients, randomly assigned to receive LV5FU2 followed by FOLFOX6 (sequential strategy) or FOLFOX6 followed by FOLFIRI (combination strategy). Methods: Costs were compared from the French health insurance perspective, until the end of the second line of treatment. Consumed resources, collected during the trial, included medicines, hospitalizations, examinations, and transportation. Valuations were made using 2009 and 2016 tariffs. QoL was assessed using the QLQ-C30 questionnaire and clinically significant variations were searched. Results: In 2009, the mean cost per patient was significantly lower for the sequential strategy compared to the combination strategy (18,061€ and 23,119€, p = 0.001). In 2016, the difference was no longer significant (16,876€ and 18,090€, p = 0.41) because oxaliplatin and irinotecan became generics. The QoL analysis (292 patients) showed that there was significantly less improvement of global health status in the sequential strategy than in the combination strategy (29% and 42%; p = 0.02) during first-line therapy. No significant differences were observed for emotional functioning (p = 0.45) and physical functioning (p = 0.07) or during second-line therapy. Conclusion: The choice to treat patients with advanced colorectal cancer using one or the other strategy cannot be based on costs or QoL.

Consequences of Biomarker Analysis on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab in Combination with FOLFIRI as a First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Personalised Medicine at Work.

BACKGROUND: Therapies may be more efficacious when targeting a patient subpopulation with specific attributes, thereby enhancing the cost-effectiveness of treatment. In the CRYSTAL study, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were treated with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFIRI alone until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects or withdrawal of consent. OBJECTIVE: To determine if stratified use of cetuximab based on genetic biomarker detection improves cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We used individual patient data from CRYSTAL to compare the cost-effectiveness, cost per life-year (LY) and cost per quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained of cetuximab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI alone in three cohorts of patients with mCRC: all randomised patients (intent-to-treat; ITT), tumours with no detectable mutations in codons 12 and 13 of exon 2 of the KRAS protein ('KRAS wt') and no detectable mutations in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and exons 2, 3 and 4 of NRAS ('RAS wt'). Survival analysis was conducted using RStudio, and a cost-utility model was modified to allow comparison of the three cohorts. RESULTS: The deterministic base-case ICER (cost per QALY gained) was £130,929 in the ITT, £72,053 in the KRAS wt and £44,185 in the RAS wt cohorts for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI alone. At a £50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, cetuximab plus FOLFIRI has a 2.8, 20 and 63% probability of being cost-effective for the ITT, KRAS wt and RAS wt cohorts, respectively, versus FOLFIRI alone. CONCLUSION: Screening for mutations in both KRAS and NRAS may provide the most cost-effective approach to patient selection.

Economic Analysis of First-Line Treatment with Cetuximab or Panitumumab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapies with cetuximab (Erbitux®; Merck Serono UK Ltd) and panitumumab (Vectibix®; Amgen UK Ltd) are shown to be less effective in adults with metastatic colorectal cancer who have mutations in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and NRAS oncogenes from the rat sarcoma (RAS) family. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of these drugs in patients with previously untreated RAS wild-type (i.e. non-mutated) metastatic colorectal cancer, not eligible for liver resection at baseline, from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. METHODS: We constructed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the long-term costs and benefits of cetuximab and panitumumab combined with either FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin) or FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) vs. FOLFOX or FOLFIRI alone. The economic analysis was based on three randomised controlled trials. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted at 3.5% per annum. RESULTS: Based on the evidence available, both drugs fulfil the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's end-of-life criteria. In the analysis, assuming discount prices for the drugs from patient access schemes agreed by the drug manufacturers with the Department of Health, predicted mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cetuximab + FOLFOX, panitumumab + FOLFOX and cetuximab + FOLFIRI compared with chemotherapy alone appeared cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, applicable to end-of-life treatments. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab and panitumumab were recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with previously untreated RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, not eligible for liver resection at baseline, for use within the National Health Service in England. Both treatments are available via the UK Cancer Drugs Fund.

Comparison of treatment patterns and economic outcomes among metastatic pancreatic cancer patients initiated on nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is substantial while treatment options are limited. Little is known about the treatment patterns and healthcare costs among mPC patients who initiated first-line gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-P + G) and FOLFIRINOX. METHODS: The MarketScan® claims databases were used to identify adults with ≥2 claims for pancreatic cancer, 1 claim for a secondary malignancy, completed ≥1 cycle of nab-P + G or FOLFIRINOX during 4/1/2013 and 3/31/2015, and had continuous plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and 3 months after the first-line treatment. Duration of therapy, per patient per month (PPPM) costs of total healthcare, mPC-related treatment, and supportive care were measured during first-line therapy. RESULTS: 550 mPC patients met selection criteria (nab-P + G, n = 294; FOLFIRINOX, n = 256). There was no difference in duration of therapy (p = 0.60) between nab-P + G and FOLFIRINOX. Compared with FOLFIRINOX, patients with nab-P + G had higher chemotherapy drug costs but lower treatment administration costs and supportive care costs (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with nab-P + G (vs FOLFIRINOX) had similar treatment duration but lower costs of outpatient prescriptions, treatment administration and supportive care. Lower supportive care costs in the nab-P + G cohort were mainly driven by lower utilization of pegfilgrastim and anti-emetics.

Comparison of treatment patterns, resource utilization, and cost of care in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with first-line nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX.

BACKGROUND: We compared real-world treatment patterns, resource utilization, and cost of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with first-line nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of inpatient and hospital-based outpatient data in the United States. Primary endpoints included median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and total cost of care per patient per month. Secondary endpoints included supportive care costs and hospitalization rate and length. RESULTS: Overall, 345 patients were included (nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, n = 182; FOLFIRINOX, n = 163). Median TTD was significantly longer with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine vs FOLFIRINOX (4.3 vs 2.8 months; P = .0009). Mean acquisition cost was higher with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine ($10,643 vs $6549; P = .0043), but mean total cost of care was lower ($16,628 vs $19,936; P = .1740). Supportive care cost was significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine ($1995 vs $6456; P < .0001). Hospitalization rate and length were both significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher acquisition costs with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX-treated patients had higher total costs driven by supportive care. Toxicity-related costs and drug acquisition costs should be considered when evaluating total cost of care.

Time-Series Modeling and Simulation for Comparative Cost-Effective Analysis in Cancer Chemotherapy: An Application to Platinum-Based Regimens for Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

The purpose of this study was to propose a time-series modeling and simulation (M&S) strategy for probabilistic cost-effective analysis in cancer chemotherapy using a Monte-Carlo method based on data available from the literature. The simulation included the cost for chemotherapy, for pharmaceutical care for adverse events (AEs) and other medical costs. As an application example, we describe the analysis for the comparison of four regimens, cisplatin plus irinotecan, carboplatin plus paclitaxel, cisplatin plus gemcitabine (GP), and cisplatin plus vinorelbine, for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The factors, drug efficacy explained by overall survival or time to treatment failure, frequency and severity of AEs, utility value of AEs to determine QOL, the drugs' and other medical costs in Japan, were included in the model. The simulation was performed and quality adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. An index, percentage of superiority (%SUP) which is the rate of the increased cost vs. QALY-gained plots within the area of positive QALY-gained and also below some threshold values of the ICER, was calculated as functions of threshold values of the ICER. An M&S process was developed, and for the simulation example, the GP regimen was the most cost-effective, in case of threshold values of the ICER=$70000/year, the %SUP for the GP are more than 50%. We developed an M&S process for probabilistic cost-effective analysis, this method would be useful for decision-making in choosing a cancer chemotherapy regimen in terms of pharmacoeconomic.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences of Chemotherapies and Targeted Biologics for Elderly Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Treatment patterns for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients have changed considerably over the last decade with the introduction of new chemotherapies and targeted biologics. These treatments are often administered in various sequences with limited evidence regarding their cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of commonly administered treatment sequences among elderly mCRC patients. METHODS: A probabilistic discrete event simulation model assuming Weibull distribution was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the following common treatment sequences: (a) first-line oxaliplatin/irinotecan followed by second-line oxaliplatin/irinotecan + bevacizumab (OI-OIB); (b) first-line oxaliplatin/irinotecan + bevacizumab followed by second-line oxaliplatin/irinotecan + bevacizumab (OIB-OIB); (c) OI-OIB followed by a third-line targeted biologic (OI-OIB-TB); and (d) OIB-OIB followed by a third-line targeted biologic (OIB-OIB-TB). Input parameters for the model were primarily obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked dataset for incident mCRC patients aged 65 years and older diagnosed from January 2004 through December 2009. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for parameter uncertainty. Costs (2014 U.S. dollars) and effectiveness were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. RESULTS: In the base case analyses, at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, the treatment sequence OIB-OIB (vs. OI-OIB) was not cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per patient of $119,007/QALY; OI-OIB-TB (vs. OIB-OIB) was dominated; and OIB-OIB-TB (vs. OIB-OIB) was not cost-effective with an ICER of $405,857/QALY. Results similar to the base case analysis were obtained assuming log-normal distribution. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a WTP of $100,000/QALY gained, sequence OI-OIB was 34% cost-effective, followed by OIB-OIB (31%), OI-OIB-TB (20%), and OIB-OIB-TB (15%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, survival increases marginally with the addition of targeted biologics, such as bevacizumab, at first line and third line at substantial costs. Treatment sequences with bevacizumab at first line and targeted biologics at third line may not be cost-effective at the commonly used threshold of $100,000/QALY gained, but a marginal decrease in the cost of bevacizumab may make treatment sequences with first-line bevacizumab cost-effective. Future economic evaluations should validate the study results using parameters from ongoing clinical trials. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported in part by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01-HS018956) and in part by a grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RP130051), which were obtained by Du. The authors report no conflicts of interest. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Parikh, along with the other authors. All authors participated in data collection, and Parikh took the lead in data interpretation and analysis, along with Lairson and Morgan, with assistance from Du. The manuscript was written primarily by Parikh, along with Lairson, Morgan, and Du, and revised by Parikh.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Different Sequences of the Use of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors for Wild-Type KRAS Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with unresectable wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer benefit from fluoropyrimidines (FP), oxaliplatin (O), irinotecan (I), bevacizumab (Bev), and epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI). The most cost-effective regimen remains unclear. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to examine the costs and outcomes of three treatment strategies: strategy A (reference strategy): EGFRI monotherapy in third line ([3L]; ie, first-line [1L]: Bev + FOLFIRI [FP + I] or FOLFOX [FP + O]; second line [2L]: FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: EGFRI); strategy B: EGFRI and I in 3L (ie, 1L: Bev + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 2L: FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: EGFRI + I); and strategy C: EGFRI in 1L (ie, 1L: EGFRI + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 2L: Bev + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: best supportive care). Efficacy data of the treatments were obtained from the literature. Health system resource use information was derived from chart review and the literature. Using Euro-QOL 5 Dimensions, utilities were obtained by surveying medical oncologists and costs from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the literature. The perspective of the Canadian public health care system was used over a 5-year time horizon with a 5% discount in 2012 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: All three strategies had similar efficacy, but strategy C was most expensive. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for strategies B and C compared with A were 119,623 and 3,176,591, respectively. The model was primarily driven by the acquisition cost of the drugs. Strategy B was most cost effective when the willingness-to-pay threshold was > $130,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analysis showed that strategy C would be cost-effective only when the progression-free survival of EGFRI is better than Bev in 1L with hazard ratio < 0.23 at willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSION: First-line use of EGFRI in metastatic colorectal cancer is not cost effective at its current pricing relative to Bev.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer based on PRODIGE and MPACT trials.

PURPOSE: Fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-N) have shown a significant survival benefit for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX versus GEM-N for treating metastatic pancreatic cancer based on the PRODIGE and MPACT trials. METHODS: A decision model was performed to compare FOLFIRINOX with GEM-N. Primary base case data were identified from PRODIGE and MPACT trials. Costs were estimated and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated at West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China. Survival benefits were reported in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Finally, sensitive analysis was performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters in the model. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that FOLFIRINOX cost $37,203.75 and yielded a survival of 0.67 QALY, and GEM-N cost $32,080.59 and yielded a survival of 0.51 QALY in the entire treatment. Thus, the ICER of FOLFIRINOX versus GEM-N was $32,019.75 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: The GEM-N regimen was more cost-effective compared with the FOLFIRINOX regimen for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer from a Chinese perspective.

Modified irinotecan and infusional 5-fluorouracil (mFOLFIRI) in patients with refractory advanced pancreas cancer (APC): a single-institution experience.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer death. Recently, MM-398 (nanoliposomal irinotecan) was shown to be associated with significant improvement in outcome measures with acceptable toxicities when combined with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) compared to 5-FU/LV alone in patients failing one line of gemcitabine-based therapy. There is a paucity of data evaluating the role of irinotecan in combination with 5FU in advanced pancreas cancer (APC). We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who received mFOLFIRI (minus bolus 5FU and LV). All patients with metastatic disease who had failed at least one line of gemcitabine-based therapy prior to receiving mFOLFIRI were included in this study. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the continuous variables and adverse events (AEs), and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Forty patients were included in this analysis. Patients received 1-5 lines of prior therapy (25 % with more than 3 lines of prior therapy). The mean age at diagnosis was 60, and 98 % had ECOG of 1. The mean CA 19-9 at the start of therapy was 33,169 U/ml. The median PFS was 2.59 months [95 % confidence interval (CI) (1.90, 3.54)], and OS was 4.75 months [95 % CI (3.14, 8.98)]. The most common AEs included fatigue (98 %), neuropathy (83 %), anorexia (68 %), nausea (60 %) and constipation (55 %). Grade 3 toxicities included fatigue (13 %) and rash (3 %). There were no observed grade 4 toxicities. In this single-institution retrospective analysis, mFOLFIRI was found to be both tolerable and relatively effective in a heavily pretreated patient population with APC. Future prospective studies should consider evaluating the role of mFOLFIRI in refractory APC.

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

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

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Value of Current Therapies.

To evaluate, from a US payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), we performed a systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses. We identified 14 papers that fulfilled our search criteria and revealed varying levels of value among current treatment strategies. Older agents such as 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin provide high-value treatments. More modern agents targeting the EGFR or VEGF pathways, such as bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab, do not appear to be cost-effective treatments at their current costs. The analytical methods used within the papers varied widely, and this variation likely plays a significant role in the heterogeneity in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The cost-effectiveness of current treatment strategies for mCRC is highly variable. Drugs recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for mCRC are not cost-effective, and this is primarily driven by high drug costs.

The rapidly escalating cost of treating colorectal cancer in Australia.

AIMS: Considerable progress in cancer treatment is leading to better outcomes, but the cost of therapy is placing increasing pressure on the health system. Understanding the real-world cost of therapies for each stage will become increasingly important in informing treatment selection and health policy. METHODS: To explore the cost of treating colorectal cancer in the modern era, data were entered onto a prospective database at four hospitals. We estimated the impact of bevacizumab by using data from July 2009, and projected the likely impact of the recent listing of cetuximab. The utility of these data for estimating the cost-effectiveness of treatment was explored. RESULTS: Cancer stage and age at diagnosis were major determinants of treatment received and the associated cost. The cost of early stage disease has not substantially changed whereas therapies such as oxaliplatin and irinotecan were significant contributors to substantial increases in stage IV disease, now $71,156 per patient. Bevacizumab has added at least $10,247 per patient and we estimate that cetuximab will add a further $12,022. An exploratory analysis of the cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin for adjuvant therapy of stage III colon cancer suggests that this is well within the accepted range. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that recent progress in the treatment of later stages of colorectal cancer is being achieved at significant financial cost. The increased costs of managing later stages of disease make an investment in prevention and early detection ever more attractive.