Dose-escalation strategy in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: A change in terms of cost-effectiveness

2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522199254
Author(s):  
Jacopo Giuliani ◽  
Francesco Fiorica ◽  
Giovanni Ponturo ◽  
Maurizio Azzurro ◽  
Andrea Ruzzenente ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Lower Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Pivotal Phase ◽  
Randomized Controlled

The analysis was conducted to assess the pharmacological costs of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in the treatment of refractory mCRC were considered. We have also considered the ReDOS trial, in order to verify if the dose-escalation strategy (practice changing for regorafenib) could influences the results. Differences in OS (expressed in months) between the different arms were calculated and compared with the pharmacological costs (at the Pharmacy of our Hospital and expressed in euros (€)) needed to get one month of OS. Trifluridine/tipiracil resulted the less expensive, with 1167.50 €per month OS-gained. The ReDOS trial further reduce costs with 510.41 €per month OS-gained in favour of regorafenib with the escalation-dose strategy. Both regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil can be considered economically sustainable treatments for refractory mCRC, apparently with a lower cost of trifluridine/tipiracil. The adoption of a dose-escalation strategy (ReDOS trial) could reverse the situation making regorafenib more cost-effective than trifluridine/tipiracil.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab combined with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer based on the TAILOR trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e030738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huijuan Wang ◽  
Lingfei Huang ◽  
Peng Gao ◽  
Zhengyi Zhu ◽  
Weifeng Ye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Treatment

ObjectivesCetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) is superior to FOLFOX-4 alone as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS wild-type (RAS wt mCRC), with significantly improved survival benefit by TAILOR, an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase III trial. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of these two regimens remains uncertain. The following study aims to determine whether cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is a cost-effective regimen for patients with specific RAS wt mCRC in China.DesignA cost-effectiveness model combined decision tree and Markov model was built to simulate pateints with RAS wt mCRC based on health states of dead, progressive and stable. The health outcomes from the TAILOR trial and utilities from published data were used respectively. Costs were calculated with reference to the Chinese societal perspective. The robustness of the results was evaluated by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ParticipantsThe included patients were newly diagnosed Chinese patients with fully RAS wt mCRC.InterventionsFirst-line treatment with either cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 or FOLFOX-4.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcomes are costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsBaseline analysis disclosed that the QALYs was increased by 0.383 caused by additional cetuximab, while an increase of US$62 947 was observed in relation to FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy. The ICER was US$164 044 per QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28 106 per QALY.ConclusionsDespite the survival benefit, cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is not a cost-effective treatment for the first-line regime of patients with RAS wt mCRC in China.Trial registration numberTAILOR trial (NCT01228734); Post-results.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyoaki Sugiura ◽  
Yuki Seo ◽  
Takayuki Takahashi ◽  
Hideyuki Tokura ◽  
Yasuhiro Ito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background TAS-102 plus bevacizumab is an anticipated combination regimen for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer. However, evidence supporting its use for this indication is limited. We compared the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy with TAS-102 monotherapy for patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Method Markov decision modeling using treatment costs, disease-free survival, and overall survival was performed to examine the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy and TAS-102 monotherapy. The Japanese health care payer’s perspective was adopted. The outcomes were modeled on the basis of published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two treatment regimens was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analysis was performed and the effect of uncertainty on the model parameters were investigated. Results TAS-102 plus bevacizumab had an ICER of $21,534 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with TAS-102 monotherapy. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that TAS-102 monotherapy was more cost-effective than TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy at a willingness-to-pay of under $50,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy is a cost-effective option for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer in the Japanese health care system.

Surrogate End Points for Median Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Literature-Based Analysis From 39 Randomized Controlled Trials of First-Line Chemotherapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (29) ◽  
pp. 4562-4568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Tang ◽  
Søren M. Bentzen ◽  
Eric X. Chen ◽  
Lillian L. Siu
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
First Line ◽  
End Points ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Purpose Our aims were to determine the correlations between progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and response rate (RR) with overall survival (OS) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC), and to identify a potential surrogate for OS. Methods Randomized trials of first-line chemotherapy in MCRC were identified, and statistical analyses were undertaken to evaluate the correlations between the end points. Results Thirty-nine randomized controlled trials were identified containing a total of 87 treatment arms. Among trials, the nonparametric Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) between differences (Δ) in surrogate end points (ΔPFS, ΔTTP, and ΔRR) and ΔOS were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88), 0.52 (95% CI, 0.004 to 0.81), 0.39 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.63), respectively. The rs for ΔPFS was not significantly different from the rs ΔTTP (P = .28). Linear regression analysis was performed using hazard ratios for PFS and OS. There was a strong relationship between hazard ratios for PFS and OS; the slope of the regression line was 0.54 ± 0.10, indicating that a novel therapy producing a 10% risk reduction for PFS will yield an estimated 5.4% ± 1% risk reduction for OS. Conclusion In first-line chemotherapy trials for MCRC, improvements in PFS are strongly associated with improvements in OS. In this patient population, PFS may be an appropriate surrogate for OS. As a clinical end point, PFS offers increased statistical power at a given time of analysis and a significant lead time advantage compared with OS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document