Cost Effectiveness Of Cetuximab In First Line Treatment Of Ras Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer In The Uk: A Summary Of Economic Analyses Submitted To The National Institute For Health And Care Excellence (Nice)

Do cancer biomarkers make targeted therapies cost-effective? A systematic review in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in targeted therapies have raised expectations that the clinical application of biomarkers would improve patient's health outcomes and potentially save costs. However, the cost-effectiveness of biomarkers remains unclear irrespective of the cost-effectiveness of corresponding therapies. It is thus important to determine whether biomarkers for targeted therapies provide good value for money. This study systematically reviews economic evaluations of biomarkers for targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and assesses the cost-effectiveness of predictive biomarkers in mCRC.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, EconLit, NHSEED. Papers published from 2000 until June 2018 were searched. All economic evaluations assessing biomarker-guided therapies with companion diagnostics in mCRC were searched. To make studies more comparable, cost-effectiveness results were synthesized as per biomarker tests and corresponding therapies. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

RESULTS

Forty-six studies were included in this review. Of these, 17 studies evaluated the intrinsic value of cancer biomarkers, whereas the remaining studies focused on assessing the cost-effectiveness of corresponding drugs. Most studies indicated favourable cost-effectiveness of biomarkers for targeted therapies in mCRC. Some studies reported that biomarkers were cost-effective, while their corresponding therapies were not cost-effective. A considerable number of economic evaluations were conducted in pre-defined genetic populations and thus, often failed to fully capture the biomarker's clinical and economic values. The average QHES score was 73.6.

CONCLUSION

Cancer biomarkers for targeted therapies in mCRC were mostly found to be cost-effective; otherwise, they at least improved the cost-effectiveness of targeted therapies by saving some costs. However, this did not necessarily make their corresponding therapies cost-effective. While companion biomarkers reduced therapy costs, the savings were not sufficient to make the corresponding agents cost-effective. Evaluation of biomarkers was often restricted to the cost of tests and did not consider their clinical values or biomarker prevalence.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Treatment Methods: Mapping of Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVE

Due to extensive literature on colorectal cancer and their heterogeneous results, this study aimed to summarize the systematic reviews which review the cost-effectiveness studies on different aspects of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

The required data were collected by searching the following key words according to MeSH: "colorectal cancer," "colorectal oncology," "colorectal carcinoma," "colorectal neoplasm," "colorectal tumors," "cost-effectiveness," "systematic review," and "meta-analysis." The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Two reviewers evaluated the articles according to the checklist of "assessment of multiple systematic reviews" (AMSTAR) tool.

RESULTS

Finally, eight systematic reviews were included in the study. The Drummond checklist was mostly used for assessing the quality of the articles. The main perspective was related to the payer and the least was relevant to the social. The majority of the cases referred to sensitivity analysis (in 76% of the cases) and the lowest point also was allocated to discounting (in 37% of cases). The Markov model was used most widely in the studies. Treatment methods examined in the studies were not cost-effective in comparison with the studied units. Among the screening methods, computerized tomographic colonography and fecal DNA were cost-effective. The average score of the articles' qualities was high (9.8 out of 11).

CONCLUSIONS

The community perspective should be taken into consideration at large in the studies. It is necessary to pay more attention to discounting subject in studies. More frequent application of the Markov model is recommended.