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.

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.

Anti-angiogenic agent ramucirumab: meaningful or marginal?

Ramucirumab (IMC-1121B) targets VEGFR-2. Ramucirumab is being investigated in many malignancies including gastric cancer. The Phase III trial in patients with advanced breast cancer failed to improve the primary end point The REGARD trial, a Phase III study, in patients with advanced gastric cancer in the second line setting, had a marginal improvement in overall survival but did not achieve the expected hazard ratio target (of 0.69) and the median duration of therapy with ramucirumab was meager 8 weeks (only 2 weeks longer than the placebo's). Other notable agents in the second line setting are docetaxel and irinotecan. Preliminary results of the RAINBOW trial suggest that ramucirumab may be providing more than marginal advantage. In this review, we briefly summarize the process of angiogenesis and address the emerging cost-benefit issues that surround all newly developed agents including ramucirumab.

Should the cost of care for patients with glioblastoma influence treatment decisions?

This article presents the case of a patient with recurrent glioblastoma who questions whether he can or should pay for treatment with bevacizumab. There are differing views on the physician's role in dealing with cost and cost-effectiveness issues for patients, but it is becoming increasingly unrealistic for physicians to disregard the cost of cancer care when making treatment recommendations. Physicians need to be able to address cost issues in order to allow individual patients to make the best informed decision about what treatment option is the most beneficial and the "best value" for them.

Molecular imaging in the management of cervical cancer

Positron emission tomography (PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and integrated 18-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) PET/computed tomography are valuable techniques for assessing prognosis, treatment response after the completion of concurrent chemoradiation, suspicious or documented recurrence, unexplained post therapy elevations in tumor markers, and the response to salvage treatment when managing cervical cancer. However, PET plays a limited role in the primary staging of MRI-defined node-negative patients. Currently, (18)F-FDG is still the only tracer approved for routine use, but several novel targeting PET compounds, high-Tesla MRI machines, diffusion-weighted imaging without contrast, and dynamic nuclear polarized-enhanced (13)C-MR spectroscopic imaging may hold promising applications.

Cost-effectiveness of modern radiotherapy techniques in locally advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy may improve the outcome of patients with pancreatic cancer but at an increased cost. In this study, the authors evaluated the cost-effectiveness of modern radiotherapy techniques in the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A Markov decision-analytic model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 4 treatment regimens: gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus conventional radiotherapy, gemcitabine plus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT); and gemcitabine with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Patients transitioned between the following 5 health states: stable disease, local progression, distant failure, local and distant failure, and death. Health utility tolls were assessed for radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatments and for radiation toxicity.

RESULTS

SBRT increased life expectancy by 0.20 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) at an increased cost of $13,700 compared with gemcitabine alone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $69,500 per QALY). SBRT was more effective and less costly than conventional radiotherapy and IMRT. An analysis that excluded SBRT demonstrated that conventional radiotherapy had an ICER of $126,800 per QALY compared with gemcitabine alone, and IMRT had an ICER of $1,584,100 per QALY compared with conventional radiotherapy. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay of $50,000 per QALY was 78% for gemcitabine alone, 21% for SBRT, 1.4% for conventional radiotherapy, and 0.01% for IMRT. At a willingness to pay of $200,000 per QALY, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 73% for SBRT, 20% for conventional radiotherapy, 7% for gemcitabine alone, and 0.7% for IMRT.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results indicated that IMRT in locally advanced pancreatic cancer exceeds what society considers cost-effective. In contrast, combining gemcitabine with SBRT increased clinical effectiveness beyond that of gemcitabine alone at a cost potentially acceptable by today's standards.

Continental Divide? The attitudes of US and Canadian oncologists on the costs, cost-effectiveness, and health policies associated with new cancer drugs

PURPOSE

Oncologists in the United States and Canada work in different health care systems, but physicians in both countries face challenges posed by the rising costs of cancer drugs. We compared their attitudes regarding the costs and cost-effectiveness of medications and related health policy.

METHODS

Survey responses of a random sample of 1,355 United States and 238 Canadian medical oncologists (all outside of Québec) were compared.

RESULTS

Response rate was 59%. More US oncologists (67% v 52%; P < .001) favor access to effective treatments regardless of cost, while more Canadians favor access to effective treatments only if they are cost-effective (75% v 58%; P < .001). Most (84% US, 80% Canadian) oncologists state that patient out-of-pocket costs influence their treatment recommendations, but less than half the respondents always or frequently discuss the costs of treatments with their patients. The majority of oncologists favor more use of cost-effectiveness data in coverage decisions (80% US, 69% Canadian; P = .004), but fewer than half the oncologists in both countries feel well equipped to use cost-effectiveness information. Majorities of oncologists favor government price controls (57% US, 68% Canadian; P = .01), but less than half favor more cost-sharing by patients (29% US, 41% Canadian; P = .004). Oncologists in both countries prefer to have physicians and nonprofit agencies determine whether drugs provide good value.

CONCLUSION

Oncologists in the United States and Canada generally have similar attitudes regarding cancer drug costs, cost-effectiveness, and associated policies, despite practicing in different health care systems. The results support providing education to help oncologists in both countries use cost-effectiveness information and discuss drug costs with their patients.