A Markov model assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FOLFOX compared with FOLFIRI for the initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Comparative cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Results according to VESPER data

BACKGROUND

The VESPER trial demonstrated improved progression-free (PFS) and (preliminarily) overall survival (OS) with six cycles of neoadjuvant dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVACx6) versus four cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GCx4) before radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but with increased toxicity. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of these regimens.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant ddMVACx6 and GCx4 was performed using a decision-analytic Markov model with 5-year, 10-year, and lifetime horizons. Probabilities were derived from reported VESPER data. Utility values were obtained from the literature. Primary outcomes were effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

At 5 years, ddMVACx6 improved QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of $16,100, rendering it cost-effective relative to GCx4 (ICER: $53,284/QALY). Additionally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis found ddMVACx6 to be cost-effective in 79% and 81% of microsimulations at10-year and lifetime horizons, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a minimum difference in 5-year progression of 0.9% and progression mortality of 0.7% between ddMVACx6 and GCx4 was necessary for ddMVACx6 to remain cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant ddMVACx6 was more cost-effective than GCx4 for MIBC. These data, together with the improved PFS and (albeit preliminary) OS noted in VESPER, support use of this regimen in appropriate candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy before RC.

LAY SUMMARY

We performed a benefit-to-cost analysis using evidence from a randomized controlled trial that compared two different chemotherapy treatments before bladder removal for bladder cancer that had invaded into the bladder muscle. Despite being more expensive and having a greater likelihood of toxicity, six cycles of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin was more cost-effective (or had higher value) than four cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as the third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in China.

METHODS

A three-state Markov model with monthly cycle was constructed to estimate lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with mCRC from Chinese health care perspective. Survival analysis was applied to calculate transition probabilities using the data from the clinical trials FRESCO and CONCUR, which were also the data sources accessing probabilities of adverse events. Background mortality rate and drug costs were derived from government published data. Costs for medical services were obtained from real-world data and published literatures. Utilities applied to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from literature review. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were adopted to verify the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Fruquintinib provided 0.74 QALYs at a cost of CNY 151,058 (USD 22,888), whereas regorafenib provided 0.79 QALYs at a cost of CNY 226,657 (USD 32,224). Compared to fruquintinib, the ICER of regorafenib was CNY 1,529,197/QALY (USD 231,697/QALY) from Chinese health care perspective, which was above the triple GDP per capita of China in 2019 (CNY 212,676) (USD 32,224) as the threshold to define the cost-effectiveness. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results were generally robust. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the probability that fruquintinib was more cost-effective was 100% when the threshold was the triple GDP per capita of China.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to regorafenib, fruquintinib, which leads to forego about 0.05 QALYs and save about CNY 75,599 (USD 11,454), is a cost-effective choice as the third-line treatment for patients with mCRC in China.

Health Economic Models for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Methodological Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive and detailed review of structural and methodological assumptions in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of systemic metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatments, and discuss their potential impact on health economic outcome estimates.

METHODS

Five databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment and National Health Service Health Economic Evaluation Database) were searched on 26 August 2019 for model-based full health economic evaluations of systemic mCRC treatment using a combination of free-text terms and subject headings. Full-text publications in English were eligible for inclusion if they were published in or after the year 2000. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of included publications. Study selection, appraisal and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1418 publications, of which 54 were included, representing 51 unique studies. Most studies focused on first-line treatment (n = 29, 57%), followed by third-line treatment (n = 13, 25%). Model structures were health-state driven (n = 27, 53%), treatment driven (n = 19, 37%), or a combination (n = 5, 10%). Cohort-level state-transition modelling (STM) was the most common technique (n = 33, 65%), followed by patient-level STM and partitioned survival analysis (both n = 6, 12%). Only 15 studies (29%) reported some sort of model validation. Health economic outcomes for specific strategies differed substantially between studies. For example, survival following first-line treatment with fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin ranged from 1.21 to 7.33 years, with treatment costs ranging from US$8125 to US$126,606.

CONCLUSIONS

Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of systemic mCRC treatments have adopted varied modelling methods and structures, resulting in substantially different outcomes. As models generally focus on first-line treatment without consideration of downstream treatments, there is a profound source of structural uncertainty implying that the cost-effectiveness of treatments across the mCRC pathway remains uncertain.

Patient-Centered Outcomes in Radiation Oncology

Patient-reported outcome and health-related quality of life scales have the potential to engage patients and providers, allowing for better communication and shared decision-making in oncology care. When monitored longitudinally, they facilitate earlier interventions that may help with symptom management and improve traditional outcome metrics, including survival. Their use in clinical trials has allowed for changes in guidelines in the management of various cancers. The voice and experience of the patient, captured by these scales, enable providers to better detail the journey patients can expect to experience during and after treatment.

Patient-based cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRI versus FOLFOX7 for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma in China: A 4-year prospective randomised phase II study

BACKGROUND

Using data from the 4-year follow-up results of an open, randomised, phase II study, this patient-based cost-effectiveness analysis compares mFOLFIRI (irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, the IRI arm) with mFOLFOX7 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, the OXA arm) as first-line treatments in patients with locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (GC).

METHODS

A Markov model was created based on previous results reported at the 2016 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium to evaluate mFOLFIRI and mFOLFOX7 for advanced GC quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were examined as the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

For the evaluable 128 patients, treatment efficacy was 0.59 QALYs for the IRI arm and 0.70 QALYs for the OXA arm, with a total cost of $13,861.34 for the IRI arm and $14,127.30 for the OXA arm. Hence, the ICER was $2,417.82 per QALY the OXA arm, which was below the threshold of 3 × per capita GDP of China. For subgroup analysis of those receiving mFOLFIRI followed by mFOLFOX7 (the IRI arm) and the reverse (the OXA arm), the OXA arm gained 0.44 more QALYs than the IRI arm with a total cost of $28,890.09 for the IRI arm and $31,147.30 for the OXA arm. However, the cost per QALY was also lower for the OXA arm than for the IRI arm, and the cost per QALY gained was $5,129.55 (below the Chinese WTP).

CONCLUSION

mFOLFOX7 is a very high cost-effective alternative as the first-line treatment for those patients with advanced GC compared with mFOLFIRI.

FOLFOX and FOLFIRI Use in Stage IV Colon Cancer: Analysis of SEER-Medicare Data

BACKGROUND

Shortly after the year 2000, randomized trials demonstrated that patients with metastatic colon cancer treated with infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin with either oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan (FOLFIRI) had a comparable progression-free survival benefit, superior to patients who received 5-FU/leucovorin alone. Factors associated with the initial receipt of the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI regimen are unknown. Our goal was to investigate the patterns and predictors of use for first-line FOLFOX and FOLFIRI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data set to identify patients with newly diagnosed stage IV colon cancer between the years 2005 and 2013 who received either first-line FOLFOX or FOLFIRI. We used logistic regression to assess demographic and clinical predictors for FOLFOX versus FOLFIRI. Survival was compared by Kaplan-Meier models.

RESULTS

Overall, 3000 patients (79.3%) received FOLFOX and 785 (20.7%) FOLFIRI. FOLFOX was associated with later year of diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.82 for 2011-2013 vs. 2005-2007), being female (OR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98), and living in the southern region of the United States. FOLFIRI was associated with having a higher comorbidity index (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.67 for >1 comorbidity score vs. 0). There was no survival difference observed between the two treatments.

CONCLUSION

The majority of SEER-Medicare patients received FOLFOX and not FOLFIRI as a first-line treatment for stage IV colon cancer. Several demographic and clinical factors were associated with the use of each specific regimen. No survival difference was detected for the 2 groups.

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.

The impending financial healthcare burden and ethical dilemma of systemic therapy in metastatic cancer

Metastatic cancer remains a devastating disease that threatens to disrupt entire family structures creating economic and psychosocial stress. Fortunately, great strides have resulted in improved therapies over the years but at a huge social-economic cost. The economic burden has risen greatly and carries with it new ethical concerns when deciding treatment. Here, we discuss the financial and ethical challenges that oncologists and their patients face in the era of novel treatment strategies. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:323-328. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Cost-Effectiveness of Surgery, Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, and Systemic Therapy for Pulmonary Oligometastases

INTRODUCTION

Pulmonary oligometastases have conventionally been managed with surgery and/or systemic therapy. However, given concerns about the high cost of systemic therapy and improvements in local treatment of metastatic cancer, the optimal cost-effective management of these patients is unclear. Therefore, we sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of initial management strategies for pulmonary oligometastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov modeling approach was used to compare average cumulative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) among 3 initial disease management strategies: video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) wedge resection, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and systemic therapy among 5 different cohorts of patient disease: (1) melanoma; (2) non-small cell lung cancer adenocarcinoma without an EGFR mutation (NSCLC AC); (3) NSCLC with an EGFR mutation (NSCLC EGFRm AC); (4) NSCLC squamous cell carcinoma (NSCLC SCC); and (5) colon cancer. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze uncertainty with regard to model parameters.

RESULTS

In the base case, SBRT was cost effective for melanoma, with costs/net QALYs of $467,787/0.85. In patients with NSCLC, the most cost-effective strategies were SBRT for AC ($156,725/0.80), paclitaxel/carboplatin for SCC ($123,799/0.48), and erlotinib for EGFRm AC ($147,091/1.90). Stereotactic body radiation therapy was marginally cost-effective for EGFRm AC compared to erlotinib with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $126,303/QALY. For colon cancer, VATS wedge resection ($147,730/2.14) was the most cost-effective strategy. Variables with the greatest influence in the model were erlotinib-associated progression-free survival (EGFRm AC), toxicity (EGFRm AC), cost of SBRT (NSCLC SCC), and patient utilities (all histologies).

CONCLUSIONS

Video-assisted thoracic surgery wedge resection or SBRT can be cost-effective in select patients with pulmonary oligometastases, depending on histology, efficacy, and tolerability of treatment and patient preferences.

Real-world cost analysis of chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in Japan: detailed costs of various regimens during the entire course of chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Various chemotherapy regimens for advanced colorectal cancer have been introduced to clinical practice in Japan over the past decade. The cost profiles of these regimens, however, remain unclear in Japan. To explore the detailed costs of different regimens used to treat advanced colorectal cancer during the entire course of chemotherapy in patients treated in a practical setting, we conducted a so-called "real-world" cost analysis.

METHOD

A detailed cost analysis was performed retrospectively. Patients with advanced colorectal cancer who had received chemotherapy in a practical healthcare setting from July 2004 through October 2010 were extracted from the ordering system database of Showa University Hospital. Direct medical costs of chemotherapy regimens were calculated from the hospital billing data of the patients. The analysis was conducted from a payer's perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients with advanced colorectal cancer were identified. Twenty patients received up to second-line treatment, and 8 received up to third-line treatment. The regimens identified from among all courses of treatment in all patients were 13 oxaliplatin-based regimens, 31 irinotecan-based regimens, and 11 regimens including molecular targeted agents. The average (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) monthly cost during the overall period from the beginning of treatment to the end of treatment was 308,363 (258,792 to 357,933) Japanese yen (JPY). According to the type of regimen, the average monthly cost was 418,463 (357,413 to 479,513) JPY for oxaliplatin-based regimens, 215,499 (188,359 to 242,639) JPY for irinotecan-based regimens, and 705,460 (586,733 to 824,187) JPY for regimens including molecular targeted agents. Anticancer drug costs and hospital fees accounted for 50 to 77% and 11 to 25% of the overall costs of chemotherapy, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The costs of irinotecan-based regimens were lower than those of oxaliplatin-based regimens and regimens including molecular targeted agents in Japan. Using a lower cost regimen for first-line treatment can potentially reduce the overall cost of chemotherapy. The main cost drivers were the anticancer drug costs and hospitalization costs.

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Value of Current Therapies

To evaluate, from a US payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), we performed a systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses. We identified 14 papers that fulfilled our search criteria and revealed varying levels of value among current treatment strategies. Older agents such as 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin provide high-value treatments. More modern agents targeting the EGFR or VEGF pathways, such as bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab, do not appear to be cost-effective treatments at their current costs. The analytical methods used within the papers varied widely, and this variation likely plays a significant role in the heterogeneity in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The cost-effectiveness of current treatment strategies for mCRC is highly variable. Drugs recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for mCRC are not cost-effective, and this is primarily driven by high drug costs.

Economic evaluation of arsenic trioxide compared to all-trans retinoic acid + conventional chemotherapy for treatment of relapsed acute promyelocytic leukemia in Canada

OBJECTIVES

Acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is an uncommon type of acute leukemia characterized by high early mortality. Current first-line treatments include all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA), anthracyclines, and other conventional chemotherapies (CTs). Although APL is generally associated with a good prognosis, about 20% of patients who achieve remission subsequently relapse and are resistant to the previously administrated treatment. The objective of this study was to assess, from a Canadian perspective, the economic impact of arsenic trioxide (ATO) compared to ATRA+CT for treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory APL.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of ATO compared to ATRA+CT for treating patients with relapsed/refractory APL was assessed over a lifetime horizon using a Markov model. The model considers five health states: induction, second remission, treatment failure or relapse, postfailure, and death. Markov cycle length was 1 month for the first 24 months and 1 yr thereafter. The model also takes into account the incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events reported in clinical trials. Analyses were conducted from a Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and a societal perspective.

RESULTS

Compared to ATRA+CT, ATO was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $ 20,551/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) from a MoH perspective and $ 22,219/QALY from a societal perspective. Results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that ATO is a cost-effective strategy in 99.27% and 98.98% of the simulations from a MoH and a societal perspective, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This economic evaluation demonstrates that ATO is a cost-effective strategy compared to ATRA+CT for treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory APL in Canada.

Cost effectiveness analysis of pharmacokinetically-guided 5-fluorouracil in FOLFOX chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Dosing chemotherapy based on BSA results in marked interindividual variability in drug exposure. A randomized trial showed increased OS and decreased toxicity with PK-guided compared with BSA-based 5-FU dosing in patients with mCRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of PK-based 5-FU dosing with BSA-based 5-FU dosing in patients with mCRC receiving FOLFOX (5-FU, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of PK FOLFOX compared with BSA FOLFOX. Progression risks and cause-specific mortality were extrapolated from the fitted survival models. Costs for administration and management of adverse events were estimated based on 2013 Medicare reimbursement rates and average sale prices.

RESULTS

PK FOLFOX provided 2.03 QALYs at a cost of $50,205 compared with BSA FOLFOX, which provided 1.46 QALYs at a cost of $37,173. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $22,695 per QALY. The ICER remained < $50,000 per QALY in all univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

At a $50,000 per QALY threshold, PK FOLFOX is cost effective for mCRC. Because of the cost effectiveness profile and OS advantage with PK FOLFOX, it should be evaluated further in comparative effectiveness studies.

Are the true impacts of adverse events considered in economic models of antineoplastic drugs? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Antineoplastic drugs for cancer are often associated with adverse events, which influence patients' physical health, quality of life and survival. However, the modelling of adverse events in cost-effectiveness analyses of antineoplastic drugs has not been examined.

AIMS

This article reviews published economic evaluations that include a calculated cost for adverse events of antineoplastic drugs. The aim is to identify how existing models manage four issues specific to antineoplastic drug adverse events: the selection of adverse events for inclusion in models, the influence of dose modifications on drug quantity and survival outcomes, the influence of adverse events on quality of life and the consideration of multiple simultaneous or recurring adverse events.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using MESH headings and key words in multiple electronic databases, covering the years 1999-2009. Inclusion criteria for eligibility were papers covering a population of adults with solid tumour cancers, the inclusion of at least one adverse event and the resource use and/or costs of adverse event treatment.

RESULTS

From 4,985 citations, 26 eligible articles were identified. Studies were generally of moderate quality and addressed a range of cancers and treatment types. While the four issues specific to antineoplastic drug adverse events were addressed by some studies, no study addressed all of the issues in the same model.

CONCLUSION

This review indicates that current modelling assumptions may restrict our understanding of the true impact of adverse events on cost effectiveness of antineoplastic drugs. This understanding could be improved through consideration of the selection of adverse events, dose modifications, multiple events and quality of life in cost-effectiveness studies.

Gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase level is a novel adverse prognostic indicator in human metastatic colorectal cancer

AIM

Biomarkers have been utilized for prognosis in colorectal cancer; however, relatively few have been identified. We compared the prognostic value of serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHOD

Blood samples were collected from 239 patients with mCRC presenting between 2005 and 2010 in the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center.

RESULTS

CEA (P < 0.001), CA19-9 (P < 0.001), GGT (P < 0.001), ALP (P < 0.001) and LDH (P = 0.001) were statistically significant prognostic factors of overall survival (OS). CEA (P = 0.002) and GGT (P = 0.021) were validated as independent predictors. On univariate analysis, CEA (P = 0.003), CA19-9 (P = 0.006), GGT (P < 0.001) and ALP (P = 0.001) were statistically significant predictive factors of progression-free survival (PFS) in patients having first-line chemotherapy. CEA (P = 0.011) and GGT (P = 0.027) were independent predictors. GGT (P = 0.001), ALP (P = 0.016) and LDH (P = 0.039) levels were correlated with the tumour response rate assessed by CT, whilst CEA (P = 0.724) and CA19-9 (P = 0.822) were not. There was a statistically significant difference in OS (P < 0.001) and PFS (P < 0.001) among patients who had elevations of both CEA and GGT compared with those in whom only one or neither was elevated.

CONCLUSION

Among GGT, LDH and ALP, only GGT plays an independent role with CEA in predicting OS and PFS in mCRC. When coupled with CEA, GGT may lead to improved prognostic predictors.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant FOLFOX and 5FU/LV chemotherapy for patients with stage II colon cancer

PURPOSE

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy using 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin (5FU/LV), and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) compared with 5FU/LV alone and 5FU/LV compared with observation alone for patients who had resected stage II colon cancer.

METHODS

We developed 2 Markov models to represent the adjuvant chemotherapy and follow-up periods and a single Markov model to represent the observation group. We used calibration to estimate the transition probabilities among different toxicity levels. The base case considered 60-year-old patients who had undergone an uncomplicated hemicolectomy for stage II colon cancer and were medically fit to receive 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy. We measured health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and estimated costs using 2007 US dollars.

RESULTS

In the base case, adjuvant chemotherapy of the FOLFOX regimen had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $54,359/QALY compared with the 5FU/LV regimen, and the 5FU/LV regimen had an ICER of $14,584/QALY compared with the observation group from the third-party payer perspective. The ICER values were most sensitive to 5-year relapse probability, cost of adjuvant chemotherapy, and the discount rate for the FOLFOX arm, whereas the ICER value of 5FU/LV was most sensitive to the 5-year relapse probability, 5-year survival probability, and the relapse cost. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates that the ICER of 5FU/LV is less than $50,000/QALY with a probability of 99.62%, and the ICER of FOLFOX as compared with 5FU/LV is less than $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY with a probability of 44.48% and 97.24%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although adjuvant chemotherapy with 5FU/LV is cost-effective at all ages for patients who have undergone an uncomplicated hemicolectomy for stage II colon cancer, FOLFOX is not likely to be cost-effective as compared with 5FU/LV.

Systematic review and quality assessment of cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and assess the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of pharmaceutical therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and EconLit databases were searched for the Medical Subject Headings or text key words quality-adjusted, QALY, life-year gained (LYG), and cost-effectiveness (January 1, 1999-December 31, 2009).

STUDY SELECTION

Original CEAs of mCRC pharmacotherapy published in English were included. CEAs that measured health effects in units other than quality-adjusted life years or LYG and letters to the editor, case reports, posters, and editorials were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Each article was independently assessed by 2 trained reviewers according to a quality checklist created by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

RESULTS

Twenty-four CEA studies pertaining to pharmaceutical therapies for mCRC were identified. All studies showed a wide variation in methodologic approaches, which resulted in a different range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for each regimen. We found common methodologic flaws in a significant number of CEA studies, including lack of clear description for critique of data quality; lack of method for adjusting costs for inflation and methods for obtaining expert judgment; no results of model validation; wide differences in the types of perspective, time horizon, study design, cost categories, and effect outcomes; and no quality assessment of data (cost and effectiveness) for the interventions evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown a wide variation in the methodology and quality of cost-effectiveness analysis for mCRC. Improving quality and harmonization of CEA for cancer treatment is needed. Further study is suggested to assess the quality of CEA methodology outside the mCRC disease state.

Cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating fidaxomicin versus oral vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Fidaxomicin is a novel treatment for Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs). This new treatment, however, is associated with a higher acquisition cost compared with alternatives. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin or oral vancomycin for the treatment of CDIs.

METHODS

We performed a cost-utility analysis comparing fidaxomicin with oral vancomycin for the treatment of CDIs in the United States by creating a decision analytic model from the third-party payer perspective.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with fidaxomicin compared with oral vancomycin was $67,576/quality-adjusted life-year. A probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis showed that fidaxomicin had an 80.2% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year. Fidaxomicin remained cost-effective under all fluctuations of both fidaxomicin and oral vancomycin costs. The decision analytic model was sensitive to variations in clinical cure and recurrence rates. Secondary analyses revealed that fidaxomicin was cost-effective in patients receiving concominant antimicrobials, in patients with mild to moderate CDIs, and when compared with oral metronidazole in patients with mild to moderate disease. Fidaxomicin was dominated by oral vancomycin if CDI was caused by the NAP1/Bl/027 Clostridium difficile strain and was dominant in institutions that did not compound oral vancomycin.

CONCLUSION

Results of our model showed that fidaxomicin may be a more cost-effective option for the treatment of CDIs when compared with oral vancomycin under most scenarios tested.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AIM

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant 250 mg versus 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer and disease progression after antiestrogen therapy

PURPOSE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant 250 mg compared to 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer and disease progression after antiestrogen therapy.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to find the incremental cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant 250 mg monthly when compared with the 500 mg monthly in patients with progression after antiestrogen therapy. The model duration was 24 months. Clinical efficacy data inputs were derived from a phase III clinical trial demonstrating a statistically significant increase in progression-free survival in patients receiving 500 mg versus 250 mg. Cost data utilized were all relevant Ambulatory Payment Classification payment rates from the 2011 Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System. A Monte Carlo simulation was performed to test the model at various willingness to pay thresholds.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as determined by the Markov model was US$10,972 per month of progression-free survival for the 500 mg dose compared with the 250 mg dose. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, it was found that 500 mg monthly was cost-effective at and above the willingness to pay threshold of US$15,000 per month. A series of one-way sensitivity analyses showed this result is robust to geographical practice variations in costs of drug administration and physician examination.

CONCLUSION

From a third party payer perspective, the value of fulvestrant 500 mg monthly is dependent on the willingness to pay threshold. Despite a labeling change for fulvestrant in September 2010, fulvestrant 250 mg monthly appears to be a viable option in the target population.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peri-operative versus post-operative chemotherapy for resectable colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

The role of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy prior to hepatectomy in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases is currently a matter of debate. The aim of the present study was to analyse life-expectancy, quality adjusted life-expectancy and cost-effectiveness of the two chemotherapeutic strategies.

METHODS

A Markov decision model was developed, on the basis of parameters derived from an extensive literature search of the last ten years, to compare outcomes of peri-operative versus post-operative chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Life-expectancy observed for peri-operative chemotherapy was 54.56months and 52.62months with post-operative chemotherapy only; the quality-adjusted life-expectancy with peri-operative chemotherapy was 39.33 quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs) and 37.84 QALMs with post-operative chemotherapy. Peri-operative chemotherapy results in an increase in total costs of 1180€ over ten years and in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 791.9€/QALM. The model was more sensitive to the expected 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cost of hepatic resection: with respect to an expected 3-year RFS⩽25% the peri-operative approach was more cost-effective than post-operative strategy but differences in average cost-effectiveness were small. The relationship between ICER and cost of hepatic resection was inverse because the higher the cost of hepatic resection, the higher the cost saving due to patients becoming unresectable during neo-adjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of resectable colorectal liver metastases, the addition of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy could be cost-effective because it makes it possible to avoid hepatic resection in patients who do not respond to the neo-adjuvant approach; however, the life-expectancy of the two strategies is very similar.

A comparison of mortality and costs associated with FOLFOX versus FOLFIRI in stage IV colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine cost and mortality among stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) patients treated with 5-fluorouracil (5FU)/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or 5FU/leucovorin/irinotecan (FOLFIRI).

METHODS

Adult CRC patients newly treated with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI were identified from a large database using medical and pharmacy claims for services delivered January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2005. Cancer stage for a subset of patients was abstracted from medical records. Outcomes were annualized costs calculated for 4 years of observation, and deaths as recorded by the National Death Index. Cost was analyzed using generalized linear modeling; mortality was modeled using Cox proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

Unadjusted annualized median and mean costs were $134,401 and $152,213, respectively, for the FOLFOX cohort (n = 41) and $103,150 and $107,994 for the FOLFIRI cohort (n = 86). Death occurred among five (12%) FOLFOX and 42 (53%) FOLFIRI patients. Adjusted analysis revealed no significant difference in cost between cohorts, even after adjusting for reduced irinotecan costs due to generic availability. Incremental costs associated with one additional life saved per year were only $1,236 higher for patients treated with FOLFOX compared with FOLFIRI. Cox analysis revealed a significant survival advantage for FOLFOX over FOLFIRI (HR = 5.2; 95% CI: 1.7-15.8).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant survival benefit was seen for CRC patients receiving FOLFOX versus FOLFIRI; multivariate analysis revealed no significant cost differences. However, the small sample size may have resulted in lack of adequate power to detect a difference between cohorts. There may be factors influencing mortality that were not included in the multivariate modeling.