Economic comparison of capecitabine + oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer

Colorectal Cancer (CRC) treatment and associated costs in the public sector compared to the private sector in Johannesburg, South Africa

Background

South Africa’s divided healthcare system is believed to be inequitable as the population serviced by each sector and the treatment received differs while annual healthcare expenditure is similar. The appropriateness of treatment received and in particular the cost of the same treatment between the sectors remains debatable and raises concerns around equitable healthcare. Colorectal cancer places considerable pressure on the funders, yet treatment utilization data and the associated costs of non-communicable diseases, in particular colorectal cancer, are limited for South Africa. Resources need to be appropriately managed while ensuring equitable healthcare is provided regardless of where the patient is able to receive their treatment. Therefore the aim of this study was to determine the cost of colorectal cancer treatment in a privately insured patient population in order to compare the costs and utilization to a previously published public sector patient cohort.

Methods

Private sector costs were determined using de-identified claim-based data for all newly diagnosed CRC patients between 2012 and 2014. The costs obtained from this patient cohort were compared to previously published public sector data for the same period. The costs compared were costs incurred by the relevant sector funder and didn’t include out-of-pocket costs.

Results

The comparison shows private sector patients gain access to more of the approved regimens (12 vs. 4) but the same regimens are more costly, for example CAPOX costs approximately €150 more per cycle. The cost difference between 5FU and capecitabine monotherapy is less than €30 per cycle however, irinotecan is cheaper in comparison to oxaliplatin in the private sector (FOLFOX approx. €500 vs. FOLFIRI aprox. €460). Administrative costs account for up to 45% of total costs compared to the previously published data of these costs totaling < 15% of the full treatment cost in South Africa’s public healthcare system.

Conclusion

This comparison highlights the disparities between sectors while illustrating the need for further research to improve resource management to attain equitable healthcare.

Retrospective comparison of efficacy and safety of CAPOX and FOLFOX regimens as adjuvant treatment in patients with stage III colon cancer

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) regimens as adjuvant treatment in patients with stage III colon cancer.

Methods

A total of 243 patients who received CAPOX and FOLFOX chemotherapy between 2014 and 2018 for stage III colon cancer in two centers were retrospectively studied. Among the patients, 106 (43.6%) and 137 (56.4%) were treated using CAPOX and FOLFOX regimens, respectively. Efficacy, treatment-related side effects, and overall survival rates with these two regimens were compared.

Results

The rate of disease progression was significantly higher in the presence of moderately/poorly differentiated histology, and KRAS and NRAS mutations. An increased number of metastatic lymph nodes and prolonged time from surgery to chemotherapy significantly increased disease progression. Patients who received CAPOX were significantly older than those who received FOLFOX. Disease progression, metastasis, and mortality rates were significantly higher in the FOLFOX arm than in the CAPOX arm. There was no significant difference in the overall survival rate between the two regimens.

Conclusion

The CAPOX regimen is preferred in older patients. Disease progression, metastasis, and mortality rates are higher with FOLFOX than with CAPOX.

Network meta-analysis of the efficacy of first-line chemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer

This network meta-analysis compared the short-term and long-term efficacies of first-line chemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). The 10 regimens included folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + irinotecan (FOLFIRI), folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + gemcitabine (FFG), folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + trimetrexate (FFT), folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil (FF), irinotecan + oxaliplatin (IROX), raltitrexed + oxaliplatin (TOMOX), folinic acid + tegafur-uracil (FTU), raltitrexed, and capecitabine. Electronic searches were performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Embase databases from inception to June 2017. Network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect evidence to obtain odds ratios (ORs) and surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of different chemotherapy regimens for advanced CRC. Fourteen randomized controlled trails (RCTs) covering 4,383 patients with advanced CRC were included. The results revealed that FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, IROX, and TOMOX all showed higher overall response rates (ORRs) than FF or raltitrexed. Compared with raltitrexed, the aforementioned four regimens also had higher 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates. In addition, FOLFOX and FOLFIRI exhibited higher disease control rates (DCRs) and 1-year PFS rates than FF or raltitrexed. Cluster analysis revealed that FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and TOMOX had better short-term and long-term efficacies. These findings suggest FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and TOMOX are superior to other regimens for advanced CRC. These three regimens are therefore recommended for clinical treatment of advanced CRC.

A postauthorization survey to document the therapeutic management of oxaliplatin as a first-line chemotherapy regimen in South Africa in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Oxaliplatin is a standard first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. The objectives were to document the therapeutic management of oxaliplatin in South Africa, determine the incidence and severity of sensory neuropathy, and record the 2-year survival rate. Meccelox was a prospective, noncontrolled, open label, multicentre, observational survey of adult patients with stage IV metastatic colorectal cancer treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapeutic regimens. The study was conducted from August 2007 to November 2011 in 29 sites in South Africa by 66 participating treating physicians. Among the 195 enrolled patients, 61% were treated with FOLFOX regimen (5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin) for an average of 12 cycles and 32% patients were treated with XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) for an average of 6–8 cycles, with the main reason for discontinuation being completion of the preplanned prescribed regimen. In Meccelox survey, 80% of patients were treated with intent of palliation. Overall 64% of patients reported symptoms of sensory neuropathy. The 2-year survival rate was 30%. Conclusions. Patients received a specified preplanned number of chemotherapy cycles rather than being treated until disease progression or toxicity. Both the incidence of neuropathy and the 2-year survival rate were less than previous reports.

Patient and work flow and costs associated with staff time and facility usage at a comprehensive cancer centre in Quebec, Canada--a time and motion study

Background

Mapping patient and work flow and cost analysis studies can help determine the most efficient and cost effective way of providing health services while still maintaining the best standards of care. This study used both time and motion methodology and hospital data to assess the contribution of staff time and facility usage to the overall cost of cancer care during patient visits to a comprehensive cancer centre in Quebec, using metastatic colorectal cancer as a model.

Methods

A workflow diagram was created mapping direct and indirect steps involved during a patient’s physician or treatment (FOLFOX/bevacizumab or XELOX/bevacizumab) visit. Staff were timed as they performed each task and this data together with compensation amounts were used to calculate personnel costs. Mean work times and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the Centre were calculated using information from hospital databases. All costs were presented in constant Canadian dollars for the 2010–2011 fiscal year period.

Results

For physician visits, direct and indirect personnel costs were $9.25 (95%CI:$7.00-$11.51) and O&M costs were $60.21, for a total of $69.46 (95%CI:$67.21-$71.72). For treatment visits, personnel and O&M costs were $71.91 (95%CI:$45.53-$98.29) and $62.00 respectively for a total of $133.91 (95%CI:$107.53-$160.29). When calculated for treatment alone, the total cost was $136.06 (95%CI:$109.16-$162.95) for FOLFOX/bevacizumab and $119.94 (95%CI:$96.89-$142.99) for XELOX/bevacizumab. The highest cumulative personnel costs were for the pharmacists and nurses ($38.87 and $34.82 respectively). Regarding patient flow, total time in between steps was 77.6 and 49.5 minutes for a physician or treatment visit respectively.

Conclusions

This study from a health care provider’s perspective, demonstrated that in the context of increasingly expensive therapies, costs associated with staff time and facility usage do not contribute greatly to the overall cost of treating cancer at this cancer centre. It also illustrated the need for improvements in patient and work flow to reduce wait times in the clinic.