Two schedules of second-line irinotecan for metastatic colon carcinoma

Chemotherapy induced diarrhea

Purpose: To provide a current review of the literature related to chemotherapy induced diarrhea (CID), including clinical assessment, recommended management guidelines and investigational pharmacological approaches for the prevention and treatment of CID.

Data sources: A search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Web of Science (1996—2006) databases was conducted using terms such as: chemotherapy, diarrhea, diarrhoea, and irinotecan. Appropriate references from selected articles were also used. The search engine, Google, provided further access to information.

Data extraction: The retrieved literature was reviewed to include all articles pertaining to the pathophysiology, assessment and management of CID.

Data synthesis: Diarrhea is a debilitating and potentially life-threatening side effect associated with many chemotherapeutic agents. Despite the high incidence and severity of CID, it is often under recognized and poorly managed. A multidisciplinary panel recently updated recommended practice guidelines for the assessment and management of CID. Prompt and aggressive intervention is important in order to minimize the negative consequences of CID, such as dehydration, which may cause interruptions in optimal clinical outcomes or may lead to life-threatening sequelae. Further investigation into the pathophysiology of CID may allow for more directed approaches in the prophylaxis and treatment of CID. J Oncol Pharm Practice (2007) 13: 181—198.

Economic studies in colorectal cancer: challenges in measuring and comparing costs

Estimates of the costs associated with cancer care are essential both for assessing burden of disease at the population level and for conducting economic evaluations of interventions to prevent, detect, or treat cancer. Comparisons of cancer costs between health systems and across countries can improve understanding of the economic consequences of different health-care policies and programs. We conducted a structured review of the published literature on colorectal cancer (CRC) costs, including direct medical, direct nonmedical (ie, patient and caregiver time, travel), and productivity losses. We used MEDLINE to identify English language articles published between 2000 and 2010 and found 55 studies. The majority were conducted in the United States (52.7%), followed by France (12.7%), Canada (10.9%), the United Kingdom (9.1%), and other countries (9.1%). Almost 90% of studies estimated direct medical costs, but few studies estimated patient or caregiver time costs or productivity losses associated with CRC. Within a country, we found significant heterogeneity across the studies in populations examined, health-care delivery settings, methods for identifying incident and prevalent patients, types of medical services included, and analyses. Consequently, findings from studies with seemingly the same objective (eg, costs of chemotherapy in year following CRC diagnosis) are difficult to compare. Across countries, aggregate and patient-level estimates vary in so many respects that they are almost impossible to compare. Our findings suggest that valid cost comparisons should be based on studies with explicit standardization of populations, services, measures of costs, and methods with the goal of comparability within or between health systems or countries. Expected increases in CRC prevalence and costs in the future highlight the importance of such studies for informing health-care policy and program planning.

Systematic review and quality assessment of cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and assess the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of pharmaceutical therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and EconLit databases were searched for the Medical Subject Headings or text key words quality-adjusted, QALY, life-year gained (LYG), and cost-effectiveness (January 1, 1999-December 31, 2009).

STUDY SELECTION

Original CEAs of mCRC pharmacotherapy published in English were included. CEAs that measured health effects in units other than quality-adjusted life years or LYG and letters to the editor, case reports, posters, and editorials were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Each article was independently assessed by 2 trained reviewers according to a quality checklist created by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

RESULTS

Twenty-four CEA studies pertaining to pharmaceutical therapies for mCRC were identified. All studies showed a wide variation in methodologic approaches, which resulted in a different range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for each regimen. We found common methodologic flaws in a significant number of CEA studies, including lack of clear description for critique of data quality; lack of method for adjusting costs for inflation and methods for obtaining expert judgment; no results of model validation; wide differences in the types of perspective, time horizon, study design, cost categories, and effect outcomes; and no quality assessment of data (cost and effectiveness) for the interventions evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown a wide variation in the methodology and quality of cost-effectiveness analysis for mCRC. Improving quality and harmonization of CEA for cancer treatment is needed. Further study is suggested to assess the quality of CEA methodology outside the mCRC disease state.

Cost–effectiveness of UGT1A1 genotyping in second-line, high-dose, once every 3 weeks irinotecan monotherapy treatment of colorectal cancer

Aim: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost–effectiveness of UGT1A1 genotyping in second-line, high-dose, once every 3 weeks irinotecan monotherapy treatment of colorectal cancer. Methods: Standard therapy was compared with alternative strategies based on UGT1A1 genotyping from the US healthcare payer perspective. Two alternative strategies (dose reduction and prophylactic use of G-CSF with prior genotyping) and standard therapy were evaluated in a decision analysis, whereas alternative regimens were considered in discussion. The effectiveness outcome was severe neutropenia occurrence and number of life-years gained. Results & Conclusion: Genotyping in combination with a subsequent reduction of initial irinotecan dose for UGT1A1 7/7 genotype patients was cost-saving for the population of African and Caucasian origin. By contrast, UGT1A1 genotyping was not cost effective for the population of Asian ancestry. Furthermore, the prophylactic use of G-CSFs in UGT1A1 7/7 genotype patients was not cost effective in any population group. Finally, the application of a 3-weekly high-dose treatment regimen with a 20% reduced dosage compared with the low-dose weekly irinotecan regimen in patients with UGT1A1 7/7 genotype was less expensive and is more convenient for the patient.

A systematic review of the use of quality of life measures in colorectal cancer research with attention to outcomes in elderly patients

PURPOSE

Quality of life (QOL) measures are critical to the evaluation of new cancer treatments, particularly for elderly patients. Our intent was to assess patterns of use of QOL endpoints in colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment research and to summarize current knowledge about how CRC treatment affects elderly patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE for English-language, human trials published from 1995 to 2005 that met the following criteria: reported on patients with CRC, were not surgery-only cohorts, and included a QOL or functional endpoints. Trials specifically reporting data on elderly patients were reviewed in depth and summarized.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-one eligible studies and 10 trials with elderly-specific data were found. The median number of trials published annually increased from 5 (range, 4-8 trials) between 1995 and 1999 to 14.5 (range, 11-22 trials) between 2000 and 2005. Chemotherapy was the most commonly studied treatment (55%), and metastatic CRC (55%) was the most commonly studied population. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer C30, with or without C38, was the most frequently used instrument (49%). Studies reporting on elderly patients showed that many patients experience a decline in physical function immediately after surgery and have increased need for supportive services. Little information is available on the effect of chemotherapy in elderly patients. Use of QOL and functional measures in treatment-related CRC research has increased; however, it continues to be hampered by a lack of dissemination and methodologic problems.

CONCLUSION

Missing data from patient attrition, limitations of assessment methods, and a small number of patients treated with chemotherapy in the trials reporting on elderly patients seriously limit our ability to draw conclusions from this survey about how treatment affects QOL or function in CRC.

A critical review of the full economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

This literature review makes a critical assessment of the methodology of the full economic evaluations (FEEs) conducted on colorectal cancer (CRC) pharmacological treatments.

METHOD

A literature search of the international databases PubMed and EMBASE was carried out to find all the studies published in the English language on pharmacological treatments for CRC in the period 2001-2005. A checklist was adopted to analyse the 13 FEEs selected. Fourteen clinical trials were extracted from the references as sources of efficacy data and were reviewed separately according to a clinical checklist. Finally, the reliability of the 13 FEEs was assessed from the health authorities' perspective by applying a critical appraisal checklist of 16 items derived from the economic and clinical variables previously analysed.

RESULTS

This review found that pharmacoeconomic studies on CRC showed important methodological weaknesses mainly regarding economic evaluation, whilst the sources of clinical evidence were of higher technical quality, although the clinical effectiveness of therapies was not fully sustained by their results.

A systematic review of economic analyses of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer in the Western world. New drugs in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, such as irinotecan and oxaliplatin, have substantially increased the cost of treatment. A systematic literature review on the cost (-effectiveness) of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer was conducted, in which 13 articles were included. The main topics were: orally versus intravenously administered fluoropyrimidine, raltitrexed, irinotecan and oxaliplatin. Additional information was collected on the cost (-effectiveness) of the monoclonal antibodies, cetuximab and bevacizumab. Only five articles had taken the societal perspective, in most articles no data on quality of life was presented, and only two reported the cost per quality-adjusted life year. As only a limited amount of information is available on the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer, there is a need for more cost-effectiveness studies. These studies are preferably performed by taking a societal perspective and including quality of life outcomes.

Cost considerations in the treatment of colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is among the most common malignancies in developed countries. Screening can reduce mortality significantly, although the most appropriate method is still under debate. Observational studies have revealed that lifestyle measures may also be beneficial for prevention of colorectal cancer. Surgery is still the most effective treatment modality for colorectal cancer. The survival benefits of chemotherapy are only modest. For nearly 5 decades, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been the main cytotoxic agent for treatment of colorectal cancer. In the last decade, the new cytotoxic agents raltitrexed, irinotecan and oxaliplatin have been introduced, next to the oral 5-FU analogues capecitabine and tegafur in combination with uracil (UFT). Moreover, the immunotherapeutics bevacizumab and cetuximab have become approved for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. The economic implications of colorectal cancer treatment are substantial. The costs of treatment are mainly attributable to the early and terminal stage of the disease (i.e. surgery, hospitalisation, chemo- and immunotherapy and supportive care). The introduction of new chemo- and immunotherapeutics has caused a continuing increase of treatment expenditures. Therefore, comparative costs and cost effectiveness are important for assessing the value of new treatment regimens. The available study results suggest that addition of irinotecan or oxaliplatin to 5-FU/folinic acid dosage regimens is cost effective. Also, capecitabine is calculated to be cost effective when compared with 5-FU/folinic acid. For UFT, no comparative studies of cost effectiveness were found. Since raltitrexed and 5-FU/folinic acid have shown equal efficacy in terms of survival, cost-effectiveness analysis is considered not to be applicable and cost-minimisation analysis may be sufficient. At present, pharmacoeconomic analyses of combination treatment with the immunotherapeutics bevacizumab or cetuximab are not available, except for recent cost-effectiveness considerations by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence with negative recommendations for both agents in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Given the high treatment costs, substantial toxicity and relatively limited efficacy of the fast changing chemo- and immunotherapeutic combinations for colorectal cancer, examination of cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted on a routine basis along with determination of clinical benefits.

Irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer

Out of every 17-18 individuals in the US, one develops colorectal cancer (CRC) in their lifetime. Of individuals diagnosed with CRC, > 50% present or develop metastatic disease, which, if untreated, is associated with 6-9 months median survival. Although surgical resection is the primary treatment modality for CRC, chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment for metastatic or unresectable disease. For nearly three decades, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been the chemotherapy of choice for treatment of CRC. However, the response rates to single 5-FU therapy have been suboptimal with an objective tumour response of 10-20%. Attempts have been made to improve the efficacy of 5-FU by either schedule alteration (protracted infusion versus intravenous push) or biochemical modulation with leucovorin (LV). Continuous infusion induced more tumour regression and prolonged the time-to-disease progression with some significant impact on survival (11.3 versus 12.1 months; p < 0.04). 5-FU/LV resulted in a significant increase in overall response rates and in the prolongation of disease-free survival in the adjuvant setting, although severe toxicities represent a major clinical problem. The last 10 years have seen the addition of several new agents such as irinotecan, oxaliplatin, raltitrexed, bevacizumab and cetuximab. The prognosis has significantly improved with the addition of these agents, with median survivals now > 20 months. This review paper focuses on irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed when used alone and in combination.