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

Revisiting oral fluoropyrimidine with cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: Real-world data in Chinese population

BACKGROUND

Cetuximab in combination with oral fluoropyrimidine (FP) remains controversial in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In view of the regional variation in the tolerability of FP, we conducted a retrospective analysis to compare oral FP with infusional FP in combination with cetuximab in Chinese population.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety profile of cetuximab in combination with oral FP and infusional FP in Chinese population in the real-world setting.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was done to analyse consecutive patients with Kras wild-type mCRC who received first-line treatment with cetuximab and FP-based chemotherapy in our unit from January 2010 to December 2015. Ninety-five eligible patients were included. The median follow-up of our cohort was 65.0 mo.

RESULTS

The median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) of the entire cohort were 9.66 mo (95%CI: 7.72–12.5) and 25.8 mo (95%CI: 18.7–35.6), respectively. Between oral FP and infusional FP, there was no statistical significant difference in the mPFS [9.79 mo (95%CI: 7.49–12.7) vs 9.63 mo (95%CI: 6.34–13.4); P = 0.72] and mOS [25.8 mo (95%CI: 15.2–35.6) vs 26.3 mo (95%CI: 18.7–41.2); P = 0.63]. Grade 3 or above adverse events were reported in 28.4% of patients, being similar with oral and infusional FP, and included 10.5% of neutropenia and 2.1% of diarrhoea events.

CONCLUSION

The current analysis demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety profiles of cetuximab in combination with oral and infusional FP in Chinese population. The results expand treatment options for Chinese patients and invite revision of existing treatment guidelines to incorporate oral FP-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab.

Pharmacoeconomics Evaluations of Oral Anticancer Agents: Systematic Review of Characteristics, Methodological Trends, and Reporting Quality

OBJECTIVES

To review literature characteristics, describe methodological trends, and assess the reporting quality of the economic evaluations of oral anticancer drugs (OACDs).

METHODS

The review included comparative economic evaluations of OACDs. The search was conducted via PubMed, Embase, EconLit, and Economic Evaluation Database, and studies till December 2017 were included. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist, literature inclusion and data extraction were performed in duplicate by separate investigators. Outcome measures were literature characteristics, gaps and methodological trends, and reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Data were summarized on the basis of methodological themes of interest. Descriptive statistics and tabulations were used for result presentation.

RESULTS

Out of 241 found articles, 21 were included. There is a recent increasing interest in the economics of OACDs, whereby the cost per quality-adjusted life-year, via cost-utility analysis, is the most used for decision making. Most of the studies were from the payer perspective, and the primary sources of data were clinical trials, expert panels, and medical charts. The dominance status (higher effect, lower cost) was a commonly reported outcome. Decision-analytic modeling was used in most of the studies, mostly including Markov modeling. Studies were highly heterogeneous in methodological aspects, and the included studies did not meet most of the reporting quality criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

High heterogeneity in methods in studies may limit the robustness and transferability of results, potentially misleading decision makers toward wrong decisions on OACDs. The transferability and generalizability of results are further limited by a "less than ideal" adherence to current reporting standards.

Survival Impact of CAPOX Versus FOLFOX in the Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) are both used in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer, and while their efficacy is assumed to be similar, they have not been directly compared. We reviewed the toxicity profiles, relative dose intensity (RDI), and survival associated with these regimens across a multi-institutional cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified 394 consecutively treated patients with stage III colon cancer who received an oxaliplatin-containing regimen. RDI was defined as the total dose received divided by the intended total dose if all cycles were received.

RESULTS

FOLFOX was associated with increased mucositis (6.2% vs. 0.7%, P = .0069) and neutropenia (25.9% vs. 8.6%, P < .0001), while CAPOX was associated with increased dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (90.7% vs. 80.2%, P = .0055), diarrhea (31.8% vs. 9.0%, P < .0001), and hand-foot syndrome (19.9% vs. 2.1%, P < .0001). Higher median RDI of fluoropyrimidine (93.7% vs. 80.0%, P < .0001) and oxaliplatin (87.2% vs. 76.3%, P < .0001) was noted for patients receiving FOLFOX. Reducing the duration from 6 to 3 months would have prevented 28.7% of FOLFOX and 20.5% of CAPOX patients from ever experiencing a DLT (P = .0008). Overall survival did not differ by regimen (hazard ratio = 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.45-1.22; P = .24). However, CAPOX was associated with improved disease-free survival (3-year disease-free survival 83.8% vs. 73.4%, P = .022), which remained significant in high-risk (T4 or N2) (P = .039) but not low-risk patients (P = .19).

CONCLUSION

CAPOX may be associated with improved disease-free survival despite greater toxicities and lower RDI. Reducing adjuvant chemotherapy duration to 3 months would prevent 26% of patients from ever experiencing a DLT.

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

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

Capecitabine or infusional 5-fluorouracil for gastroesophageal cancer: a cost-consequence analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, the phase iii Randomized ECF for Advanced and Locally Advanced Esophagogastric Cancer 2 (real-2) trial demonstrated equivalent clinical efficacy when capecitabine (x) was substituted for 5-fluorouracil (5fu) in the epirubicin-cisplatin-5fu (ecf) regimen. The present analysis compares the direct medical costs associated with both regimens.

METHODS

This cost-consequence analysis of direct medical costs took resource utilization data from the real-2 trial where available. Direct medical costs were derived from the perspective of the Canadian public health care system in 2008 Canadian dollars. Mean cost per patient on each treatment arm was calculated.

RESULTS

Drug costs from start of treatment until first progression, including pre- and post-chemotherapy medications and administration costs, totalled $5,344 for ecx as compared with $3,187 for ecf. Costs for treatment of adverse events were estimated at $2,621 for ecx as compared with $3,397 for ecf. An additional cost of $873 was associated with insertion of an implanted venous access. Total incremental cost of ecx over ecf was $508.

CONCLUSIONS

In advanced gastroesophageal cancer, capecitabine is an attractive alternative to 5fu. Although the drug cost per se is greater, use of capecitabine is associated with decreased consumption of hospital resources. Not only does capecitabine fit with patient preference for oral therapy, it also avoids the inconvenience and complications of central venous access.

Challenges of drug resistance in the management of pancreatic cancer

The current treatment of choice for metastatic pancreatic cancer involves single-agent gemcitabine or a combination of gemcitabine with capecitabine or erlotinib (a tyrosine kinase inhibitor). Only 25&#x2013;30% of patients respond to this treatment and patients who do respond initially ultimately exhibit disease progression. Median survival for pancreatic cancer patients has reached a plateau due to inherent and acquired resistance to these agents. Key molecular factors implicated in this resistance include: deficiencies in drug uptake, alteration of drug targets, activation of DNA repair pathways, resistance to apoptosis and the contribution of the tumor microenvironment. Moreover, for newer agents including tyrosine kinase inhibitors, overexpression of signaling proteins, mutations in kinase domains, activation of alternative pathways, mutations of genes downstream of the target and/or amplification of the target represent key challenges for treatment efficacy. Here we will review the contribution of known mechanisms and markers of resistance to key pancreatic cancer drug treatments.