Comparative cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab-irinotecan-fluorouracil versus irinotecan-fluorouracil in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Bevacizumab With First-Line Combination Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Studies in Three Canadian Provinces

Background. Real-world evidence can be a valuable tool when clinical trial data are incomplete or uncertain. Bevacizumab was adopted as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on significant survival improvements in initial clinical trials; however, survival benefit diminished in subsequent analyses. Consequently, there is uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab therapy achieved in practice. Objective. To assess real-world cost-effectiveness of first-line bevacizumab with irinotecan-based chemotherapy versus irinotecan-based chemotherapy alone for mCRC in British Columbia (BC), Saskatchewan, and Ontario, Canada. Methods. Using provincial cancer registries and linked administrative databases, we identified mCRC patients who initiated publicly funded irinotecan-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, in 2000 to 2015. We compared bevacizumab-treated patients to historical controls (treated before bevacizumab funding) and contemporaneous controls (receiving chemotherapy without bevacizumab), using inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting with propensity scores to balance baseline covariates. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) using 5-year cost and survival adjusted for censoring, with bootstrapping to characterize uncertainty. We also conducted one-way sensitivity analysis for key drivers of cost-effectiveness. Results. The cohorts included 12,112 (Ontario), 1,161 (Saskatchewan), and 2,977 (BC) patients. Bevacizumab significantly increased treatment costs, with mean ICERs between $78,000 and $84,000/LYG (life-year gained) in the contemporaneous comparisons and $75,000 and $101,000/LYG in the historical comparisons. Reducing the cost of bevacizumab by 50% brought ICERs in all comparisons below $61,000/LYG. Limitations. Residual confounding in observational data may bias results, while the use of original list prices overestimates current bevacizumab cost. Conclusion. The addition of bevacizumab to irinotecan-based chemotherapy extended survival for mCRC patients but at significant cost. At original list prices bevacizumab can only be considered cost-effective with certainty at a willingness-to-pay threshold over $100,000/LYG, but price reductions or discounts have a significant impact on cost-effectiveness.

Comparison of cost-effectiveness of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet for treating advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer

Regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet regimens are standard third-line or later treatments for advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer with no significant difference in efficacy. The present study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of using regorafenib vs. the trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet. The expected cost was calculated based on data from patients with advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer who were treated with regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet. The median survival time (MST) from the CORRECT and the RECOURSE study was used to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of the regimens. The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated from the expected cost and MST for the two regimens. The expected cost per patient for the regorafenib and the trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet regimen was ¥705,330.3 and ¥371,198.7, respectively, and the cost-effectiveness ratio was ¥110,207.9/MST and ¥52,281.5/MST, respectively. In conclusion, the findings of the present study demonstrated that the trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet regimen is more cost-effective compared with the regorafenib regimen.

Cost–effectiveness in colorectal cancer: challenges on quality and comparability

Costs in colorectal cancer treatment are rising, especially since the availability of expensive targeted drugs. Comparisons between cost–effectiveness evaluations are restricted to differences in applied methodology, for example, differences in model assumptions and design, healthcare systems. Cost–effectiveness analyses should be performed and reported upon in a standardized manner within a disease area and in particular in oncology to facilitate better comparisons between treatments. Ideally, to evaluate the cost–effectiveness of a treatment in daily practice, models should be based on patient cohort studies or registries with appropriate prospective data collection from a societal perspective. Randomized clinical trials remain most suitable for comparison of treatment strategies and could estimate the budget impact of a novel treatment introduction.