Clinical and cost effectiveness of bevacizumab + FOLFIRI combination versus FOLFIRI alone as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in South Korea

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Bevacizumab With First-Line Combination Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Studies in Three Canadian Provinces

Background. Real-world evidence can be a valuable tool when clinical trial data are incomplete or uncertain. Bevacizumab was adopted as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on significant survival improvements in initial clinical trials; however, survival benefit diminished in subsequent analyses. Consequently, there is uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab therapy achieved in practice. Objective. To assess real-world cost-effectiveness of first-line bevacizumab with irinotecan-based chemotherapy versus irinotecan-based chemotherapy alone for mCRC in British Columbia (BC), Saskatchewan, and Ontario, Canada. Methods. Using provincial cancer registries and linked administrative databases, we identified mCRC patients who initiated publicly funded irinotecan-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, in 2000 to 2015. We compared bevacizumab-treated patients to historical controls (treated before bevacizumab funding) and contemporaneous controls (receiving chemotherapy without bevacizumab), using inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting with propensity scores to balance baseline covariates. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) using 5-year cost and survival adjusted for censoring, with bootstrapping to characterize uncertainty. We also conducted one-way sensitivity analysis for key drivers of cost-effectiveness. Results. The cohorts included 12,112 (Ontario), 1,161 (Saskatchewan), and 2,977 (BC) patients. Bevacizumab significantly increased treatment costs, with mean ICERs between $78,000 and $84,000/LYG (life-year gained) in the contemporaneous comparisons and $75,000 and $101,000/LYG in the historical comparisons. Reducing the cost of bevacizumab by 50% brought ICERs in all comparisons below $61,000/LYG. Limitations. Residual confounding in observational data may bias results, while the use of original list prices overestimates current bevacizumab cost. Conclusion. The addition of bevacizumab to irinotecan-based chemotherapy extended survival for mCRC patients but at significant cost. At original list prices bevacizumab can only be considered cost-effective with certainty at a willingness-to-pay threshold over $100,000/LYG, but price reductions or discounts have a significant impact on cost-effectiveness.

The cost of chemotherapy administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cancer treatment is a significant driver of healthcare costs worldwide, however, the economic impact of treating patients with anti-neoplastic agents is poorly elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the direct costs associated with administering intravenous chemotherapy in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

We systematically searched four databases from 2010 to present and extracted hourly administration costs and the respective components of each estimate. Separate analyses were conducted of Canadian and United States (US) studies, respectively, to address a priori hypotheses regarding heterogeneity amongst estimates. The Drummond checklist was used to assess risk-of-bias. Data were summarized using medians with interquartile ranges and five outliers were identified; costs were presented in 2019 USD.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were analyzed, including sub-analyses of 19 US and seven Canadian studies. 26/44 studies were of moderate-high quality. When components of administration cost were evaluated, physician costs were reported most frequently (24 studies), followed by lab tests (13) and overhead costs (9). The median estimate (excluding outliers) was $142/hour (IQR = $103-166). The median administration cost in the US was $149/hour (IQR = $118-158), and was $128/hour (IQR = $102-137) in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a paucity of literature addressing the costs of chemotherapy administration, and existing studies utilize a patchwork of reporting methodologies which renders direct comparison challenging. Our results demonstrate that the cost of administering chemotherapy is approximately $125-150/hour, globally. This value is dependent upon the region of analysis, inclusiveness of cost subcomponents as well as the methodology used to estimate unit prices, as described here.

Health Economic Models for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Methodological Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive and detailed review of structural and methodological assumptions in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of systemic metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatments, and discuss their potential impact on health economic outcome estimates.

METHODS

Five databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment and National Health Service Health Economic Evaluation Database) were searched on 26 August 2019 for model-based full health economic evaluations of systemic mCRC treatment using a combination of free-text terms and subject headings. Full-text publications in English were eligible for inclusion if they were published in or after the year 2000. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of included publications. Study selection, appraisal and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1418 publications, of which 54 were included, representing 51 unique studies. Most studies focused on first-line treatment (n = 29, 57%), followed by third-line treatment (n = 13, 25%). Model structures were health-state driven (n = 27, 53%), treatment driven (n = 19, 37%), or a combination (n = 5, 10%). Cohort-level state-transition modelling (STM) was the most common technique (n = 33, 65%), followed by patient-level STM and partitioned survival analysis (both n = 6, 12%). Only 15 studies (29%) reported some sort of model validation. Health economic outcomes for specific strategies differed substantially between studies. For example, survival following first-line treatment with fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin ranged from 1.21 to 7.33 years, with treatment costs ranging from US$8125 to US$126,606.

CONCLUSIONS

Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of systemic mCRC treatments have adopted varied modelling methods and structures, resulting in substantially different outcomes. As models generally focus on first-line treatment without consideration of downstream treatments, there is a profound source of structural uncertainty implying that the cost-effectiveness of treatments across the mCRC pathway remains uncertain.

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 capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer from Chinese societal perspective

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of capecitabine plus bevacizumab compared with capecitabine alone in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) from a Chinese societal perspective.

METHODS

A decision-analytic Markov model was conducted to simulate the process of metastatic CRC. Three distinct health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease and death were included. Clinical data were derived from the AVEX trial. Health effectiveness was denoted in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health utilities were derived from previously published studies. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was regarded as the primary endpoint and willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $26,753.37/QALY (3 × per capita GDP of China, 2017). One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed to explore the parameters uncertainty in the study.

RESULTS

Over a 10-year life horizon, capecitabine plus bevacizumab gained 1.14 QALYs at an average cost of $21,609.48, while the effectiveness and cost of capecitabine group were 0.99 QALYs and $7274.83, respectively. The ICER between the two groups was $95,564.33/QALY. Parameters that mostly influenced the results of the model were utility of PFS state, duration of PFS state for capecitabine plus bevacizumab, total cost of PFS state for capecitabine plus bevacizumab and price of bevacizumab. The probabilities of capecitabine plus bevacizumab and capecitabine as the dominant option were 0% and 100% at the WTP threshold of $26,753.37/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study showed that capecitabine plus bevacizumab is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment option for elderly patients with metastatic CRC.

Comparative Effectiveness of Up To Three Lines of Chemotherapy Treatment Plans for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Modern chemotherapy agents transformed standard care for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but raised concerns about the financial burden of the disease. We studied comparative effectiveness of treatment plans that involve up to three lines of therapies and impact of treatment sequencing on health and cost outcomes. We employed a Markov model to represent the dynamically changing health status of mCRC patients and used Monte-Carlo simulation to evaluate various treatment plans consistent with existing guidelines. We calibrated our model by a meta-analysis of published data from an extensive list of clinical trials and measured the effectiveness of each plan in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year. We examined the sensitivity of our model and results with respect to key parameters in two scenarios serving as base case and worst case for patients' overall and progression-free survivals. The derived efficient frontiers included seven and five treatment plans in base case and worst case, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranged between $26,260 and $152,530 when the treatment plans on the efficient frontiers were compared against the least costly efficient plan in the base case, and between $21,256 and $60,040 in the worst case. All efficient plans were expected to lead to fewer than 2.5 adverse effects and on average successive adverse effects were spaced more than 9 weeks apart from each other in the base case. Based on ICER, all efficient treatment plans exhibit at least 87% chance of being efficient. Sensitivity analyses show that the ICERs were most dependent on drug acquisition cost, distributions of progression-free and overall survivals, and health utilities. We conclude that improvements in health outcomes may come at high incremental costs and are highly dependent in the order treatments are administered.

Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone in previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of neoplasm-related death in the United States. Several studies analyzed the efficacy of bevacizumab combined with different chemotherapy regimens consisting on drugs such as 5-FU, capecitabine, irinotecan and oxaliplatin. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab versus chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Data extracted from the studies were combined by using hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) with their corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI).

RESULTS

The final analysis included 9 trials comprising 3,914 patients. Patients who received the combined treatment (chemotherapy + bevacizumab) had higher response rates (RR = 0.89; 95 % CI: 0.82 to 0.96; p = 0.003) with heterogeneity, higher progression-free survival (HR = 0.69; 95 % CI: 0.63 to 0.75; p < 0.00001) and also higher overall survival rates (HR = 0.87; 95 % CI: 0.80 to 0.95; p = 0.002) with moderate heterogeneity. Regarding adverse events and severe toxicities (grade ≥ 3), the group receiving the combined therapy had higher rates of hypertension (RR = 3.56 95 % CI: 2.58 to 4.92; p < 0.00001), proteinuria (RR = 1.89; 95 % CI: 1.26 to 2.84; p = 0.002), gastrointestinal perforation (RR = 3.63; 95 % CI: 1.31 to 10.09; p = 0.01), any thromboembolic events (RR = 1.44; 95 % CI: 1.20 to 1.73; p = 0.0001), and bleeding (RR = 1.81; 95 % CI: 1.22 to 2.67; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

The combination of chemotherapy with bevacizumab increased the response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival of patients with mCRC without prior chemotherapy. The results of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were comparatively higher in those subgroups of patients receiving bolus 5-FU or capecitabine-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, when compared to patients treated with infusional %-FU plus bevacizumab (no difference in PFS and OS). Regarding the type of cytotoxic scheme, regimens containing irinotecan and fluoropyrimidine monotherapy showed superior efficacy results when combined to bevacizumab.

Autologous Cytokine-Induced Killer Cells Improves Overall Survival of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: Results From a Phase II Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

This randomized clinical study was conducted to evaluate the therapeutic benefits of cytokine-induced killer (CIK) cell immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty-one patients in group 1 (cell therapy group) received autologous CIK cell immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy (5-Fluorouridine, leucovorin and oxaliplatin [FOLFOX4] plan). Another 61 patients in group 2 (the control group) received chemotherapy (FOLFOX4 plan) alone. The primary study end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary end points were treatment response and adverse events.

RESULTS

The 3-year PFS and OS in group 1 were 20% and 48%, respectively, compared with 13% and 23%, respectively, in group 2 (P = .131 and P < .001, respectively). The median OS in group 1 was significantly increased compared with that in group 2 (OS, 36 vs. 16 months; P < .001). Furthermore, there was a trend toward superior PFS in group 1 compared with that in group 2 (PFS, 16 vs. 10 months; P = .072). Using univariate analysis, we found that Karnofsky performance status <80, number of metastases >1, and increased platelet levels were significantly associated with poorer prognosis in group 1. Alternatively, the cycle count of CIK cell treatment was significantly associated with good prognosis in group 1. Toxicity was mild in patients who received CIK therapy.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that CIK cell immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy is well tolerated and improves the OS of mCRC patients.

Cost–effectiveness in colorectal cancer: challenges on quality and comparability

Costs in colorectal cancer treatment are rising, especially since the availability of expensive targeted drugs. Comparisons between cost–effectiveness evaluations are restricted to differences in applied methodology, for example, differences in model assumptions and design, healthcare systems. Cost–effectiveness analyses should be performed and reported upon in a standardized manner within a disease area and in particular in oncology to facilitate better comparisons between treatments. Ideally, to evaluate the cost–effectiveness of a treatment in daily practice, models should be based on patient cohort studies or registries with appropriate prospective data collection from a societal perspective. Randomized clinical trials remain most suitable for comparison of treatment strategies and could estimate the budget impact of a novel treatment introduction.

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.

FOLFIRI as second-line chemotherapy after failure of FOLFOX4 in advanced colorectal cancer: a Korean single-center experience

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The incidence of colorectal cancer has been increasing every year in Korea. Irinotecan- or oxaliplatin-based regimens including biologic agents are known to be effective in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. But in practice, FOLFOX (combination of oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) or FOLFIRI (combination of irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) regimens without biologic agents are more commonly used in Korea due to of the high costs of biologic agents. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of FOLFIRI following FOLFOX4 in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 54 patients with advanced colorectal cancer who were treated between May 2005 and May 2013 with FOLFOX4 as first-line chemotherapy and with FOLFIRI as second-line chemotherapy at Kosin University Gospel Hospital (Busan, Korea) were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients received second-line FOLFIRI chemotherapy. Five patients (9.3%) had a partial response, 29 patients (53.7%) had a stable disease. The median overall survival was 8.90 months and the median time to progression was 4.33 months. Toxicities were tolerable.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Korean population, FOLFIRI as second-line chemotherapy is effective and well tolerated in patients with advanced colorectal cancer after failure of FOLFOX4. Although the efficacy of FOLFIRI in this study was lower than that of second-line FOLFIRI with biologic agents, these results can help in the formulation of a treatment strategy for financially troubled patients.

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) imposes a substantial health burden on patients and society. In recent years, advances in the treatment of mCRC have mainly resulted from the introduction of monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs). However, the application of these MoAbs considerably increases treatment costs. The objective of this article is to review and assess the economic evidence of MoAB treatment in mCRC. A systematic literature review was conducted and cost-effectiveness (CE) as well as cost-utility-studies were identified. For this, Medline, Embase, SciSearch, Cochrane, and nine other databases were searched from 2000 through February 2013 for full-text publications. The quality of the studies was assessed via a validated assessment tool (Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES)). A total of 843 publications were screened. Of those, 15 studies involving the MoAbs bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab met all inclusion criteria. Four studies analysed the CE of first-line treatment with bevacizumab and nine the CE of cetuximab in subsequent treatment lines. Two studies dealt with the CE of panitumumab. The analysis of sequential regimes and the direct comparison of two MoABs were analysed by only one study each. The quality of the included studies was high with the exception of one study.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment with bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab is mainly considered to be not cost-effective in patients with mCRC. However, testing for Kirsten ras oncogene (KRAS) mutation prior to the treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab is found to be clearly cost-effective compared to no testing. Future research should focus on the CE of first-line treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab and studies on upcoming agents like regorafenib and aflibercept.