Cost-Minimization Analysis of the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Greece

Cost-minimization analysis of biweekly dosing of cetuximab and FOLFIRI compared with panitumumab and FOLFOX for first-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in the United States

AIM

To compare the cost of biweekly regimens of first-line (1L) treatments of cetuximab-folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) versus panitumumab-folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in patients with Kirsten's rat sarcoma wild type (KRAS WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the United States, across varying weights and body surface areas (BSAs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was performed to estimate per-patient cost differences of cetuximab-FOLFIRI versus panitumumab-FOLFOX. The CMA estimated the costs of RAS testing, premedication, drug acquisition, treating infusion reactions (IRs), supportive therapy, and biweekly administration of chemotherapy, cetuximab (500 mg/m²), and panitumumab (6 mg/kg) over 43 weeks (median progression-free survival). To calculate dose and cost, weight and height data were gathered from an electronic health record-derived de-identified database (n = 7,669; January 2013-October 2020). Base case analysis utilized mean weight/BSA of the overall cohort (82.04 kg/1.92 m²), and alternate scenarios were based on 88.18 kg/2.03 m² (men, n = 4,477) and 73.43 kg/1.76 m² (women, n = 3,192).

RESULTS

For the base case, total treatment costs were $167,853 for cetuximab-FOLFIRI and $168,254 for panitumumab-FOLFOX; cost savings per patient receiving cetuximab-FOLFIRI was $400. Cost savings in alternate scenarios (men, $15,138; women, $15,004) resulted from lower drug acquisition costs for cetuximab (men, $14,833; women $14,854) and administration cost ($440) versus panitumumab. Cost savings of cetuximab-FOLFIRI in treating IR ($353) were similar across all scenarios.

LIMITATIONS

With no head-to-head clinical trial data in the 1L setting, assumptions of similarity in efficacy and safety of cetuximab versus panitumumab were based on published network meta-analysis and the ASPECCT trial. This model did not consider a lifetime horizon. Costs of managing all adverse events (except IR) were not included.

CONCLUSIONS

Biweekly cetuximab-FOLFIRI offers cost savings compared with panitumumab-FOLFOX for 1L therapy of patients with KRAS WT mCRC in the United States. These cost differences were observed for the overall population and across different BSA and weights for men and women.

Comparative net cost impact of the utilization of panitumumab versus cetuximab for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in Canada

OBJECTIVE

Clinical practice guidelines support the use of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors panitumumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after failure of other chemotherapy regimens, based on significant clinical benefits in patients with wild-type KRAS. The purpose of the analysis was to compare provincial hospital costs when using panitumumab vs cetuximab with or without irinotecan in this patient population using a Net Impact Analysis (NIA) approach.

METHODS

The NIA determined the total per patient cost of the reimbursed regimens of panitumumab vs cetuximab in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec. Utilization of healthcare resources related to EGFR inhibitor infusions, follow-up monitoring, and treatment of adverse events (AEs) were also included. Healthcare resource use including drugs, medical supplies, laboratory testing, oncology infusion time, and healthcare professionals' time was obtained through expert consultation and the use was then multiplied by the province-specific cost of each resource. Numerous sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Based on the dosing regimens in place in each province, the total annual per patient cost of panitumumab ranged from $22,203-$32,600, while the total annual per patient cost of cetuximab treatment varied from $30,321-$40,908. Treatment with panitumumab resulted in lower costs in all cost categories including drug acquisition, infusion preparation/administration, patient monitoring, and AE management. Per patient savings with panitumumab ranged from a low of $3815 in British Columbia to a high of $10,603 in Ontario. In sensitivity analyses, panitumumab remained cost saving in all scenarios where the savings ranged from $150-$16,006 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating chemorefractory mCRC patients with panitumumab rather than cetuximab reduced healthcare resource costs. Provincial healthcare savings achieved with the use of panitumumab could potentially be re-allocated to other cancer treatments, although further study would be needed to validate this assumption.

Cost-minimization analysis of panitumumab compared with cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs of first-line treatment with panitumumab + FOLFOX in comparison to cetuximab + FOLFIRI among patients with wild-type (WT) RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the US.

METHODS

A cost-minimization model was developed assuming similar treatment efficacy between both regimens. The model estimated the costs associated with drug acquisition, treatment administration frequency (every 2 weeks for panitumumab, weekly for cetuximab), and incidence of infusion reactions. Average anti-EGFR doses were calculated from the ASPECCT clinical trial, and average doses of chemotherapy regimens were based on product labels. Using the medical component of the consumer price index, adverse event costs were inflated to 2014 US dollars, and all other costs were reported in 2014 US dollars. The time horizon for the model was based on average first-line progression-free survival of a WT RAS patient, estimated from parametric survival analyses of PRIME clinical trial data.

RESULTS

Relative to cetuximab + FOLFIRI in the first-line treatment of WT RAS mCRC, the cost-minimization model demonstrated lower projected drug acquisition, administration, and adverse event costs for patients who received panitumumab + FOLFOX. The overall cost per patient for first-line treatment was $179,219 for panitumumab + FOLFOX vs $202,344 for cetuximab + FOLFIRI, resulting in a per-patient saving of $23,125 (11.4%) in favor of panitumumab + FOLFOX.

CONCLUSIONS

From a value perspective, the cost-minimization model supports panitumumab + FOLFOX instead of cetuximab + FOLFIRI as the preferred first-line treatment of WT RAS mCRC patients requiring systemic therapy.