Cost-benefit analysis of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in the treatment of colorectal cancer in the Netherlands

Cost-Utility and Budget Impact Analyses of Oral Chemotherapy for Stage III Colorectal Cancer: Real-World Evidence after Policy Implementation in Thailand

This study conducted a cost-utility analysis and a budget impact analysis (BIA) of outpatient oral chemotherapy versus inpatient intravenous chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancer (CRC) in Thailand. A Markov model was constructed to estimate the lifetime cost and health outcomes based on a societal perspective. Eight chemotherapy strategies were compared. Clinical and cost data on adjuvant chemotherapy were collected from the medical records of 1747 patients at Siriraj Hospital, Thailand. The cost-effectiveness results were interpreted against a Thai willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 5003/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A 5-year BIA was performed. Of the eight strategies, CAPOX then FOLFIRI yielded the highest life-year and QALY gains. Its total lifetime cost was also the highest. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CAPOX then FOLFIRI compared to 5FU/LV then FOLFOX, a commonly used regimen USD was 4258 per QALY gained.The BIA showed that when generic drug prices were applied, 5-FU/LV then FOLFOX had the smallest budgetary impact (USD 9.1 million). CAPOX then FOLFIRI required an approximately three times higher budgetary level (USD 25.1 million). CAPOX then FOLFIRI is the best option. It is cost-effective compared with 5-FU/LV then FOLFOX. However, policymakers should consider the relatively high budgetary burden of the CAPOX then FOLFIRI regimen.

Cost-minimisation analysis of rectal cancer neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy based on fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil)

OBJECTIVES

The current standard treatment for patients with rectal cancer stage II-III is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy can be performed with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine (CPC) considered to be equivalent therapies. Medication cost is higher for CPC than for 5-FU, however, the administration of continuous 5-FU intravenous infusion is related to other costs such as those associated with outpatient facilities or central venous catheter insertion.

METHODS

This retrospective study analysed the direct sanitary costs associated with the treatments and their complications from a hospital perspective. Costs in patients treated with 5-FU or CPC were measured between January 2010 and July 2018 at Mataró Hospital. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-minimisation analysis between the two treatments. We aimed to assess the cost associated with the complications related to each drug and the economic impact of applying the most efficient option.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients were analysed: 32 were treated with CPC and 66 with 5-FU. Treatment cost was significantly higher for 5-FU than for CPC (2560.86±99.17 and 563.10±9.52 respectively, P=0.0001). No significant differences were found in the costs associated with treatment complications between groups (148.21±934.91 and 41.41±102.50 euros respectively, P=0.322).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the clinical equivalence shown in the available trials and previous reviews, the most efficient treatment is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with CPC. Complications associated with the treatments did not significantly modify these results. Other studies gave similar results both in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant context, reaffirmed in this study.

Suboptimal Completion Rates, Adverse Events, Costs, Resource Utilization, and Cost Impact of Noncompletion in Oral Adjuvant Capecitabine-Based Chemotherapy in Patients With Early-Stage Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Suboptimal completion of chemotherapy, which may involve reduced patient adherence, remains a serious issue and leads to reduced treatment efficacy. This study assessed the completion rates, risk factors for noncompletion, and cost impact for noncompletion in patients on capecitabine monotherapy (Cape) or capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX) for the adjuvant treatment of early-stage colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of early-stage colon cancer between April 2013 and March 2017 were retrospectively identified. Treatment completion was evaluated. Multivariate logistic regressions analyses were used to assess the baseline factors associated with noncompletion. Adverse events, costs, healthcare resource utilization, and cost impact for noncompletion were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 673 patients met the eligibility criteria, of which 382 (57%) were treated with Cape and 291 (43%) with CAPOX. The overall completion rate for adjuvant therapy was 40% (Cape 46%; CAPOX 33%). Noncompletion was associated with CAPOX treatment and higher healthcare costs within 6 months prior to chemotherapy. The 6-month unadjusted total healthcare costs were $44,444 for Cape and $71,247 for CAPOX. The nonchemotherapy costs were 41% higher for noncompleters than completers in both treatment groups (P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

The real-world completion rates for adjuvant capecitabine-based chemotherapy in early-stage colon cancer patients are low. Noncompletion of therapy is associated with higher baseline healthcare costs. The nonchemotherapy costs are significantly higher in noncompleters than completers, highlighting the financial burden of managing adverse events and preexisting comorbidities, which may lead to early discontinuation of therapy. Effective strategies to optimize completion of oral chemotherapy may consider adherence monitoring.

Risk Factors of Fluoropyrimidine Induced Cardiotoxicity among Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Cancer patients experienced an increased risk of cardiotoxicity during fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil or capecitabine). We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, IPA, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2019, in English, examining risk factors for cardiotoxicity induced by fluoropyrimidine. Included study-level data were converted to risk ratios (RRs) and pooled RRs were calculated for meta-analyses using a random-effects method. Among 690 publications identified for abstract and title screening, 22 unique studies were included in the review, and 20 had sufficient data for meta-analyses. Results indicated that patients undergoing capecitabine-based combination therapy had a higher risk than those with monotherapy (pooled RR = 1.61). Patients with pre-existing cardiac disease (pooled RR = 3.26), hypertension (pooled RR = 1.52) or smoking (pooled RR = 2.22) also had higher risks than their counterparts. Developing risk assessment tools to mitigate the risk could be a viable strategy to improve outcomes for cancer patients undergoing fluoropyrimidine-based treatments.

Cost-utility analysis of 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine for adjuvant treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer

Background

Adjuvant chemotherapy at concurrent time with radiation therapy (RT) or at adjuvant time alone in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is used with several regimens. The cost-utility analysis was conducted to compare administration of two 5-FU regimens and capecitabine in the aspect of provider and societal viewpoint.

Methods

Stage II or III rectal cancer patients who received pre-operative or post-operative concurrent chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy were compared by using decision tree model between (I) 5-FU plus leucovorin (LV) for 5 days per cycle (Mayo Clinic regimen); (II) 5-FU continuous infusion (CI) for 120-h per cycle (CAO/ARO/AIO-94 protocol); (III) standard regimen of capecitabine. All probability data were extracted from landmark study. Direct medical costs were the cost from database of Drug Medical Supply Information Center, while direct non-medical cost and utility were interviewed from stage II and III rectal cancer patients. The time horizon of this study was 5 years. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the final result in this study, which determined as the numerator of the difference of costs among three drug regimens, and the difference of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from each drug was the denominator.

Results

5-FU plus LV was the cheapest and least efficacy for adjuvant treatment of LARC in both provider and societal viewpoint. In provider viewpoint, the ICERs of 5-FU CI and capecitabine were 334,550 THB/QALY (US $9,840/QALY) and 189,935 THB/QALY (US $5,586/QALY), respectively, with the corresponding societal viewpoint of 264,447 THB/QALY (US $7,778/QALY) and 119,120 THB/QALY (US $3,504/QALY) when 5-FU plus LV was used as comparator. The most influential parameter for value of treatment was acquisition cost of capecitabine. At the willingness to pay for one QALY gained in Thailand (160,000 THB or US $4,706), 5-FU plus LV, 5-FU CI and capecitabine had probabilities of cost-effectiveness of 63%, 2% and 35%, respectively.

Conclusions

Capecitabine was the most expensive regimen but produced the higher effectiveness than 5-FU plus LV and 5-FU CI. The most influential parameter in the model was acquisition cost of capecitabine.

Capecitabine in locally advanced anal cancer, do we need randomised evidence?

INTRODUCTION

Standard treatment for locally advanced anal cancer is chemoradiotherapy with mitomycin C and fluorouracil. However, infusional fluorouracil requires central venous catheter placement potentiating risk of infection and thrombosis. Capecitabine which is an oral tumor activated fluoropyrimidine carbamate is an established treatment alternative to infusional fluorouracil for patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Areas covered: This review examines and discusses the current evidence for substitution of Capecitabine for infusional fluorouracil in locally advanced anal cancer. Two phase II studies, one phase I study and three retrospective reviews were identified. The rate of complete response and locoregional control with the use of Capecitabine in all of these studies ranged from 77% to 89.1% and 79% to 94% respectively, and these results are comparable with prior pivotal studies. The main toxicity with radiation and Capecitabine is radiation dermatitis occurring in 23% to 63% of patients. Despite high rates of radiation dermatitis, treatment completion rates were high, suggesting that it is a well tolerated protocol. Expert commentary: Capecitabine has been used widely in other gastrointestinal cancers, including rectal cancer in chemo-radiotherapy protocols, with proven efficacy and safety and could be a reasonable treatment alternative to fluorouracil in locally advanced anal cancer.

A comparison between 5-fluorouracil/mitomycin and capecitabine/mitomycin in combination with radiation for anal cancer

BACKGROUND

There are no randomized phase III trials comparing 5-fluorouracil/mitomycin (FM) versus capecitabine/mitomycin (CM) in combination with radiotherapy (RT) for locally advanced anal cancer. We aim to evaluate the outcomes of patients treated with FM and CM at our institution.

METHODS

Patients with stage I-III anal cancer who initiated curative-intent RT (50-54 Gy) with either CM or FM between 1998 and 2013 at the BC Cancer Agency were reviewed. Cox proportional models were used to analyze the impact of regimen on disease-free survival (DFS) and anal cancer-specific survival (ACSS).

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were well-distributed between the groups. A total of 194 patients (64.6%) received FM and 106 (35.3%) CM. The 2-year DFS was 79.7% for CM [95% confidence intervals (95% CI), 71.1-88.3%] and 78.8% for FM (95% CI, 73-84.6%); 2-year ACSS was 88.7% for CM (95% CI, 81.8-95.5%) and 87.5% for FM (95% CI, 82.8-92.2%). On multivariate analysis, only HIV status, clinical T size (≤5 vs. >5 cm), and N status (negative vs. positive) remained as significant prognostic factors for both DFS and ACSS. Chemotherapy regimen (CM vs. FM) had no impact on either DFS [P=0.995; hazard ratios (HR) =0.99; 95% CI, 0.57-1.74] or ACSS (P=0.847; HR =0.93; 95% CI, 0.46-1.86).

CONCLUSIONS

In our population-based study, CM and FM concomitant with RT achieved similar DFS and ACSS. Substitution of capecitabine for infusional 5-FU may therefore be a reasonable option for patients and physicians who prefer to avoid the inconvenience and potential complications of a central infusional device.

Factors Impacting Treatment Choice in the First-Line Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the factors that affect the choice of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or its oral alternative, capecitabine, as first-line treatment in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

Patients treated with 5-FU or capecitabine for CRC between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013 in a teaching hospital in the Sydney metropolitan area, Australia were identified using the hospital's database MOSAIQ^®. The electronic medical record of each patient was manually reviewed to extract factors potentially affecting treatment choice. Logistic regression was used to assess which patient and/or treatment factors could explain the choice between 5-FU or capecitabine. Where it was available in the medical correspondence, the explicit reason for the choice made was extracted.

RESULTS

170 CRC patients were included; 119 on 5-FU, and 51 on capecitabine. The odds of receiving capecitabine as a first-line treatment were positively associated with giving patients a choice in the decision (OR = 17.51, 95% CI: 5.37-57.08). Qualitative data suggest treatment choices were motivated by convenience (oral administration) and tolerability. Time from diagnosis to treatment commencement (OR = 1.02 per month, 95% CI 1.00-1.04) was also found to be positively associated with the choice of capecitabine. The odds of being treated with capecitabine were lower for patients who lived further from the treating hospital (OR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.94).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that patient choice, favoring oral capecitabine over i.v. 5-FU, was a key factor influencing first-line treatment for CRC in this cohort. To respect their autonomy, patients should be involved in the clinical decision making process.

Comparing the effectiveness of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin therapy for elderly Taiwanese stage III colorectal cancer patients based on quality-of-life measures (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38) and a new cost assessment tool

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in developed countries and its incidence increases with age. Intravenous administration of bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) has been a standard treatment regime for stage III CRC. However, patients generally prefer oral therapy such as Capecitabine. Studies showed that combination of oxaliplatin and capecitabine demonstrated efficacy and safety on par with treatment involving various 5-FU/LV-based regimens in elderly patients as they are in younger ones. However, little is known regarding the cost of adjuvant therapy or the effect of therapy on HRQoL. Thus the aims of this study were to evaluate the influence of different adjuvant care for stage III CRC on the HRQoL of elderly patients and to compare the economic costs associated with capecitabine-based and 5-FU/LV-based adjuvant treatments from a societal perspective in Taiwan.

METHODS

A prospective, open-label, observational, multicenter study involving 123 patients aged 70 and over from 11 different centers was conducted between July 2008 and July 2011 in Taiwan. The adjusted monthly costs per patient and HRQoL were evaluated from individual-level data. The HRQoL of patients was assessed before and after adjuvant treatment. Direct and indirect costs of adjuvant treatment were estimated from a number of sources, and QoL scores were compared between groups.

RESULTS

After correcting for baseline characteristics of patients, no significant differences were observed in the global HRQoL scores between treatment groups during the study period. According to QLQ-CR38 results, capecitabine-based therapy appeared to alleviate problems related to defecation (4.54 vs. 8.5; P = 0.011); however, micturition problems increased (9.27 vs. 7.51; P = 0.04), compared with 5-FU/LV-based treatment. The adjusted monthly treatment cost per patient was NT$27,300 for capecitabine-based treatment and NT$53,671 for 5-FU/LV-based treatment. The total cost of 5-FU/LV-based treatment was 59 % greater than that of capecitabine-based treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyzing from the societal perspective in Taiwan, capecitabine-based therapy incurred lower treatment costs than 5-FU/LV-based therapy and did not jeopardize HRQoL. Therefore, capecitabine, with or without oxaliplatin, could be considered as an alternative treatment option for elderly patients with stage III CRC.

Polymeric nanoparticle drug delivery technologies for oral delivery applications

INTRODUCTION

Many therapeutics are limited to parenteral administration. Oral administration is a desirable alternative because of the convenience and increased compliance by patients, especially for chronic diseases that require frequent administration. Polymeric nanoparticles (NPs) are one technology being developed to enable clinically feasible oral delivery.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the challenges associated with oral delivery. Strategies used to overcome gastrointestinal (GI) barriers using polymeric NPs will be considered, including mucoadhesive biomaterials and targeting of NPs to transcytosis pathways associated with M cells and enterocytes. Applications of oral delivery technologies will also be discussed, such as oral chemotherapies, oral insulin, treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, and mucosal vaccinations.

EXPERT OPINION

There have been many approaches used to overcome the transport barriers presented by the GI tract, but most have been limited by low bioavailability. Recent strategies targeting NPs to transcytosis pathways present in the intestines have demonstrated that it is feasible to efficiently transport both therapeutics and NPs across the intestines and into systemic circulation after oral administration. Further understanding of the physiology and pathophysiology of the intestines could lead to additional improvements in oral polymeric NP technologies and enable the translation of these technologies to clinical practice.

Polymeric nanoparticle technologies for oral drug delivery

Biologics increasingly are being used for the treatment of many diseases. These treatments typically require repeated doses administered by injection. Alternate routes of administration, particularly oral, are considered favorable because of improved convenience and compliance by patients, but physiological barriers such as extreme pH level, enzyme degradation, and poor intestinal epithelium permeability limit absorption. Encapsulating biologics in drug delivery systems such as polymeric nanoparticles prevents inactivation and degradation caused by low pH and enzymes of the gastrointestinal tract. However, transport across the intestinal epithelium remains the most critical barrier to overcome for efficient oral delivery. This review focuses on recent advances in polymeric nanoparticles being developed to overcome transport barriers and their potential for translation into clinical use.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Stage III Colon Cancer Treatment at Veterans Affairs Medical Centers

The objective of this study was to evaluate the real-world cost effectiveness of adjuvant stage III colon cancer chemotherapy regimens, given that previous analyses have been based on data from clinical trials. The study was designed using integrated decision tree and Markov model, which was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV), capecitabine, and the combination of each with oxaliplatin. The analysis was performed from a US Veterans Affairs perspective via retrospectively collected data, over a 5-year model time horizon. Outcome and cost data were used to calculate cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY), and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. In the base case analysis, capecitabine and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin both cost more and were less effective than other regimens, and 5-FU/LV plus oxaliplatin, compared to 5-FU/LV alone, resulted in a cost of $25,997 per QALY gained. Model results were generally robust to parameter variation. Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin could be economically reasonable if full dosing occurred ≥76% of the time (base case 42%). In a real-world setting, the addition of oxaliplatin to 5-FU/LV is more effective but also more costly than 5-FU/LV alone. If full dosing of capecitabine-containing regimens can be assured, they may also be cost-effective strategies.

A randomized phase II study comparing capecitabine alone with capecitabine and oral cyclophosphamide in patients with advanced breast cancer-cyclox II

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine and cyclophosphamide are active in patients with advanced breast cancer, have non-overlapping toxic effects and synergy pre-clinically. We explored the efficacy and toxic effect of an all-oral combination of capecitabine with cyclophosphamide versus capecitabine alone in a multicentre, randomized, phase II study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to treatment with capecitabine given continuously (666 mg/m(2) b.i.d. days 1-28) alone (C) or with oral cyclophosphamide (100 mg/m(2) days 1-14 of a 28-day cycle) (CCy) for up to six cycles.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were randomized. There was no complete response. The proportions with partial response were 36% on C and 44% on CCy, a difference of 7.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) -13.4 to 29.1]. Significant toxic effect was uncommon: grade ≥3 diarrhoea in 4 (10%) versus 1 (3%) patients; grade ≥3 fatigue in 2 (5%) versus 5 patients (13%) and grade ≥2 hand-foot syndrome in 7 (17%) versus 11 (28%) patients receiving C versus CCy, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 3.1 months on C and 6.9 months on CCy, not significantly different statistically. There was no difference in overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The difference in tumour response suggests a reasonable chance that CCy is superior to C alone.

Budget impact analysis of the use of oral and intravenous anti-cancer drugs for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

Two anti-cancer drugs are currently approved for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC): trastuzumab-based therapy (TBT) administered intravenously as first line therapy until disease progression and lapatinib, an oral self-administered dual therapy with capecitabine (L+C) as second intention for patients who continue to progress despite TBT. In current practice, TBT is still prescribed beyond disease progression. In addition to medical reasons, the difficulty to switch eligible patients to oral drugs may also be explained by economic reasons. Thus, we aimed at comparing the budgetary impact of TBT and L+C for progressing HER2+MBC after TBT from the French Health Insurance perspective.

METHODS

A budget impact analysis was performed on a 3-year time horizon (2012-2014) to simulate a dynamic cohort of 4182 HER2-positive patients with a progressing MBC treated with TBT (73%) and L + C (27%). The model was adjusted on progression-free survival (PFS). Office visits, clinical evaluations, drug acquisition, administration costs, and transportation costs obtained from the literature and published databases were considered.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis (2012), the annual treatment cost per patient for TBT (€36,077) was 2-times higher than that of L + C (€17,165). Using L + C for all patients (n = 4182) would avoid €34.8 million of drug administration and transportation costs. Hospital costs represented 1% vs 88%, while community costs represented 99% vs 12% of L + C and TBT treatment costs, respectively. The lack of direct comparison PFS and treatment dosage modification data were the main limitations. However, no major changes from baseline results were observed from sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a slightly higher acquisition cost, the treatment cost of L + C remains lower than that of TBT, and it is the only approved anti-HER2 treatment for HER2-positive patients with progressing MBC. Based on this, it seems important to consider the potential savings for Health Insurance with the use of oral drug due to the reduction of outpatient hospitalizations. Such reductions may result in a subsequent budget reduction for hospitals, but may also provide those facing acute medical activity with opportunities to better manage other diseases whose treatment cannot be externalized.

Cost identification of Nordic FLIRI, Nordic FLOX, XELIRI and XELOX in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in Sweden -- a clinical practice model approach

INTRODUCTION

The role of health-related economy is crucial due to the finite healthcare resources. Intravenous (i.v.) regimes Nordic FLOX and Nordic FLIRI, and the partly oral alternatives XELIRI and XELOX are four commonly used chemotherapies in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Scandinavian countries, all with different costs.

AIM

To describe and compare costs associated with four commonly used treatments for advanced CRC in clinical routine practice. An additional aim was to evaluate the theoretical cost impact of adverse effects associated with the therapies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The retrospective study was carried out using observations and a clinical quality database of CRC patients treated with Nordic FLOX, Nordic FLIRI, XELIRI and XELOX as first line at an oncology clinic in Gothenburg, Sweden. The treatments are used in parallel in clinical practice. All patients treated from 2003 to 2009 were included. The clinical outcome of the therapies was equivalent; mean treatment time was 5.9-7.7 months. A clinical economic evaluation model was designed. All direct costs associated with the baseline treatment, administration of chemotherapy and drug costs were collected and evaluated.

RESULTS

The maximum cost for the four treatments was estimated to be 72 000-75 000 SEK per patient for six months, of this approximately 8000 SEK was linked to treatment of toxicity. During six months the i.v. treatments could include 17 more outpatient visits per patient compared to the oral alternatives. During treatment at the clinic around 20% of the patients were hospitalised (XELOX excluded, because of few included patients).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that the four regimens are similar in terms of treatment costs. Different costs affect the total cost. The oral alternative makes it possible to treat additional patients with the same labour force resources. Treatment of adverse effects contributes to extensive resource use at the hospital.

Recommendations and expert opinion on the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer in Spain

Adjuvant chemotherapy is the current standard in the management of patients with localised colon cancer (CC) following curative resection. The use of oxaliplatin plus 5 fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFOX) or oxaliplatin plus capecitabine-based (XELOX) regimens, both approved in Europe as adjuvant treatment for stage III CC, has improved prognosis in this stage, but questions on their usefulness in high-risk stage II or elderly CC patients and on the role of some prognostic biomarkers are still pending. In April 2010, a consensus meeting on adjuvant CC treatment based on a revision of the most recent literature was held in Spain. The panel considered the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk stage II CC patients to be justified. Additionally, the more convenient administration of oral fluoropyrimidines vs. IV continuous infusion 5-FU would make XELOX a more suitable alternative for the patient. A more cautious decision should be taken when prescribing oxaliplatin treatment in patients aged ≥70.

A phase II study of capecitabine, irinotecan, and bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Previous phase III studies raised concern about the safety of the combination of capecitabine and irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a single arm phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab in combination with dose-reduced capecitabine and irinotecan in patients with previously untreated mCRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with previously untreated mCRC were eligible. Capecitabine was given at 1,000 mg/m2 orally twice daily for 14 days and dose was reduced to 750 mg/m2 for patients over 65. Irinotecan was given at 200 mg/m2 and bevacizumab was given at 7.5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1. The treatment cycle was repeated every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival, response rate, and toxicity.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were enrolled, the median age was 58, and 54% were ECOG 0. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events included hand-foot syndrome (14%), neutropenia (12%), and diarrhea (10%). Response rate was 51% and disease control rate (response and stable disease) was 98%. Median PFS was 11.5 months (95% CI: 9.2-13.7), and 6 month PFS was 90% (95% CI: 77-98%).

CONCLUSION

With modest dose reductions, the combination of capecitabine, irinotecan, and bevacizumab was well tolerated and resulted in favorable outcomes for patients with previously untreated mCRC.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of oral capecitabine compared with intravenous bolus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer in Taiwan from payer (Bureau of National Health Insurance [BNHI]) perspectives.

METHODS

A health state-transition model was developed to estimate the incremental costs and effectiveness of capecitabine versus 5-FU/LV. The time horizons studied were: treatment duration (24 weeks) plus 36 months, 48 months, 60 months, 120 months, and lifetime. Costs were expressed in Taiwanese new dollars (NT$). Clinical outcomes, medical resource use, and utilities were extracted from published sources. Unit costs were estimated from BNHI fee schedules, published sources, and local expert opinion. Outcomes and future costs were discounted at 3%. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-month (QALM). The effects of uncertainty were explored through a one-way sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

For the 24-week time period, drug acquisition costs were higher for capecitabine than 5-FU/LV (NT$114,405 vs. NT$4,904 per patient); however, these were offset by the higher administration costs of 5-FU/LV (NT$2,573 vs. NT$204,201 per patient). Overall direct costs for the 24-week treatment period were less with capecitabine than 5-FU/LV (NT$129,327 vs. NT$233,873 per patient). Cost savings with capecitabine were also evident when longer time horizons were considered. Over a lifetime, the projected survival benefit for capecitabine was 7 QALMs.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspectives of the BNHI and society in Taiwan, capecitabine not only saves costs but also improves health outcomes compared with 5-FU/LV in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer.

Full costs of dispensing and administering fluorouracil chemotherapy for outpatients: A microcosting study

BACKGROUND

Although full costs (including direct and indirect costs) that incurred during the process of chemotherapy administration should be measured, many studies estimate only direct labor and medication costs associated with various chemotherapy delivery systems.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the total costs for dispensing and administration of fluorouracil when administered with leucovorin, by intravenous infusion or bolus, using a microcosting approach from the perspective of a provider or health system.

METHODS

A time-and-motion study was used to measure the time spent by (1) pharmacy staff in the handling, admixture, and dispensing of fluorouracil and (2) patients in the clinic. The study was performed at The Cancer Institute of New Jersey for an 8-month period. Costs of dispensing and administering fluorouracil were calculated per patient visit on the basis of resources used in the processing of fluorouracil and time spent by pharmacy staff and patient. All costs were standardized to 2005 dollars.

RESULTS

A total of 275 observations were made, and 74 (26.9%) of these were associated with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Pharmacy staff spent an average of 11 minutes for bolus fluorouracil with leucovorin infusion (fluorouracil/LCV-IV) and 8 minutes for bolus fluorouracil with bolus leucovorin (fluorouracil/LCV-B). Patients who received fluorouracil/LCV-IV spent an average of 203 minutes in the clinic, whereas patients who received fluorouracil/LCV-B spent 110 minutes. The average cost of administering fluorouracil/LCV-IV was $933, which comprised drug costs ($279), dispensing costs ($189), and administration costs ($465). The average cost of fluorouracil/LCV-B was $474, which comprised drug costs ($65), dispensing costs ($141), and administration costs ($268).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to formally demonstrate the high cost of administering the injectable form of fluorouracil chemotherapy with leucovorin, despite relatively low drug acquisition cost. Therefore, reimbursement rates for fluorouracil should be calculated in such a way that covers all costs, including overhead costs for the department.

Anticancer oral therapy: emerging related issues

The use of oral anticancer drugs has shown a steady increase. Most patients prefer anticancer oral therapy to intravenous treatment primarily for the convenience of a home-based therapy, although they require that the efficacy of oral therapy must be equivalent and toxicity not superior than those expected with the intravenous treatment. A better patient compliance, drug tolerability, convenience and possible better efficacy for oral therapy as compared to intravenous emerge as the major reasons to use oral anticancer agents among oncologists. Inter- and intra-individual pharmacokinetic variations in the bioavailability of oral anticancer drugs may be more relevant than for intravenous agents. Compliance is particularly important for oral therapy because it determines the dose-intensity of the treatment and ultimately treatment efficacy and toxicity. Patient stands as the most important determinant of compliance. Possible measures for an active and safe administration of oral therapy include a careful preliminary medical evaluation and selection of patients based on possible barriers to an adequate compliance, pharmacologic issues, patient-focused education, an improvement of the accessibility to healthcare service, as well as the development of home-care nursing symptom-focused interventions. Current evidences show similar quality of life profile between oral and intravenous treatments, although anticancer oral therapy seems to be more convenient in terms of administration and reduced time lost for work or other activities. Regarding cost-effectiveness, current evidences are in favor of oral therapy, mainly due to reduced need of visits and/or day in hospital for the administration of the drug and/or the management of adverse events.

Economic evaluation of capecitabine as adjuvant or metastatic therapy in colorectal cancer

Capecitabine, an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil, is indicated for adjuvant treatment in patients with Dukes' C colon cancer and for subsequent lines in metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of this article is to review the literature on the economics of capecitabine for the treatment of colon cancer. A systematic review was conducted to search for articles published from January 2003 to December 2009 that met the inclusion criteria. For abstracts that were considered acceptable, full-text articles were then reviewed. Of the 42 potential studies that were identified, 13 original studies (16 publications) met the inclusion criteria. To date, the economic evaluation literature has consistently projected or found that capecitabine is not only a cost-effective treatment for adjuvant or for metastatic colorectal cancer (i.e., providing good value for money) but, furthermore, would actually be cost saving in the majority of country settings.

XELOX versus FOLFOX6 as an adjuvant treatment in colorectal cancer: an economic analysis

OBJECTIVES

An economic analysis (based on interim data from a long-term, randomised, multi-centre, controlled, clinical trial) to evaluate chemotherapy with XELOX (capecitabine/oxaliplatin) versus FOLFOX6 (5Fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin) as an adjuvant treatment for high risk colorectal cancer patients in Greece.

METHODS

As survival rate was the same in the two arms, a cost-minimisation analysis was carried out, from the perspectives of the National Health Service (NHS), Social Insurance Funds (SIF) and patients in Greece. Patient data were combined with 2008 unit prices to estimate the total cost of patient care, the patients' travelling expenditure and their productivity losses. Raw data were bootstrapped 5000 times in order to allow statistical testing.

RESULTS

From an NHS perspective, the mean chemotherapy cost was 8762 euro with FOLFOX6 and 9713 euro with XELOX; costs of administration and hospitalisations were 5154 euro and 1050 euro, respectively. Total treatment cost with FOLFOX6 reached 17,480 euro and with XELOX 12 525 euro, a difference of 4955 euro (p < 0.001) in favour of the latter therapy. From an SIF perspective, the total cost of treatment was 16,240 euro with FOLFOX6 and 12,617 euro with XELOX, a reduction of 3623 euro (p < 0.001) with the latter therapy. Mean patient travelling cost was 184 euro with FOLFOX6 and 80 euro with XELOX, a difference of 104 euro (p < 0.001). Mean productivity loss was 100 euro with FOLFOX6 and 31 euro with XELOX, a difference of 69 euro (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy combining oral capecitabine and oxaliplatin reduces total treatment cost for the Greek National Health Service and Social Insurance Funds, mainly through a reduction in the cost of administration. From patients' perspective, it reduces travelling expenditure and productivity losses. Therefore, this combination may be a cost-effective approach for the management of colorectal cancer patients who have had surgery in Greece. This is an analysis alongside a clinical trial, and should be interpreted in this specific context in which it was undertaken.

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in renal transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening is now standard practice in most developed countries. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening, with annual fecal occult blood testing, in renal transplant recipients.

METHOD

A Markov model was developed to compare the effects of annual fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) as screening for colorectal cancer in a cohort of renal transplant recipients ages 50-70 years, versus no screening. Data on cancer risk and survival were obtained from the ANZDATA Registry. Accuracy of FOBT, cancer stage distribution of the screened and unscreened arms, and adverse effects of colonoscopy were extrapolated from general population data because of unavailability of equivalent data in renal transplant recipients.

RESULTS

When the participation rate was 50%, the average cost for annual FOBT was $5076. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $22,309 per life year saved. Using a series of sensitivity analyses, the choice of screening strategy was most sensitive to the prevalence of disease, test specificities, and participation rate. When the base-case analyses were tested over the worst and best-case scenarios, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied from $32,863 to $95,668 per life year saved.

CONCLUSION

Under the most favorable conditions, immunochemical FOBT screening in renal transplant recipients appears good value for money. Uncertainties, however, exist in the model's influential estimates. Primary research into these uncertainties is necessary to confirm whether population colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective in renal transplant population.

Medical resource use and cost of different first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer in Brazil

BACKGROUND

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. The availability of new chemotherapeutic agents have modified the treatment of mCRC over the years creating the need to evaluate the financial impact of treatment. The aim of this study was to establish and quantify the financial resources needed during the first-line treatment of mCRC in Brazil.

METHODS

The authors began by reaching expert consensus using a modified Delphi panel with oncologists working at public and private services in Brazil. Costs were calculated using official databases and the microcosting technique.

RESULTS

The panel reached consensus on six regimens used in the first-line treatment of mCRC, as well as the resources involved in the administration of these regimens. All the regimens contain either fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin or capecitabine, combined with either oxaliplatin or irinotecan. The analysis showed that, when compared with intravenous 5-FU/leucovorin, the cost of capecitabine was offset by administration costs.

CONCLUSION

The panel concluded that regimens containing capecitabine, especially capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) are less expensive than those containing 5-FU/leucovorin. Given the comparable efficacy and good tolerability of the XELOX regimen, it may be an attractive choice for the first-line treatment of Brazilian patients with mCRC.

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.

Effective oral chemotherapy for breast cancer: pillars of strength

Traditionally, anticancer therapy has been dominated by intravenous drug therapy. However, oral agents provide an attractive approach to chemotherapy and use of oral treatments is increasing. We discuss the benefits and challenges of oral chemotherapy from the perspectives of patients, healthcare providers and healthcare funders. Important issues include patient preference, efficacy, compliance, bioavailability, reimbursement, use in special patient populations, financial and staff time savings and flexibility of dosing. We review data for traditional oral agents (e.g. cyclophosphamide, methotrexate), newer oral chemotherapies (e.g. capecitabine), oral formulations of traditionally intravenous agents (e.g. vinorelbine, idarubicin) and new biologic agents under evaluation in breast cancer (e.g. tyrosine kinase inhibitors). Lastly, we review studies of all-oral combination regimens. The wealth of data available and the increasing use of oral agents in breast cancer suggest that many of the concerns and perceptions about oral therapy, including efficacy and bioavailability, have been overcome, and that oral therapy will play a major role in breast cancer management in the future in both the metastatic and adjuvant settings.

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.

Economic impact of simplified de Gramont regimen in first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer

The cost of chemotherapy has dramatically increased in advanced colorectal cancer patients, and the schedule of fluorouracil administration appears to be a determining factor. This retrospective study compared direct medical costs related to two different de Gramont schedules (standard vs. simplified) given in first-line chemotherapy with oxaliplatin or irinotecan. This cost-minimization analysis was performed from the French Health System perspective. Consecutive unselected patients treated in first-line therapy by LV5FU2 de Gramont with oxaliplatin (Folfox regimen) or with irinotecan (Folfiri regimen) were enrolled. Hospital and outpatient resources related to chemotherapy and adverse events were collected from 1999 to 2004 in 87 patients. Overall cost was reduced in the simplified regimen. The major factor which explained cost saving was the lower need for admissions for chemotherapy. Amount of cost saving depended on the method for assessing hospital stay. In patients treated by the Folfox regimen the per diem and DRG methods found cost savings of Euro 1,997 and Euro 5,982 according to studied schedules; in patients treated by Folfiri regimen cost savings of Euro 4,773 and Euro 7,274 were observed, respectively. In addition, travel costs were also reduced by simplified regimens. The robustness of our results was showed by one-way sensitivity analyses. These findings demonstrate that the simplified de Gramont schedule reduces costs of current first-line chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Interestingly, our study showed several differences in costs between two costing approaches of hospital stay: average per diem and DRG costs. These results suggested that standard regimen may be considered a profitable strategy from the hospital perspective. The opposition between health system perspective and hospital perspective is worth examining and may affect daily practices. In conclusion, our study shows that the simplified de Gramont schedule in combination with oxaliplatin or irinotecan is an attractive option from the French Health System perspective. This safe and less costly regimen must compared to alternative options such as oral fluoropyrimidines.

Capecitabine Versus Continuous-Infusion 5-Fluorouracil for Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Efficacy and Safety Comparison

For more than 40 years, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been considered the most effective systemic agent for managing advanced colorectal cancer. However, continuous-infusion (CI) schedules of 5-FU require central venous access devices, which are associated with catheter complications and are an inconvenience to patients. The novel oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine appears to offer comparable efficacy while providing a more convenient schedule that is often preferred by patients. Published phase II/III clinical studies of capecitabine-based regimens for colorectal cancer were compared with key studies of CI 5-FU-based regimens to assess safety, efficacy, quality of life, and pharmacoeconomics. Studies were identified via Medline searches and conference abstracts dating back to 1997. Qualitative analyses show that capecitabine as a single agent as well as in combination regimens is an effective first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer, providing a higher response rate compared with standard 5-FU/leucovorin. Costs associated with capecitabine also appear to be lower than those associated with catheter-based therapies. Capecitabine offers physicians a more convenient treatment for advanced colorectal cancer, with manageable toxicity and antitumor activity comparable to that of CI therapies.

Chemotherapy of metastatic colorectal cancer

Over the past decade, metastatic colorectal cancer has evolved from a relatively resistant disease to one that is sensitive to a variety of chemotherapeutic drugs and combinations of drugs. During the same period, the median survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer increased from approximately 14 months to almost 20 months. First-line chemotherapy prolongs survival and delays the appearance of symptoms and should be considered in patients who are still asymptomatic. Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and adequate performance status should be treated with a combination of fluorouracil (5-FU) and either oxaliplatin or irinotecan. Bevacizumab, the monoclonal antibody against the vascular endothelial growth factor, has been shown to prolong survival with acceptable toxicity and may be added when available. When the disease recurs, second-line chemotherapy may also prolong survival in appropriately selected patients. Typically, treatment includes 5-FU and one of the drugs not used in the first-line therapy (oxaliplatin or irinotecan). Several oral prodrugs of 5-FU are currently available. Capecitabine, approved in the United States, may be safely substituted for 5-FU in the majority of settings and combinations. Cetuximab is a monoclonal antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor and is approved both as a single agent and in combination with irinotecan for patients with recurrent disease. This treatment may represent a second-line or third-line option in selected patients. Treatment of patients with isolated liver metastases may also include surgical or other ablative procedures. In carefully selected patients, these modalities add to the efficacy of chemotherapy and may be used with potentially curative intent. However, for the vast majority of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treatment is palliative.

Hydrolysis of capecitabine to 5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine by human carboxylesterases and inhibition by loperamide

Capecitabine is an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil that is indicated for the treatment of breast and colorectal cancers. A three-step in vivo-targeted activation process requiring carboxylesterases, cytidine deaminase, and thymidine phosphorylase converts capecitabine to 5-fluorouracil. Carboxylesterases hydrolyze capecitabine's carbamate side chain to form 5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine (5'-DFCR). This study examines the steady-state kinetics of recombinant human carboxylesterase isozymes carboxylesterase (CES) 1A1, CES2, and CES3 for hydrolysis of capecitabine with a liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy assay. Additionally, a spectrophotometric screening assay was utilized to identify drugs that may inhibit carboxylesterase activation of capecitabine. CES1A1 and CES2 hydrolyze capecitabine to a similar extent, with catalytic efficiencies of 14.7 and 12.9 min(-1) mM(-1), respectively. Little catalytic activity is detected for CES3 with capecitabine. Northern blot analysis indicates that relative expression in intestinal tissue is CES2 > CES1A1 > CES3. Hence, intestinal activation of capecitabine may contribute to its efficacy in colon cancer and toxic diarrhea associated with the agent. Loperamide is a strong inhibitor of CES2, with a K(i) of 1.5 muM, but it only weakly inhibits CES1A1 (IC(50) = 0.44 mM). Inhibition of CES2 in the gastrointestinal tract by loperamide may reduce local formation of 5'-DFCR. Both CES1A1 and CES2 are responsible for the activation of capecitabine, whereas CES3 plays little role in 5'-DFCR formation.