Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: evaluation of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group CO.17 trial

Real-world cost-effectiveness of panel-based genomic testing to inform therapeutic decisions for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Mutations in KRAS and NRAS are associated with a lack of response to cetuximab and panitumumab, two biologics used for third-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In British Columbia, Canada, eligibility for cetuximab or panitumumab was first based on single-gene KRAS testing. OncoPanel, a multi-gene next-generation sequencing panel with both KRAS and NRAS, was introduced in 2016. Our objective was to estimate the real-world cost-effectiveness of OncoPanel versus to single-gene KRAS testing to inform eligibility for cetuximab or panitumumab in mCRC.

METHODS

Using population-based administrative health data, we identified a cohort of mCRC patients who had received a KRAS or OncoPanel test, and completed prior chemotherapy in 2010-2019. We matched KRAS- and OncoPanel-tested patients (1:1) using genetic matching to balance baseline covariates. Mean and incremental 3-year costs, survival, and quality-adjusted survival were estimated using inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting and bootstrapping. We conducted scenario-based sensitivity analysis for key costs and assumptions.

FINDINGS

All OncoPanel-tested cases (n=371) were matched to a KRAS-tested comparator. In the KRAS and OncoPanel groups, respectively, 55·8 % and 41·2 % of patients were potentially eligible for cetuximab or panitumumab based on mutation status. Incremental cost and effectiveness of OncoPanel were $72 (95 % CI: -6387, 6107), -0·004 life-years (95 % CI: -0·119, 0·113), and -0·011 quality-adjusted life-years (95 % CI: -0·094, 0·075). Reductions in systemic therapy costs were offset by increased costs in other resources. Results were moderately sensitive to time horizon and changes in testing or treatment cost.

INTERPRETATION

The use of OncoPanel resulted in more precise targeting of cetuximab and panitumumab, but there was no change in incremental cost or quality-adjusted survival. Understanding the balance of costs achieved in practice can provide insight into the effect of future changes in testing policy, test cost, treatment eligibility, or drug prices in this setting.

An Economic Analysis of SC24 in Canada: A Randomized Study of SBRT Compared With Conventional Palliative RT for Spinal Metastases

PURPOSE

The Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) Symptom Control 24 protocol (SC.24) was a multicenter randomized controlled phase 2/3 trial conducted in Canada and Australia. Patients with painful spinal metastases were randomized to either 24 Gy/2 stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or 20 Gy/5 conventional external beam radiation therapy (CRT). The study met its primary endpoint and demonstrated superior complete pain response rates at 3 months following SBRT (35%) versus CRT (14%). SBRT planning and delivery is resource intensive. Given its benefits in SC.24, we performed an economic analysis to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of SBRT compared with CRT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The trial recruited 229 patients. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model taking into account observed survival, treatments costs, retreatment, and quality of life over the lifetime of the patient. The EORTC-QLU-C10D was used to determine quality of life values. Transition probabilities for outcomes were from available patient data. Health system costs were from the Canadian health care perspective and were based on 2021 Canadian dollars (CAD). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as the ratio of incremental cost to quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The impact of parameter uncertainty was investigated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The base case for SBRT compared with CRT had an ICER of $9,040CAD per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the utility assigned to "No local failure" ($5,457CAD to $241,051CAD per QALY), adopting low and high estimates of utility and the cost of the SBRT (ICERs ranging from $7345-$123,361CAD per QALY). It was more robust to variations in assumptions around survival and response rate.

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT is associated with higher upfront costs than CRT. The ICER shows that, within the Canadian health care system, SBRT with 2 fractions is likely to be more cost-effective than CRT.

Signaling pathways in colorectal cancer implications for the target therapies

Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) stands as a pressing global health issue, marked by the unbridled proliferation of immature cells influenced by multifaceted internal and external factors. Numerous studies have explored the intricate mechanisms of tumorigenesis in CRC, with a primary emphasis on signaling pathways, particularly those associated with growth factors and chemokines. However, the sheer diversity of molecular targets introduces complexity into the selection of targeted therapies, posing a significant challenge in achieving treatment precision. The quest for an effective CRC treatment is further complicated by the absence of pathological insights into the mutations or alterations occurring in tumor cells. This study reveals the transfer of signaling from the cell membrane to the nucleus, unveiling recent advancements in this crucial cellular process. By shedding light on this novel dimension, the research enhances our understanding of the molecular intricacies underlying CRC, providing a potential avenue for breakthroughs in targeted therapeutic strategies. In addition, the study comprehensively outlines the potential immune responses incited by the aberrant activation of signaling pathways, with a specific focus on immune cells, cytokines, and their collective impact on the dynamic landscape of drug development. This research not only contributes significantly to advancing CRC treatment and molecular medicine but also lays the groundwork for future breakthroughs and clinical trials, fostering optimism for improved outcomes and refined approaches in combating colorectal carcinoma.

Fluoropyrimidine type, patient age, tumour sidedness and mutation status as determinants of benefit in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with EGFR monoclonal antibodies: individual patient data pooled analysis of randomised trials from the ARCAD database

BACKGROUND

KRAS mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are used as predictive biomarkers to select therapy with EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Other factors may be significant determinants of benefit.

METHODS

Individual patient data from randomised trials with a head-to-head comparison between EGFR mAb versus no EGFR mAb (chemotherapy alone or best supportive care) in mCRC, across all lines of therapy, were pooled. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups. Treatment effects within the predefined KRAS biomarker subsets were estimated by adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) and 95% confidence interval (CI). EGFR mAb efficacy was measured within the KRAS wild-type subgroup according to BRAF and NRAS mutation status. In both KRAS wild-type and mutant subgroups, additional factors that could impact EGFR mAb efficacy were explored including the type of chemotherapy, line of therapy, age, sex, tumour sidedness and site of metastasis.

RESULTS

5675 patients from 8 studies were included, all with known mCRC KRAS mutation status. OS (HRadj 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.98, p = 0.01) and PFS benefit (HRadj 0.73, 95% CI 0.68-0.79, p < 0.001) from EGFR mAbs was observed in the KRAS wild-type group. PFS benefit was seen in patients treated with fluorouracil (HRadj 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.82) but not with capecitabine-containing regimens (HRadj 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.26) (pinteraction = 0.002). Sidedness also interacted with EGFR mAb efficacy, with survival benefit restricted to left-sided disease (pinteraction = 0.038). PFS benefits differed according to age, with benefits greater in those under 70 (pinteraction = 0.001). The survival benefit was not demonstrated in those patients with mutations found in the KRAS, NRAS or BRAF genes. The presence of liver metastases interacted with EGFR mAb efficacy in patients with KRAS mutant mCRC (pinteraction = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The benefit provided by EGFR mAbs in KRAS WT mCRC is associated with left-sided primary tumour location, younger patient age and absence of NRAS or BRAF mutations. Survival benefit is observed with fluorouracil but not capecitabine. Exploratory results support further research in KRAS mutant mCRC without liver metastases.

The effective combination therapies with irinotecan for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer worldwide and has become one of the major human disease burdens. In clinical practice, the treatment of colorectal cancer has been closely related to the use of irinotecan. Irinotecan combines with many other anticancer drugs and has a broader range of drug combinations. Combination therapy is one of the most important means of improving anti-tumor efficacy and overcoming drug resistance. Reasonable combination therapy can lead to better patient treatment options, and inappropriate combination therapy will increase patient risk. For the colorectal therapeutic field, the significance of combination therapy is to improve the efficacy, reduce the adverse effects, and improve the ease of treatment. Therefore, we explored the clinical advantages of its combination therapy based on mechanism or metabolism and reviewed the rationale basis and its limitations in conducting exploratory clinical trials on irinotecan combination therapy, including the results of clinical trials on the combination potentiation of cytotoxic drugs, targeted agents, and herbal medicine. We hope that these can evoke more efforts to conduct irinotecan in the laboratory for further studies and evaluations, as well as the possibility of more in-depth development in future clinical trials.

Real-World Cost Effectiveness of a Policy of KRAS Testing to Inform Cetuximab or Panitumumab for Third-Line Therapy of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND

Cetuximab and panitumumab, two anti-EGFR therapies, are widely used for third-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with wild-type KRAS, but there remains uncertainty around their cost effectiveness. The objective of this analysis was to conduct a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of the policy change introducing KRAS testing and third-line anti-EGFR therapy mCRC in British Columbia (BC), Canada.

METHODS

We conducted secondary analysis of administrative data for a cohort of mCRC patients treated in BC in 2006-2015. Patients potentially eligible for KRAS testing and third-line therapy after the policy change (July 2009) were matched 2:1 to pre-policy patients using genetic matching on propensity score and baseline covariates. Costs and survival time were calculated over an 8-year time horizon, with bootstrapping to characterize uncertainty around endpoints. Cost effectiveness was expressed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and the probability of cost effectiveness at a range of thresholds.

RESULTS

The cohort included 1757 mCRC patients (n = 456 pre-policy and n = 1304 post-policy; of those, n = 420 received cetuximab or panitumumab). There was a significant increase in survival and cost following the policy change. Adoption of KRAS testing and anti-EGFR therapy had an ICER of CA$73,759 per life-year gained (LYG) (95% CI 46,133-186,446). In scenario analysis, a reduction in cetuximab and panitumumab cost of at least 50% was required to make the policy change cost effective at a threshold of CA$50,000/LYG.

CONCLUSION

A policy of third-line anti-EGFR therapy informed by KRAS testing may be considered cost effective at thresholds above CA$70,000/LYG. Reduction in drug costs, through price discounts or potential future biosimilars, would make anti-EGFR therapy considerably more cost effective. By using real-world data for a large cohort with long follow-up we can assess the value of a policy of KRAS testing and anti-EGFR therapy achieved in practice.

Power and sample size calculation for incremental net benefit in cost effectiveness analyses with applications to trials conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group

BACKGROUND

Historically, a priori power and sample size calculations have not been routinely performed cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA), partly because the absence of published cost and effectiveness correlation and variance data, which are essential for power and sample size calculations. Importantly, the empirical correlation between cost and effectiveness has not been examined with respect to the estimation of value-for-money in clinical literature. Therefore, it is not well established if cost-effectiveness studies embedded within randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) are under- or over-powered to detect changes in value-for-money. However, recently guidelines (such as those from ISPOR) and funding agencies have suggested sample size and power calculations should be considered in CEAs embedded in clinical trials.

METHODS

We examined all RCTs conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group with an embedded cost-effectiveness analysis. Variance and correlation of effectiveness and costs were derived from original-trial data. The incremental net benefit method was used to calculate the power of the cost-effectiveness analysis, with exploration of alternative correlation and willingness-to-pay values.

RESULTS

We identified four trials for inclusion. We observed that a hypothetical scenario of correlation coefficient of zero between cost and effectiveness led to a conservative estimate of sample size. The cost-effectiveness analysis was under-powered to detect changes in value-for-money in two trials, at willingness-to-pay of $100,000. Based on our observations, we present six considerations for future economic evaluations, and an online program to help analysts include a priori sample size and power calculations in future clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

The correlation between cost and effectiveness had a potentially meaningful impact on the power and variance of value-for-money estimates in the examined cost-effectiveness analyses. Therefore, the six considerations and online program, may facilitate a priori power calculations in embedded cost-effectiveness analyses in future clinical trials.

The correlation between the costs and clinical benefits of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in malignant tumors: An evaluation based on ASCO and ESMO frameworks

Background: Life expectancy for patients with malignant tumors has been significantly improved since the presence of the programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors in 2014, but they impose heavy financial burdens for patients, the healthcare system and the nations. The objective of this study was to determine the survival benefits, toxicities, and monetary of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 inhibitors and quantify their values. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for malignant tumors were identified and clinical benefits were quantified by American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The drug price in Micromedex REDBOOK was used to estimate monthly incremental drug costs (IDCs) and the correlation between clinical benefits and incremental drug costs of experimental and control groups in each randomized controlled trial, and the agreement between two frameworks were calculated. Results: Up to December 2022, 52 randomized controlled trials were included in the quantitative synthesis. All the randomized controlled trials were evaluated by American society of clinical oncology value framework, and 26 (50%) met the American society of clinical oncology value framework "clinical meaningful value." 49 of 52 randomized controlled trials were graded by European society for medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale, and 30 (61.2%) randomized controlled trials achieved European Society for Medical Oncology criteria of meaningful value. p-values of Spearman correlation analyses between monthly incremental drug costs and American society of clinical oncology value framework/European society for medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale scores were 0.9695 and 0.3013, respectively. In addition, agreement between two framework thresholds was fair (κ = 0.417, p = 0.00354). Conclusion: This study suggests that there might be no correlation between the cost and clinical benefit of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 inhibitors in malignancy, and the same results were observed in subgroups stratified by drug or indication. The results should be a wake-up call for oncologists, pharmaceutical enterprises and policymakers, and meanwhile advocate the refining of American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology frameworks.

Evaluating the quality of the economic evidence in colorectal cancer genomics studies

The increase in the use of genome-based screening and diagnostic tests adds to the overall costs of oncologic care for colorectal cancer. This, in turn, has resulted in an increase in published economic analyses. Aim: To perform a systematic literature review of the available economic evidence evaluating the value of genomic testing for colorectal cancer and appraise the quality of the economic studies conducted to date. Methods: A systematic review of the literature for economic studies of colorectal cancer genomics from January 2006 through October 2020, and evaluation of study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was conducted. The validated QHES was then applied to a final set of articles that met eligibility criteria. Results: Our search of the literature initially yielded 12,859 records. A final set of 49 articles met our inclusion criteria. The QHES score ranged from 24 to 100, with an average score of 82. Most of the studies (n = 40, 82%) scored above 75 and were considered of good quality. Conclusion: Our analysis revealed that most of the economic analyses of colorectal cancer genomic molecular diagnostics in the literature may be of good quality. There is, however, some variation in methodological rigor between the articles.

The Past, Present, and Future of Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine at the Committee for Economic Analyses of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group

Precision medicine in oncology poses unique challenges to the generation of clinical and economic evidence used for cost-effectiveness analyses that can inform health technology assessment. The conduct of randomized controlled trials for biomarker-specific therapies targeted towards small populations has limitations in regard to feasibility, timeliness, and cost. These limitations result in associated challenges for groups involved in the generation of economic evidence to inform treatment-related decision making, including the Committee of Economic Analysis (CEA) at the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). We provide a high-level description and vision about the new paradigm of clinical trial design, generation of economic evidence, and novel approaches to economic evaluations necessary in the space of precision medicine in oncology in Canada. The CEA's previous approach to precision medicine, including master protocol designs and single-arm studies, is reviewed. Methods and approaches currently under consideration by the CEA and national collaborators, such as the role of real-world and clinical trial evidence in enabling life-cycle assessment of therapies, are explored. Finally, future initiatives being planned in the space of precision medicine at CCTG, such as the incorporation of correlative studies to identify and test high-performing biomarkers in trials, are discussed.

Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Therapy Versus Bevacizumab in KRAS Wild-Type (WT), Pan-RAS WT, and Pan-RAS WT Left-Sided Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Objectives

We aimed to compare the economic value of chemotherapy plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) monoclonal antibody (mAb) against chemotherapy with bevacizumab (Bev, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor mAb) as first-line treatment in KRAS wild-type (WT), pan-RAS WT and pan-RAS WT left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients from the Hong Kong societal perspective.

Materials and Methods

We developed Markov models and 10-year horizon to estimate costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR therapy against chemotherapy plus Bev in KRAS WT, pan-RAS WT, and pan-RAS WT left-sided mCRC. We considered two times of the local gross domestic product per capita (GDPpc) as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (2× GDPpc; US$97,832).

Results

Adding anti-EGFR mAb to chemotherapy provides additional 0.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.29), 0.32 (95% CI 0.27-0.37), and 0.57 (95% CI 0.49-0.63) QALY compared to adding Bev in KRAS WT, pan-RAS WT, and left-sided pan-RAS WT mCRC populations respectively. The corresponding ICER is US$106,847 (95% CI 87,806-134,523), US$88,565 (95% CI 75,678-105,871), US$76,537 (95% CI 67,794-87,917) per QALY gained, respectively.

Conclusions

Anti-EGFR therapy is more cost-effective than Bev as a first-line targeted therapy in left-sided pan-RAS WT and pan-RAS WT, with ICER <US$100,000/QALY, compared to KRAS WT mCRC population.

Minimization of resource utilization data collected within cost-effectiveness analyses conducted alongside Canadian Cancer Trials Group phase III trials

Background

Cost-effectiveness analyses embedded within randomized trials allow for evaluation of value alongside conventional efficacy outcomes; however, collection of resource utilization data can require considerable trial resources.

Methods

We re-analyzed the results from four phase III Canadian Cancer Trials Group trials that embedded cost-effectiveness analyses to determine the impact of minimizing potential cost categories on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. For each trial, we disaggregated total costs into component incremental cost categories and recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using (1) only the top 3 cost categories, (2) the top 5 cost categories, and (3) all cost components. Using individual trial-level data, confidence intervals for each incremental cost-effectiveness ratio simulation were generated by bootstrapping and descriptively presented with the original confidence intervals (and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) from the publications.

Results

Drug acquisition costs represented the highest incremental cost category in three trials, while hospitalization costs represented the other consistent cost driver and the top incremental cost category in the fourth trial. Recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on fewer cost components (top 3 and top 5) did not differ meaningfully from the original published results. Based on conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds (US$50,000–US$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year), none of the re-analyses would have changed the original perception of whether the experimental therapies were considered cost-effective.

Conclusions

These results suggest that the collection of resource utilization data within cancer trials could be narrowed. Omission of certain cost categories that have minimal impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, such as routine laboratory investigations, could reduce the costs and undue burden associated with the collection of data required for cancer trial cost-effectiveness analyses.

Evaluation of the Cost-effectiveness of Doublet Therapy in Metastatic BRAF Variant Colorectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

The BEACON trial showed that combination therapy with encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) and cetuximab (EGFR inhibitor) was associated with prolonged overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer. However, the cost-effectiveness of using these agents in this clinical setting is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To create a cost-effectiveness model to compare doublet therapy (encorafenib plus cetuximab) with standard chemotherapy (cetuximab plus irinotecan or cetuximab plus folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) in treating patients with metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation constructed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and utility of doublet therapy and standard chemotherapy. Parametric survival modeling was used to extrapolate the effectiveness of each line of therapy from large clinical trials. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the uncertainty in the model. Patients mirrored the cohorts in the BEACON trial: they had metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer and were followed up as they progressed through multiple lines of therapy, best supportive care, and death. Data collection and data analysis were performed from November 15, 2019, to July 14, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was calculated using the cumulative cost and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), of doublet therapy compared with standard chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The model patient cohort had a mean age of 61 years, and 53% of the patients were women, 66% had 1 previous line of therapy, and 8% had high microsatellite instability. Doublet therapy was associated with an improvement of 0.15 QALYs compared with standard chemotherapy. However, the incremental cost of doublet therapy was $78 233, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $523 374 per QALY gained. Concomitant decreases in the price of encorafenib and cetuximab are needed to achieve cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that doublet therapy for metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer was unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Cost-effectiveness needs to be considered in clinical trial design, particularly when combining new therapies with non-cost-effective treatments that are coadministered without a fixed duration.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab combined with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer based on the TAILOR trial

OBJECTIVES

Cetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) is superior to FOLFOX-4 alone as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS wild-type (RAS wt mCRC), with significantly improved survival benefit by TAILOR, an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase III trial. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of these two regimens remains uncertain. The following study aims to determine whether cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is a cost-effective regimen for patients with specific RAS wt mCRC in China.

DESIGN

A cost-effectiveness model combined decision tree and Markov model was built to simulate pateints with RAS wt mCRC based on health states of dead, progressive and stable. The health outcomes from the TAILOR trial and utilities from published data were used respectively. Costs were calculated with reference to the Chinese societal perspective. The robustness of the results was evaluated by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

PARTICIPANTS

The included patients were newly diagnosed Chinese patients with fully RAS wt mCRC.

INTERVENTIONS

First-line treatment with either cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 or FOLFOX-4.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes are costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

Baseline analysis disclosed that the QALYs was increased by 0.383 caused by additional cetuximab, while an increase of US$62 947 was observed in relation to FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy. The ICER was US$164 044 per QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28 106 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the survival benefit, cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is not a cost-effective treatment for the first-line regime of patients with RAS wt mCRC in China.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

TAILOR trial (NCT01228734); Post-results.

Cost-Effectiveness of RAS Genetic Testing Strategies in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have proved beneficial for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), particularly when combined with predictive biomarkers of response. International guidelines recommend anti-EGFR therapy only for RAS (NRAS,KRAS) wild-type tumors because tumors with RAS mutations are unlikely to benefit.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to review the cost-effectiveness of RAS testing in mCRC patients before anti-EGFR therapy and to assess how well economic evaluations adhere to guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic review of full economic evaluations comparing RAS testing with no testing was performed for articles published in English between 2000 and 2018. Study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies scale, and the British Medical Journal and the Philips checklists.

RESULTS

Six economic evaluations (2 cost-effectiveness analyses, 2 cost-utility analyses, and 2 combined cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses) were included. All studies were of good quality and adopted the perspective of the healthcare system/payer; accordingly, only direct medical costs were considered. Four studies presented testing strategies with a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio under the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (£20 000-£30 000/QALY) and the US ($50 000-$100 000/QALY) thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing mCRC patients for RAS status and administering EGFR inhibitors only to patients with RAS wild-type tumors is a more cost-effective strategy than treating all patients without testing. The treatment of mCRC is becoming more personalized, which is essential to avoid inappropriate therapy and unnecessarily high healthcare costs. Future economic assessments should take into account other parameters that reflect the real world (eg, NRAS mutation analysis, toxicity of biological agents, genetic test sensitivity and specificity).

Proteogenomics of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Complementing Precision Oncology with Phenotypic Data

Hotspot testing for activating KRAS mutations is used in precision oncology to select colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who are eligible for anti-EGFR treatment. However, even for KRAS^wildtype tumors anti-EGFR response rates are <30%, while mutated-KRAS does not entirely rule out response, indicating the need for improved patient stratification. We performed proteogenomic phenotyping of KRAS^wildtype and KRAS^G12V CRC liver metastases (mCRC). Among >9000 proteins we detected considerable expression changes including numerous proteins involved in progression and resistance in CRC. We identified peptides representing a number of predicted somatic mutations, including KRAS^G12V. For eight of these, we developed a multiplexed parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) mass spectrometry assay to precisely quantify the mutated and canonical protein variants. This allowed phenotyping of eight mCRC tumors and six paired healthy tissues, by determining mutation rates on the protein level. Total KRAS expression varied between tumors (0.47–1.01 fmol/µg total protein) and healthy tissues (0.13–0.64 fmol/µg). In KRAS^G12V-mCRC, G12V-mutation levels were 42–100%, while one patient had only 10% KRAS^G12V but 90% KRAS^wildtype. This might represent a missed therapeutic opportunity: based on hotspot sequencing, the patient was excluded from anti-EGFR treatment and instead received chemotherapy, while PRM-based tumor-phenotyping indicates the patient might have benefitted from anti-EGFR therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of Molecular Profile Patient Selection for First-line Treatment of Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer are offered platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab; however, this strategy is not cost-effective. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical predictive molecular test to identify and treat only patients potentially responsive to cetuximab (C) added to platinum-fluorouracil (PF) (PF + C POS) versus the administration of PF + C to all patients (PF + C ALL).

METHODS

A Markov model has been developed to estimate health outcomes (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]; life years [LYs]) and costs of the 2 strategies on a time horizon of 3 years from the Italian health care perspective. For the response to treatment, a definition, including partial or complete response, has been applied. In the base-case scenario, molecular test sensitivity, specificity, and cost have been assumed equal to 85%, 70%, and €4000, respectively.

FINDINGS

The model estimated 0.5285 QALYs (0.9245 LYs) and 0.5666 QALYs (0.9949 LYs) for PF + C POS and PF + C ALL, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio of PF + C ALL versus PF + C POS was €112,462/QALY, suggesting the administration of PF + C only to patients who would be responsive to it.

IMPLICATIONS

The use of cetuximab with chemotherapy could be a cost-effective choice in first-line recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer if based on a molecular selection able to identify which patients will achieve partial or complete response to the treatment. The developed model may be usefully applied to new emerging treatments, such as immunotherapeutic agents in the same setting.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of selective first-line use of biologics for unresectable RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer

Background

Evidence from a retrospective analysis of multiple large phase iii trials suggested that primary tumour location (ptl) in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (wtRAS mcrc) might have predictive value with respect to response to drug therapies. Recent studies also show a potential preferential benefit for epidermal growth factor inhibitors (egfris) for left-sided tumours. In the present study, we aimed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) for the first-line use of an egfri for patients with left-sided wtRAS mcrc.

Methods

We developed a state-transition model to determine the cost effectiveness of alternative treatment strategies in patients with left-sided mcrc:■ Standard of care■ Use of an egfri in first-line therapyThe cohort for the study consisted of patients diagnosed with unresectable wtRAS mcrc with an indication for chemotherapy and previously documented ptl. Model parameters were obtained from the published literature and calibration. The perspective was that of a provincial ministry of health in Canada. We used a 5-year time horizon and an annual discount rate of 1.5%.

Results

Selecting patients for first-line egfri treatment based on left-sided location of their colorectal primary tumour was more effective than the standard of care, resulting in an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) of 0.226 (or 0.644 life-years gained). However, the strategy was also more expensive, costing an average of $60,639 more per patient treated. The resulting icer was $268,094 per qaly. A 35% price reduction in the cost of egfri would be needed to make this strategy cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold (wtp) of $100,000 per qaly.

Conclusions

Selective use of an egfri based on ptl was more cost-effective than unselected use of those agents; however, based on traditional wtp thresholds, it was still not cost-effective. While awaiting the elucidation of more precise predictive biomarkers that might improve cost-effectiveness, the price of egfris could be reduced to meet the wtp threshold.

Can Administrative Data Improve the Performance of Cancer Clinical Trial Economic Analyses?

PURPOSE

Trial economic analyses, such as cost-effectiveness analysis, often rely on trial-collected data, which are burdensome and expensive to collect and may be incomplete. In contrast, administrative databases systematically collect health system encounters. We investigated whether administrative data could improve the performance of cancer trial economic analysis.

METHODS

Health administrative data were probabilistically linked to Ontario patient data from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.17 trial (n = 572), which evaluated cetuximab plus best supportive care (75 linked Ontario patients) versus best supportive care alone (73 patients) in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer. Trial-collected resource utilization data and vital status were compared with administrative data. Cost effectiveness in 2007 Canadian dollars was determined with bootstrap incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) CIs.

RESULTS

Up to trial date of last contact, administrative data vital status was concordant in more than 96%. Twenty-nine subsequent deaths occurred. Up to trial last contact, there were 50 net additional hospitalizations in administrative data and 33 net additional emergency department visits. Total costs were $3,023,034 for the cetuximab group and $1,191,118 for the control group up to trial last contact. The ICER was $211,128 per life-year gained (90% CI, $101,396 to $694,950) up to trial last contact and $164,378 (90% CI, -$138,260 to $644,555) up to administrative data last contact. ICER estimates were similar to the analysis using trial-collected data.

CONCLUSION

Administrative data were more complete than trial data for hospital encounters, a key cost driver in economic analysis. There was a longer follow-up. This demonstrates the potential of administrative data to relieve the burden of collecting key data in cancer trials, which represents a considerable effort and expense.

Advantages of the net benefit regression framework for trial-based economic evaluations of cancer treatments: an example from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.17 trial

Background

Economic evaluations commonly accompany trials of new treatments or interventions; however, regression methods and their corresponding advantages for the analysis of cost-effectiveness data are not widely appreciated.

Methods

To illustrate regression-based economic evaluation, we review a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group’s Committee on Economic Analysis and implement net benefit regression.

Results

Net benefit regression offers a simple option for cost-effectiveness analyses of person-level data. By placing economic evaluation in a regression framework, regression-based techniques can facilitate the analysis and provide simple solutions to commonly encountered challenges (e.g., the need to adjust for potential confounders, identify key patient subgroups, and/or summarize “challenging” findings, like when a more effective regimen has the potential to be cost-saving).

Conclusions

Economic evaluations of patient-level data (e.g., from a clinical trial) can use net benefit regression to facilitate analysis and enhance results.

Molecular biomarkers and precision medicine in colorectal cancer: a systematic review of health economic analyses

An increased understanding of the biology of colorectal cancer (CRC) has fuelled identification of biomarkers with potential to drive a stratified precision medicine care approach in this common malignancy. We conducted a systematic review of health economic assessments of molecular biomarkers (MBMs) and their employment in patient stratification in CRC. Our analysis revealed scenarios where health economic analyses have been applied to evaluate the cost effectiveness of MBM-guided clinical interventions: (i) evaluation of Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene (DPYD) status to identify patients susceptible to 5-Fluouracil toxicity; (ii) determination of Uridine 5'-diphospho- glucuronosyltransferase family 1 member A1 gene (UGT1A1) polymorphism status to help guide irinotecan treatment; (iii) assessment of RAS/RAF mutational status to stratify patients for chemotherapy or Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) therapy and (iv) multigene expression analysis (Oncotype Dx) to identify and spare non-responders the debilitating effects of particular chemotherapy interventions. Our findings indicate that Oncotype Dx is cost-effective in high income settings within specific price points, by limiting treatment toxicity in CRC patients. DPYD status testing may also be cost effective in certain settings to avoid specific 5-FU toxicities post treatment. In contrast, current research does not support UGT1A1 polymorphism status as a cost-effective guide to irinotecan dosing, while the health economic evidence to support testing of KRAS/NRAS mutational status and chemo/EGFR therapy choice was inconclusive, despite its widespread adoption in CRC treatment management. However, we also show that there is a paucity of high-quality cost-effectiveness studies to support clinical application of precision medicine approaches in CRC.

The economic impact of the transition from branded to generic oncology drugs

Background

Economic evaluations are an integral component of many clinical trials. Costs used in those analyses are based on the prices of branded drugs when they first enter the market. The effect of genericization on the cost-effectiveness (ce) or cost-utility (cu) of an intervention is unknown because economic analyses are rarely updated using the costs of generic drugs.

Methods

We re-examined the ce or cu of regimens previously evaluated in Canadian Cancer Trials Group (cctg) studies that included prospective economic evaluations and where genericization has occurred or is anticipated in Canada. We incorporated the new costs of generic drugs to characterize changes in ce or cu. We also determined acceptable cost levels of generic drugs that would make regimens reimbursable in a publicly funded health care system.

Results

The four randomized controlled trials included (representing 1979 patients) were cctg br.10 (early lung cancer, adjuvant vinorelbine-cisplatin vs. observation, n = 172), cctg br.21 (metastatic lung cancer, erlotinib vs. placebo, n = 731), cctg co.17 (metastatic colon cancer, cetuximab vs. best supportive care, n = 557), and cctg ly.12 (relapsed or refractory lymphoma, gemcitabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin vs. cytarabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin, n = 619). Since the initial publication of those trials, the genericization of vinorelbine, erlotinib, cetuximab, and cisplatin has taken place or is expected in Canada. Costs of generics improved the ces and cus of treatment significantly. For example, genericization of erlotinib ($1460.25 per 30 days) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $45,746 per life-year gained compared with $94,638 for branded erlotinib. Likewise, genericization of cetuximab ($275.80 per 100 mg) produced an icer of $261,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained compared with $299,613 for branded cetuximab. Decreases in the cost of generic cetuximab to $129.39 and $63.51 would further improve the icer to $150,000 and $100,000 per QALY respectively.

Conclusions

Genericization of a costly oncology drug can modify the ce and cu of a regimen significantly. Failure to revisit economic analyses with the costs of generics could be a missed opportunity for funding bodies to optimize value-based allocation of health care resources. At current levels, the costs of generics might not be sufficiently low to sustain publicly funded health care systems.

Economic Value of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Cancer Drugs with Clinically Relevant Drug-Gene Associations: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenetic testing can provide predictive insights about the efficacy and safety of drugs used in cancer treatment. Although many drug-gene associations have been reported in the literature, the strength of evidence supporting each association can vary significantly. Even among the subgroup of drugs classified by the PharmGKB database to have a high or moderate level of evidence, there is limited information regarding the economic value of pharmacogenetic testing.

OBJECTIVES

To: (a) summarize the available pharmacoeconomic evidence assessing the value of pharmacogenetic testing for cancer drugs with clinically relevant drug-gene associations; (b) determine the quality of the studies that contain this evidence; and (c) discuss the quality of this evidence with respect to the level of evidence of the drug-gene associations.

METHODS

The PharmGKB database was used to identify cancer drugs with clinically relevant drug-gene associations graded high (1A, 1B) or moderate (2A, 2B). A systematic literature review was conducted using these drugs. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched to identify cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization studies comparing pharmacogenetic testing to an alternative. Cost and effect values from every relevant comparison within the studies were extracted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was either extracted or calculated for each comparison. Quality assessment was conducted for each study using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the data.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2,191 citations, of which 35 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pharmacoeconomic studies were available for the following drugs from the PharmGKB database: fluoropyrimidine, 6-mercaptopurine, irinotecan, carboplatin, cisplatin, erlotinib, gefitinib, cetuximab, panitumumab, and trastuzumab. The studies were conducted in Asia, Europe, Canada, the United States, and Mexico and reported cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and cost-minimization outcomes. The mean QHES score was 80 (SD = 22) for the studies of drug-gene pairs with high (1A, 1B) and moderate (2A, 2B) levels of evidence (1A = 82, 1B = 93, 2A = 71, and 2B = 74). There was variation across studies in terms of reporting. 109 relevant comparisons were identified within the studies. Of those that reported cost per life-year or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (n = 58 comparisons), pharmacogenetic testing was dominant in 21% overall and 42%, 21%, 17%, and 5% of the comparisons in Asia, Europe, Canada, and the United States, respectively. Variability was observed in the ICER values regardless of geographic region or drug. Pharmacogenetic testing was cost saving in 17 of 19 cost-minimization comparisons and was favored most frequently when compared with genetically indiscriminate strategies containing the drug of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

There was mixed evidence regarding the value of pharmacogenetic testing to guide cancer treatment. For future pharmacogenomic-related economic studies, we recommend prioritizing clinically relevant drug-gene associations and greater adherence to available best practice guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation studies.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this review. Part of Hussain's research time was supported by a Merit Review Award (I01 BX000545), Medical Research Service, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Hussain also reports personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, and France Foundation, outside the submitted work. Onukwugha reports grants from Pfizer and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, along with advisory board fees from Novo Nordisk, outside the submitted work. Faruque, Neuberger, and Noh have nothing to disclose.

Impact of drug substitution on cost of care: an example of economic analysis of cetuximab versus panitumumab

Background

The alarming increase in the cost of cancer care is forcing all stakeholders to re-evaluate their approach to treatment. Drugs are the main contributor to the cost. To evaluate the significance of drug substitution on the cost of care we assessed the economic value of panitumumab vs. cetuximab in chemo-refractory metastatic CRC (mCRC) with wild-type KRAS from a US societal perspective.

Methods

We developed a Markov model with three health states: progression-free, progressive, and death. We calculated the transition probabilities between states using the ASPECCT trial report and US life tables. Costs of drug and administration were based on the Medicare reimbursement rates. Published data were used for cost of toxicities and utilities. All costs were converted to 2017 US dollars. The model used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to measure health outcomes for each treatment option.

Results

Panitumumab and cetuximab produced 0.45 QALYs at a per patient cost of $66,006 and $71,956, respectively. The incremental net monetary benefit of panitumumab compared to cetuximab is $5237 under a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000. The model showed robustness to one-way sensitivity analyses and various alternative scenarios and was found to be most sensitive to the cost of cetuximab.

Conclusions

Panitumumab can lower the cost of care without impacting outcomes in chemo-refractory mCRC settings. This finding provides a strong argument to consider panitumumab in lieu of cetuximab in these patients.

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.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer based on patient chart review in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of cetuximab in third-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in routine clinical practice compared with best supportive care (BSC).

METHODS

Patients (n = 287) with KRAS wt mCRC treated with cetuximab or BSC in eight hospitals in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2012 were included in our real-world study. Outcome measures were costs per life-year (LY) and costs per quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. A Markov model was developed, and a time horizon of four years was applied. Outcomes were calculated from Kaplan-Meier survival curves from patient-level data and literature. Direct medical costs were estimated in all centers (2013 values), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Results were discounted, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Administration of cetuximab in third-line treatment of mCRC resulted in a gain of 0.29 LYs and 0.25 QALYs compared with BSC. In the four-year study period, average discounted healthcare costs were €36,637 in the cetuximab group vs. €3648 in the BSC group. The discounted ICERs of cetuximab vs. BSC in the real-world setting were €114,907and €133,527 per LY and QALY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this cost-effectiveness analysis showed that third-line treatment with cetuximab for patients with KRAS (exon 2) wt mCRC offered clinical benefits at additional cost. The real-world ICERs were in line with those of previously published cetuximab and panitumumab cost-utility models.

Molecular testing for Lynch syndrome in people with colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Inherited mutations in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair (MMR) genes lead to an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), gynaecological cancers and other cancers, known as Lynch syndrome (LS). Risk-reducing interventions can be offered to individuals with known LS-causing mutations. The mutations can be identified by comprehensive testing of the MMR genes, but this would be prohibitively expensive in the general population. Tumour-based tests - microsatellite instability (MSI) and MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) - are used in CRC patients to identify individuals at high risk of LS for genetic testing. MLH1 (MutL homologue 1) promoter methylation and BRAF V600E testing can be conducted on tumour material to rule out certain sporadic cancers.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether testing for LS in CRC patients using MSI or IHC (with or without MLH1 promoter methylation testing and BRAF V600E testing) is clinically effective (in terms of identifying Lynch syndrome and improving outcomes for patients) and represents a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews were conducted of the published literature on diagnostic test accuracy studies of MSI and/or IHC testing for LS, end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients and economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC patients. A model-based economic evaluation was conducted to extrapolate long-term outcomes from the results of the diagnostic test accuracy review. The model was extended from a model previously developed by the authors.

RESULTS

Ten studies were identified that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of MSI and/or IHC testing for identifying LS in CRC patients. For MSI testing, sensitivity ranged from 66.7% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 61.1% to 92.5%. For IHC, sensitivity ranged from 80.8% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 80.5% to 91.9%. When tumours showing low levels of MSI were treated as a positive result, the sensitivity of MSI testing increased but specificity fell. No end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients were identified. Nine economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC were identified. None of the included studies fully matched the decision problem and hence a new economic evaluation was required. The base-case results in the economic evaluation suggest that screening for LS in CRC patients using IHC, BRAF V600E and MLH1 promoter methylation testing would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy was £11,008 per QALY compared with no screening. Screening without tumour tests is not predicted to be cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

Most of the diagnostic test accuracy studies identified were rated as having a risk of bias or were conducted in unrepresentative samples. There was no direct evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes. No probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic review evidence suggests that MSI- and IHC-based testing can be used to identify LS in CRC patients, although there was heterogeneity in the methods used in the studies identified and the results of the studies. There was no high-quality empirical evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes and so an evidence linkage approach using modelling was necessary. Key determinants of whether or not screening is cost-effective are the accuracy of tumour-based tests, CRC risk without surveillance, the number of relatives identified for cascade testing, colonoscopic surveillance effectiveness and the acceptance of genetic testing. Future work should investigate screening for more causes of hereditary CRC and screening for LS in endometrial cancer patients.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033879.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Examining Trends in Cost and Clinical Benefit of Novel Anticancer Drugs Over Time

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine if clinical benefits of novel anticancer drugs, measured by the ASCO Value Framework and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, have increased over time in parallel with increasing costs.

METHODS

Anticancer drugs from phase III randomized controlled trials cited for clinical efficacy evidence in drug approvals between January 2006 to December 2015 were identified and scored using both frameworks. For each drug, the monthly price and incremental anticancer drug costs were calculated. Relationships between cost and year of approval were examined using generalized linear regressions models. Ordinary least square models were used to evaluate relationships between ASCO and ESMO scores and year of approval. Spearman correlation coefficients between costs and clinical benefit scores were calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 42 randomized controlled trials were included. Both monthly prices and incremental anticancer drug costs were significantly associated with year of approval and showed an average annual increase of 9% and 21%, respectively. The predicted mean incremental anticancer drug cost increased from $30,447 in 2006 to $161,141 in 2015 (greater than five-fold increase). Both ASCO and ESMO scores were not statistically associated with year of approval or correlated with monthly prices or incremental anticancer drug costs.

CONCLUSION

Over the past decade, costs of novel oncology drugs have increased, while clinical benefits of these medications have not experienced a proportional positive change. The incremental anticancer drug costs have increased at a much greater rate than monthly prices, indicating that the increase in anticancer drug costs may be higher than commonly reported.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab as First-line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the United States

PURPOSE

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating recent phase III clinical trial (FIRE-3) data to evaluate clinical and economic tradeoffs associated with first-line treatments of KRAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was developed using FIRE-3 data to project survival and lifetime costs of FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab. Hypothetical KRAS-WT mCRC patients initiated first-line treatment and could experience adverse events, disease progression warranting second-line treatment, or clinical response and hepatic metastasectomy. Model inputs were derived from FIRE-3 and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported as US$ per life year (LY) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Scenario analyses considered patients with extended RAS mutations and CALGB/SWOG 80405 data; 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Compared with bevacizumab, KRAS-WT patients receiving first-line cetuximab gained 5.7 months of life at a cost of $46,266, for an ICER of $97,223/LY ($122,610/QALY). For extended RAS-WT patients, the ICER was $77,339/LY ($99,584/QALY). Cetuximab treatment was cost-effective 80.3% of the time, given a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/LY. Results were sensitive to changes in survival, treatment duration, and product costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis of FIRE-3 data suggests that first-line treatment with cetuximab and FOLFIRI in KRAS (and extended RAS) WT mCRC patients may improve health outcomes and use financial resources more efficiently than bevacizumab and FOLFIRI. This information, in combination with other studies investigating comparative effectiveness of first-line options, can be useful to clinicians, payers, and policymakers in making treatment and resource allocation decisions for mCRC patients.

Distribution-Weighted Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Lifetime Health Loss

BACKGROUND

It is widely acknowledged that concerns for the worse off need to be integrated with the concern for cost effectiveness in priority setting, and several countries are seeking to do so. In Norway, a comprehensive framework for priority setting was recently proposed to specify the worse off in terms of lifetime loss of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). However, few studies have shown how to calculate such health losses, how to integrate health loss into cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and how such integration impacts the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The aim of this study was to do so.

METHODS

The proposed framework was applied to data from 15 recent economic evaluations of drugs. Available data were used to calculate the lifetime health loss of the target groups, and the proposed marginal weighting function was employed to adjust standard ICERs according to the size of this loss. Standard and weighted ICERs were compared to a threshold of US$35,000 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

Lifetime health loss can be calculated with the use of available data and integrated by a marginal weighting function with CEAs. Such integration affected standard ICERs to a varying degree and changed the number of interventions considered cost effective from three to eight.

CONCLUSION

Calculation of lifetime health loss and its integration with CEA is feasible and can influence the reimbursement and ranking of interventions. To facilitate regular integration, guidelines for economic evaluations could require (i) adjustment according to distributional concerns and (ii) that data on health loss are extracted directly from the models and reported. Generic databases on health loss could be developed alongside such efforts.

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.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors prevent cell growth and have shown benefit in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, whether used as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy. Clear benefit has been shown in trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies (EGFR MAb) but not EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKI). However, there is ongoing debate as to which patient populations gain maximum benefit from EGFR inhibition and where they should be used in the metastatic colorectal cancer treatment paradigm to maximise efficacy and minimise toxicity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, safety profile, and potential harms of EGFR inhibitors in the treatment of people with metastatic colorectal cancer when given alone, in combination with chemotherapy, or with other biological agents.The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival; secondary outcomes included overall survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2016; Ovid MEDLINE (from 1950); and Ovid Embase (from 1974) on 9 September 2016; and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 14 March 2017. We also searched proceedings from the major oncology conferences ESMO, ASCO, and ASCO GI from 2012 to December 2016. We further scanned reference lists from eligible publications and contacted corresponding authors for trials for further information where needed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials on participants with metastatic colorectal cancer comparing: 1) the combination of EGFR MAb and 'standard therapy' (whether chemotherapy or best supportive care) to standard therapy alone, 2) the combination of EGFR TKI and standard therapy to standard therapy alone, 3) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI) and standard therapy to another EGFR inhibitor (or the same inhibitor with a different dosing regimen) and standard therapy, or 4) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI), anti-angiogenic therapy, and standard therapy to anti-angiogenic therapy and standard therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures defined by Cochrane. Summary statistics for the endpoints used hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival and progression-free survival, and odds ratios (OR) for response rate (RR) and toxicity. Subgroup analyses were performed by Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) and neuroblastoma RAS viral (V-Ras) oncogene homolog (NRAS) status - firstly by status of KRAS exon 2 testing (mutant or wild type) and also by status of extended KRAS/NRAS testing (any mutation present or wild type).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 randomised controlled trials for analysis (15,025 participants), including trials of both EGFR MAb and EGFR TKI. Looking across studies, significant risk of bias was present, particularly with regard to the risk of selection bias (15/33 unclear risk, 1/33 high risk), performance bias (9/33 unclear risk, 9/33 high risk), and detection bias (7/33 unclear risk, 11/33 high risk).The addition of EGFR MAb to standard therapy in the KRAS exon 2 wild-type population improves progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82; high-quality evidence), overall survival (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; high-quality evidence), and response rate (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.41; high-quality evidence). We noted evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity in all three of these analyses (progression-free survival: I² = 76%; overall survival: I² = 40%; and response rate: I² = 77%), likely due to pooling of studies investigating EGFR MAb use in different lines of therapy. Rates of overall grade 3 to 4 toxicity, diarrhoea, and rash were increased (moderate-quality evidence for all three outcomes), but there was no evidence for increased rates of neutropenia.For the extended RAS wild-type population (no mutations in KRAS or NRAS), addition of EGFR MAb improved progression-free survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75; moderate-quality evidence) and overall survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88; high-quality evidence). Response rate was also improved (OR 4.28, 95% CI 2.61 to 7.03; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the progression-free survival analysis (I² = 61%), likely due to the pooling of studies combining EGFR MAb with chemotherapy with monotherapy studies.We observed no evidence of a statistically significant difference when EGFR MAb was compared to bevacizumab, in progression-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; high quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the overall survival analysis (I² = 51%), likely due to the pooling of first-line and second-line studies.The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy in molecularly unselected participants did not show benefit in limited data sets (meta-analysis not performed). The addition of EGFR MAb to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve progression-free survival (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.29; very low quality evidence), overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.47; low-quality evidence), or response rate (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.12; very low-quality evidence) but increased toxicity (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.57; low-quality evidence). We noted significant between-study heterogeneity in most analyses.Scant information on quality of life was reported in the identified studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of EGFR MAb to either chemotherapy or best supportive care improves progression-free survival (moderate- to high-quality evidence), overall survival (high-quality evidence), and tumour response rate (moderate- to high-quality evidence), but may increase toxicity in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type or extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (moderate-quality evidence). The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy does not improve clinical outcomes. EGFR MAb combined with bevacizumab is of no clinical value (very low-quality evidence). Future studies should focus on optimal sequencing and predictive biomarkers and collect quality of life data.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors prevent cell growth and have shown benefit in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, whether used as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy. Clear benefit has been shown in trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies (EGFR MAb) but not EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKI). However, there is ongoing debate as to which patient populations gain maximum benefit from EGFR inhibition and where they should be used in the metastatic colorectal cancer treatment paradigm to maximise efficacy and minimise toxicity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, safety profile, and potential harms of EGFR inhibitors in the treatment of people with metastatic colorectal cancer when given alone, in combination with chemotherapy, or with other biological agents.The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival; secondary outcomes included overall survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2016; Ovid MEDLINE (from 1950); and Ovid Embase (from 1974) on 9 September 2016; and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 14 March 2017. We also searched proceedings from the major oncology conferences ESMO, ASCO, and ASCO GI from 2012 to December 2016. We further scanned reference lists from eligible publications and contacted corresponding authors for trials for further information where needed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials on participants with metastatic colorectal cancer comparing: 1) the combination of EGFR MAb and 'standard therapy' (whether chemotherapy or best supportive care) to standard therapy alone, 2) the combination of EGFR TKI and standard therapy to standard therapy alone, 3) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI) and standard therapy to another EGFR inhibitor (or the same inhibitor with a different dosing regimen) and standard therapy, or 4) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI), anti-angiogenic therapy, and standard therapy to anti-angiogenic therapy and standard therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures defined by Cochrane. Summary statistics for the endpoints used hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival and progression-free survival, and odds ratios (OR) for response rate (RR) and toxicity. Subgroup analyses were performed by Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) and neuroblastoma RAS viral (V-Ras) oncogene homolog (NRAS) status - firstly by status of KRAS exon 2 testing (mutant or wild type) and also by status of extended KRAS/NRAS testing (any mutation present or wild type).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 randomised controlled trials for analysis (15,025 participants), including trials of both EGFR MAb and EGFR TKI. Looking across studies, significant risk of bias was present, particularly with regard to the risk of selection bias (15/33 unclear risk, 1/33 high risk), performance bias (9/33 unclear risk, 9/33 high risk), and detection bias (7/33 unclear risk, 11/33 high risk).The addition of EGFR MAb to standard therapy in the KRAS exon 2 wild-type population improves progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82; high-quality evidence), overall survival (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; high-quality evidence), and response rate (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.41; high-quality evidence). We noted evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity in all three of these analyses (progression-free survival: I2 = 76%; overall survival: I2 = 40%; and response rate: I2 = 77%), likely due to pooling of studies investigating EGFR MAb use in different lines of therapy. Rates of overall grade 3 to 4 toxicity, diarrhoea, and rash were increased (moderate-quality evidence for all three outcomes), but there was no evidence for increased rates of neutropenia.For the extended RAS wild-type population (no mutations in KRAS or NRAS), addition of EGFR MAb improved progression-free survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75; moderate-quality evidence) and overall survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88; high-quality evidence). Response rate was also improved (OR 4.28, 95% CI 2.61 to 7.03; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the progression-free survival analysis (I2 = 61%), likely due to the pooling of studies combining EGFR MAb with chemotherapy with monotherapy studies.We observed no evidence of a statistically significant difference when EGFR MAb was compared to bevacizumab, in progression-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; high quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the overall survival analysis (I2 = 51%), likely due to the pooling of first-line and second-line studies.The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy in molecularly unselected participants did not show benefit in limited data sets (meta-analysis not performed). The addition of EGFR MAb to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve progression-free survival (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.29; very low quality evidence), overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.47; low-quality evidence), or response rate (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.12; very low-quality evidence) but increased toxicity (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.57; low-quality evidence). We noted significant between-study heterogeneity in most analyses.Scant information on quality of life was reported in the identified studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of EGFR MAb to either chemotherapy or best supportive care improves progression-free survival (moderate- to high-quality evidence), overall survival (high-quality evidence), and tumour response rate (moderate- to high-quality evidence), but may increase toxicity in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type or extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (moderate-quality evidence). The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy does not improve clinical outcomes. EGFR MAb combined with bevacizumab is of no clinical value (very low-quality evidence). Future studies should focus on optimal sequencing and predictive biomarkers and collect quality of life data.

RAS testing and cetuximab treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting with limited health resources

PURPOSE

To test the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) from a Chinese medical insurance perspective.

RESULTS

Baseline analysis showed that the addition of cetuximab increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by 0.63, an increase of $17,086 relative to FOLFIRI chemotherapy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,145/QALY. When the patient assistance program (PAP) was available, the ICER decreased to $14,049/QALY, which indicated that the cetuximab is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of China ($22,200/QALY). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the median overall survival time for the cetuximab was the most influential parameter.

METHODS

A Markov model by incorporating clinical, utility and cost data was developed to evaluate the economic outcome of cetuximab in mCRC. The lifetime horizon was used, and sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the robustness of the model results. The impact of PAP was also evaluated in scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

RAS testing with cetuximab treatment is likely to be cost-effective for patients with mCRC when PAP is available in China.

Economic evaluation of brentuximab vedotin for persistent Hodgkin lymphoma

BACKGROUND

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of brentuximab vedotin for the treatment of relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (hl) in the post-autologous stem-cell transplantation (asct) failure period, from the perspective of the Canadian health care payer.

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate lifetime costs and benefits of brentuximab vedotin compared with best supportive care for the treatment of patients with hl after failure of asct. Administrative data from Ontario were used to set the model parameters.

RESULTS

In the base case, treatment with brentuximab vedotin resulted in incremental quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) of 0.544 and an incremental cost of $89,366 per patient, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $164,248 per qaly gained. The icer was sensitive to the cost of brentuximab vedotin, the hazard ratio used to assess the efficacy of brentuximab vedotin treatment, and health state utilities.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of the available information, brentuximab vedotin has an icer exceeding $100,000 per qaly gained, which is a level often classified as having "weak evidence for adoption and appropriate utilization" in Canada. However, it is worth noting that provincial cancer agencies take into account not only the costs and associated icer, but also other factors such as a lack of alternative treatment options and the clinical benefits of expensive cancer drugs. Pricing arrangements should be negotiated, and risk-sharing agreements or patient access schemes should be explored.

Systematic review of health state utility values for economic evaluation of colorectal cancer

Cost-utility analyses undertaken to inform decision making regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) require a set of health state utility values (HSUVs) so that the time CRC patients spend in different health states can be aggregated into quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). This study reviews CRC-related HSUVs that could be used in economic evaluation and assesses their advantages and disadvantages with respect to valuation methods used and CRC clinical pathways. Fifty-seven potentially relevant studies were identified which collectively report 321 CRC-related HSUVs. HSUVs (even for similar health states) vary markedly and this adds to the uncertainty regarding estimates of cost-effectiveness. There are relatively few methodologically robust HSUVs that can be directly used in economic evaluations concerned with CRC. There is considerable scope to develop new HSUVs which improve on those currently available either by expanded collection of generic measures or by making greater use of condition-specific data, for example, using mapping algorithms.

Cost-effectiveness of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced malignancy

Background

The rising cost of healthcare is well documented. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of pelvic exenteration (PE).

Methods

Consecutive patients referred for consideration of PE between 2008 and 2011 were recruited into a prospective non-randomized study that compared quality of life (QoL) between patients who did or did not undergo PE. Information on QoL and cost (in Australian dollars, AUD) was collected at baseline, during admission and up to 24 months after discharge. QoL data were converted into a utility-based measure. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated. Bottom-up costing was performed. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated per life-year saved and per QALY.

Results

There were 174 patients with sufficient data for analysis. Of these, 139 underwent PE. R0 was achieved in 78·4 per cent of patients. The survival rate at 24 months after PE was 74·8 per cent compared with 43 per cent in those without exenteration (P = 0·001). Treatment costs were significantly higher for patients who had PE compared with those who did not (mean AUD 137 407 versus 79 174; P &lt; 0·001). The ICER was AUD 124 147 (95 per cent c.i. 71 585 to 261 876) per life-year saved and AUD 227 330 (109 974 to 1 100 449) per QALY. Curative PE (R0) was found to be more cost-effective than non-curative PE (R1/R2), with an ICER of AUD 101 518 (60 105 to 200 428) versus 390 712 (74 368 to 82 256 739) per life-year saved.

Conclusion

Treatment of advanced pelvic cancers is expensive regardless of the treatment intent. For a cost difference of only AUD 58 000 (€38 264), PE offers a chance of cure, and improves survival and QoL.

Effectiveness of bevacizumab and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer across selected public hospitals in Queensland

AIM

Metastatic colorectal cancer has a large burden of disease in Australia. Medical therapy is fundamental to extending survival and improving quality of life. The benefits of two costly medicines, bevacizumab and cetuximab, used in Australia remain unclear. The aim of this study was to retrospectively examine the use of these two medicines in metastatic colorectal cancer across five public hospitals in south east Queensland and to compare clinical outcomes to those of published clinical trials.

METHODS

We extracted data from the chemotherapy prescribing database for patients planned for bevacizumab or cetuximab therapy between 2009 and 2013. Median overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

There were 490 bevacizumab-containing protocols planned and 292 patients received at least one dose of bevacizumab. Median overall survival was 17.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.4-19.3). Of 208 planned cetuximab-containing protocols, 134 patients received at least one dose of cetuximab. Median overall survival was 9.1 months (95% CI, 7.6-12.0). Thirty-day mortality rates from date of first dose were 0.7% for bevacizumab and 7.5% for cetuximab.

CONCLUSION

Overall survival of patients receiving bevacizumab and cetuximab was consistent with clinical trials, providing some assurance that benefits seen in trials are observed in usual practice. This study provides a methodology of using routinely collected health data for clinical monitoring and research. Because of the high cost of these medicines and the lack of toxicity data in this study, further analysis in the postmarketing setting should be explored.

Fluorouracil plasma monitoring: systematic review and economic evaluation of the My5-FU assay for guiding dose adjustment in patients receiving fluorouracil chemotherapy by continuous infusion

BACKGROUND

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is a chemotherapy used in colorectal, head and neck (H&N) and other cancers. Dose adjustment is based on body surface area (BSA) but wide variations occur. Pharmacokinetic (PK) dosing is suggested to bring plasma levels into the therapeutic range to promote fewer side effects and better patient outcomes. We investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the My5-FU assay for PK dose adjustment to 5-FU therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence on the accuracy of the My5-FU assay compared with gold standard methods [high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)]; the effectiveness of My5-FU PK dosing compared with BSA; the effectiveness of HPLC and/or LC-MS compared with BSA; the generalisability of published My5-FU and PK studies; costs of using My5-FU; to develop a cost-effectiveness model.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and other databases between January and April 2014.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts with arbitration and consensus agreement. We undertook quality assessment. We reconstructed Kaplan-Meier plots for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for comparison of BSA and PK dosing. We developed a Markov model to compare My5-FU with BSA dosing which modelled PFS, OS and adverse events, using a 2-week cycle over a 20 year time horizon with a 3.5% discount rate. Health impacts were evaluated from the patient perspective, while costs were evaluated from the NHS and Personal Social Services perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 8341 records were identified through electronic searches and 35 and 54 studies were included in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness reviews respectively. There was a high apparent correlation between My5-FU, HPLC and LC-MS/mass spectrometer but upper and lower limits of agreement were -18% to 30%. Median OS were estimated as 19.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.0 to 21.0] months for PK versus 14.6 (95% CI 14.1 to 15.3) months for BSA for 5-FU+folinic acid (FA); and 27.4 (95% CI 23.2 to 38.8) months for PK versus 20.6 (95% CI 18.4 to 22.9) months for BSA for FOLFOX6 in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PK versus BSA studies were generalisable to the relevant populations. We developed cost-effectiveness models for mCRC and H&N cancer. The base case assumed a cost per My5-FU assay of £ 61.03. For mCRC for 12 cycles of a oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil and FA (FOLFOX) regimen, there was a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.599 with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £ 4148 per QALY. Probabilistic and scenario analyses gave similar results. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed My5-FU to be 100% cost-effective at a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY. For H&N cancer, again, given caveats about the poor evidence base, we also estimated that My5-FU is likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Quality and quantity of evidence were very weak for PK versus BSA dosing for all cancers with no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using current regimens. For H&N cancer, two studies of regimens no longer in use were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a linked evidence approach, My5-FU appears to be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £ 20,000 per QALY for both mCRC and H&N cancer. Considerable uncertainties remain about evidence quality and practical implementation. RCTs are needed of PK versus BSA dosing in relevant cancers.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Background

Costly biologicals in palliative oncology are emerging at a rapid pace. For example, in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma addition of cetuximab to a palliative chemotherapy regimen appears to improve survival. However, it simultaneously results in higher costs. We aimed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of adding cetuximab to first-line chemotherapeutic treatment of patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, based on data from a randomized controlled phase II trial.

Methods

A cost effectiveness analysis model was applied based on individual patient data. It included only direct medical costs from the health-care perspective. Quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Sensitivity analysis was performed by a Monte Carlo analysis.

Results

Adding cetuximab to a cisplatin-5-fluorouracil first-line regimen for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma resulted in an the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €252,203 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analysis shows that there is a chance of less than 0.001 that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be less than a maximum willingness to pay threshold of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which is representative for the threshold used in The Netherlands and other developed countries.

Conclusions

Addition of cetuximab to a cisplatin-5-fluorouracil first-line regimen for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is not cost-effective when appraised according to currently accepted criteria. Cost-effectiveness analyses using outcome data from early clinical trials (i.c. a phase II trial) enable pharmaceutical companies and policy makers to gain early insight into whether a new drug meets the current eligibility standards for reimbursement and thereby potential admittance for use in regular clinical practice.

Functional Genomics Uncover the Biology behind the Responsiveness of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Cancer Patients to Cetuximab

PURPOSE

To identify the tumor portrait of the minority of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients with recurrent-metastatic (RM) disease who upon treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab present a long-lasting response.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The gene expression of pretreatment samples from 40 HNSCC-RM patients, divided in two groups [14 long-progression-free survival (PFS) and 26 short-PFS (median = 19 and 3 months, respectively)], was associated with PFS and was challenged against a dataset from metastatic colon cancer patients treated with cetuximab. For biologic analysis, we performed functional and subtype association using gene set enrichment analysis, associated biology across all currently available HNSCC signatures, and inferred drug sensitivity using data from the Cancer Genomic Project.

RESULTS

The identified genomic profile exhibited a significant predictive value that was essentially confirmed in the single publicly available dataset of cetuximab-treated patients. The main divergence between long- and short-PFS groups was based on developmental/differentiation status. The long-PFS patients are characterized by basal subtype traits such as strong EGFR signaling phenotype and hypoxic differentiation, further validated by the significantly higher association with the hypoxia metagene. The short-PFS patients presented a strong activation of RAS signaling confirmed in an in vitro model of two isogenic HNSCC cell lines sensitive or resistant to cetuximab. The predicted drug sensitivity for all four EGFR inhibitors was higher in long- versus short-PFS patients (P range: <0.0022-1e-07).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data uncover the biology behind response to platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab in RM-HNSCC cancer and may have translational implications improving treatment selection. Clin Cancer Res; 22(15); 3961-70. ©2016 AACRSee related commentary by Chau and Hammerman, p. 3710.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Regorafenib is a standard-care option for treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer that increases median overall survival by 6 weeks compared with placebo. Given this small incremental clinical benefit, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib in the third-line setting for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to compare the cost and effectiveness of regorafenib with those of placebo in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates in 2014. Model robustness was addressed in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Regorafenib provided an additional 0.04 QALYs (0.13 life-years) at a cost of $40,000, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $900,000 per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for regorafenib was > $550,000 per QALY in all of our univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Regorafenib provides minimal incremental benefit at high incremental cost per QALY in the third-line management of metastatic colorectal cancer. The cost-effectiveness of regorafenib could be improved by the use of value-based pricing.

The importance of test accuracy in economic evaluations of companion diagnostics

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations of companion diagnostics often fail to include the impact that tests have on the overall economic value of test-drug combinations. 

METHODS

To illustrate the importance of test accuracy on the cost-effectiveness of companion diagnostics by means of examples. Data were extracted from the literature.

RESULTS

The accuracy of a test and in particularly its specificity, is often more influential on the overall cost-effectiveness results than the price of the test. Specificity becomes more crucial when prevalence of the biomarker is low. Multiple, simultaneous testing faces specific challenges regarding its overall specificity.

CONCLUSION

This article opens a discussion on some fundamental points linked to economic evaluations of test-therapy combinations.

Pharmacogenomics of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal carcinoma

Cetuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Knowledge of the mechanisms that underlie its effectiveness, as well as the primary and secondary resistance mechanisms, have led to important developments in the understanding of cetuximab biology. In light of knowledge gained from recent trials, the efficacy of cetuximab has been clearly demonstrated to depend upon RAS mutational status, moreover cetuximab should only be used in a subset of patients who may benefit. In this article, we critically review clinical and pharmacogenetic issues of cetuximab, focusing on the cost-effectiveness involved with the use of the drug.

Precision medicine in colorectal cancer: evolving genomic landscape and emerging consensus

Colorectal cancer is the third most lethal cancer in men and women in the USA. Although surgical resection is the mainstay of treatment, many patients develop local and widely metastatic disease and become resistant to conventional chemotherapeutics. Recent comprehensive molecular characterization has led to subclassification of colorectal adenocarcinoma based on molecular properties, such as microsatellite instability and high CpG island methylation. These emerging subclassifications are associate with varying frequencies of RAS, BRAF, APC and other genetic events and have the ability to redefine therapeutic regimens. In this review, we examine how molecular diagnostics are currently used while providing insight into emerging implications for molecular analysis for personalized therapy in colorectal cancer.

Economic Evaluation alongside Multinational Studies: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies

Purpose of the study

This study seeks to explore methods for conducting economic evaluations alongside multinational trials by conducting a systematic review of the methods used in practice and the challenges that are typically faced by the researchers who conducted the economic evaluations.

Methods

A review was conducted for the period 2002 to 2012, with potentially relevant articles identified by searching the Medline, Embase and NHS EED databases. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations conducted alongside a multinational trial.

Results

A total of 44 studies out of a possible 2667 met the inclusion criteria. Methods used for the analyses varied between studies, indicating a lack of consensus on how economic evaluation alongside multinational studies should be carried out. The most common challenge appeared to be related to addressing differences between countries, which potentially hinders the generalisability and transferability of results. Other challenges reported included inadequate sample sizes and choosing cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Conclusions

It is recommended that additional guidelines be developed to aid researchers in this area and that these be based on an understanding of the challenges associated with multinational trials and the strengths and limitations of alternative approaches. Guidelines should focus on ensuring that results will aid decision makers in their individual countries.