e15171 Background: To estimate the cost-utility of Panitumumab compared to Cetuximab (Erbitux®) and Bevacizumab (Avastin®) for the first-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer in the Peruvian health system Methods: A cost-utility analysis was performed using a Markov's model based in epidemiological parameters, metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) associated costs, and the efficacy of therapy using specific monoclonal antibodies against wild-type RAS mCRC. The costs of biological agents were estimated from the payers' viewpoint, using a 3.5% discount rate. The model includes the transition between five health states (mCRC, surgery, remission, progression, and death), and each cycle lasts for one month in a 3-year temporal horizon Results: The results of the model indicate that Bevacizumab and Panitumumab were cost–effective compared with Cetuximab. Therapy using Bevacizumab for a three-year period cost PEN 178,950.96 less than Panitumumab, but generated 0.91 less QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) showed that Cetuximab had extended dominance when compared to Panitumumab and Bevacizumab. This means that Panitumumab is more expensive, but it leads to a greater clinical benefit. Conclusions: Using the best published data available, these results suggest that the clinical effectiveness of Panitumumab and Bevacizumab translates into a favorable cost-utility ratio; and it particularly generates savings. The use of Panitumumab is associated to a longer survival, more QALYs gained and more months in remission.
A cost-utility analysis of SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres versus best supportive care in the treatment of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to chemotherapy in the UK
