scholarly journals The cost of adverse event management in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line cetuximab and panitumumab: An Italian healthcare payer perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. v225
Author(s):  
K. Patterson ◽  
S. Bhattacharyya ◽  
N. Personeni ◽  
V. Gebbia ◽  
P. Novelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Healthcare Payer ◽  
Event Management ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Adverse Event Management ◽  
The Cost

Drug cost and outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer with emphasis on monoclonal antibodies.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 567-567
Author(s):  
Helmy M. Guirgis
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Drug Cost ◽  
Outcome Evaluation ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
The Cost

567 Background: Patients with wild type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), treated with first-line cetuximab (Cet) or bevacizumab (Bev) and chemotherapy demonstrated similar overall survival (OS). In the Western world, costs of anticancer drugs ranged from $59,000 to $100,000 per life-year gain (LYG). Hazard ratios (HR) have rarely been integrated in cost/outcome evaluation. Objective: Weigh drug cost against survival and hazard ratio (HR) in mCRC with emphasis on monoclonal antibodies (MABs). Methods: Estimated costs in United States dollars (US$) were calculated for 70 kg or 1.7/m2 patients. Costs were divided by the reported median OS gain over control in days (OSg) and by probability of survival (PoS) calculated as (1.0 – HR). Relative values (RV) were computed as 100,000/cost/outcome. Results: There was no significant difference in cost/outcome of Pan and Cet in first-line wild KRAS mCRC. At 12 week (w), the cost/LYG of panitumumab (Pan), Cet, and Bev were $64,947, $82,224, and $36,919 with RVs of 1.54, 1.22 and 2.71 respectively. Using HRs, the corresponding PoS were $140,082, $137,040, and $42,524 with RVs of 0.71, 0.73, and 2.35. Wild RAS testing improved the cost/outcome of Pan by 25%. Increasing number of cycles increased the cost/outcome and decreased the RVs of all MOAs. Conclusions: In first-line wild KRAS mCRC at 12 w, the cost/outcome of Bev was approximately 30% to 57% that of Pan and Cet. Cost/outcome of Pan significantly improved in RAS wild type. The cost/outcome of MABs was determined by the number of cycles.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of selective first-line use of biologics for unresectable RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
W. W.L. Wong ◽  
M. Zargar ◽  
S. R. Berry ◽  
Y. J. Ko ◽  
M. Riesco-Martínez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Tumour ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Background Evidence from a retrospective analysis of multiple large phase iii trials suggested that primary tumour location (ptl) in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (wtRAS mcrc) might have predictive value with respect to response to drug therapies. Recent studies also show a potential preferential benefit for epidermal growth factor inhibitors (egfris) for left-sided tumours. In the present study, we aimed to determine the incremental costeffectiveness ratio (icer) for the first-line use of an egfri for patients with left-sided wtRAS mcrc.Methods We developed a state-transition model to determine the cost effectiveness of alternative treatmentstrategies in patients with left-sided mcrc:■ Standard of care■ Use of an egfri in first-line therapyThe cohort for the study consisted of patients diagnosed with unresectable wtRAS mcrc with an indication for chemotherapy and previously documented ptl. Model parameters were obtained from the published literature and calibration. The perspective was that of a provincial ministry of health in Canada. We used a 5-year time horizon and an annual discount rate of 1.5%.Results Selecting patients for first-line egfri treatment based on left-sided location of their colorectal primary tumour was more effective than the standard of care, resulting in an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) of 0.226 (or 0.644 life-years gained). However, the strategy was also more expensive, costing an average of $60,639 more per patient treated. The resulting icer was $268,094 per qaly. A 35% price reduction in the cost of egfri would be needed to make this strategy cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold (wtp) of $100,000 per qaly.Conclusions Selective use of an egfri based on ptl was more cost-effective than unselected use of those agents; however, based on traditional wtp thresholds, it was still not cost-effective. While awaiting the elucidation of more precise predictive biomarkers that might improve cost-effectiveness, the price of egfris could be reduced to meet the wtp threshold.

Efficacy and Toxicity of Addition of Bevacizumab to Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 718-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Cong Ruan ◽  
Yue-Ping Che ◽  
Li Ding ◽  
Hai-Feng Li
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Clinical Prognosis ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Pre-treated patients with first-line treatment can be offered a second treatment with the aim of improving their poor clinical prognosis. The therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who did not respond to first-line therapy has limited treatment options. Recently, many studies have paid much attention to the efficacy of bevacizumab as an adjuvant treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with bevacizumab-naive based chemotherapy as second-line treatment in people with metastatic CRC. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies updated to March 2018. Randomized-controlled trials comparing addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy without bevacizumab in MCRC patients were included, of which, the main interesting results were the efficacy and safety profiles of the addition of bevacizumab in patients with MCRC as second-line therapy. Result: Five trials were eligible in the meta-analysis. Patients who received the combined bevacizumab and chemotherapy treatment in MCRC as second-line therapy showed a longer overall survival (OS) (OR=0.80,95%CI=0.72-0.89, P<0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (OR=0.69,95%CI=0.61-0.77, P<0.00001). In addition, there was no significant difference in objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.36,95%CI=0.82-2.24, P=0.23) or severe adverse event (SAE) (RR=1.02,95%CI=0.88-1.19, P=0.78) between bevacizumab-based chemotherapy and bevacizumabnaive based chemotherapy. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the addition of bevacizumab to the chemotherapy therapy could be an efficient and safe treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as second-line therapy and without increasing the risk of an adverse event.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Second-Line Treatment in RAS Wild-Type/Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the Precision Medicine Era

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (14) ◽  
pp. 7717
Author(s):  
Guido Giordano ◽  
Pietro Parcesepe ◽  
Giuseppina Bruno ◽  
Annamaria Piscazzi ◽  
Vincenzo Lizzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Mutational Status ◽  
First Line Treatment

Target-oriented agents improve metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) survival in combination with chemotherapy. However, the majority of patients experience disease progression after first-line treatment and are eligible for second-line approaches. In such a context, antiangiogenic and anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) agents as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved as second-line options, and RAS and BRAF mutations and microsatellite status represent the molecular drivers that guide therapeutic choices. Patients harboring K- and N-RAS mutations are not eligible for anti-EGFR treatments, and bevacizumab is the only antiangiogenic agent that improves survival in combination with chemotherapy in first-line, regardless of RAS mutational status. Thus, the choice of an appropriate therapy after the progression to a bevacizumab or an EGFR-based first-line treatment should be evaluated according to the patient and disease characteristics and treatment aims. The continuation of bevacizumab beyond progression or its substitution with another anti-angiogenic agents has been shown to increase survival, whereas anti-EGFR monoclonals represent an option in RAS wild-type patients. In addition, specific molecular subgroups, such as BRAF-mutated and Microsatellite Instability-High (MSI-H) mCRCs represent aggressive malignancies that are poorly responsive to standard therapies and deserve targeted approaches. This review provides a critical overview about the state of the art in mCRC second-line treatment and discusses sequential strategies according to key molecular biomarkers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document