scholarly journals Monitoring treatment response in metastasic colorectal cancer: Economic evaluation of PrediCTC versus computed tomography scan

Author(s):  
Cristina Antón Rodríguez ◽  
Miguel Abal Posada ◽  
Lorena Alonso Alconada ◽  
Sonia Candamio Folgar ◽  
Rafael López López ◽  
...  

Background: Late state colorectal cancer treatments have important side effects that should be avoided in patients where drug effectiveness is not adequate. PrediCTC is a new biomarkers blood test developed to determinate the chemotherapy response in unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer patients that could allow to obviate unnecessary treatments. Aim: To assess from the Spanish Societal Perspective the cost-utility of the test PrediCTC compared to the computed tomography in aim to evaluate chemotherapy treatment response in late stage colorectal cancer patients. Methods: Based on the results of Barbazán et al., a Markov model has been developed, in which the different lines and cycles that the colorectal patient can receive and how they can move between them according to the computed tomography or PrediCTC have been represented. The effectiveness has been expressed in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), avoiding adverse events. Results: Base case analysis shows savings in different types of costs for PrediCTC (per patient): €14.30 in those arise from adverse events, €22,345.73 in chemotherapy costs, €4849.61 in other direct costs, and €306.21 in indirect costs. Although computed tomography 12-week assessed patients gain 0.17 QALYs compared with PrediCTC. Conclusions: From the Spanish Societal Perspective, PrediCTC is not a cost-utility option but allows to identify earlier patients who are not benefiting from first-line chemotherapy avoiding unnecessary side effects and costs.

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Rui Wang ◽  
Yi Gao ◽  
Jia-Yi Li ◽  
Zhong-Hui Wang ◽  
Qin-qing Li ◽  
...  

Background. In the unplanned reoperation of colorectal cancer patients, computed tomography (CT) is increasingly utilized to locate postoperative complications and previously unlocalized lesions. The purpose of this study is to explore the application of CT in the mortality and complications of the reoperation of colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods. We performed a retrospective review of collected data from the colorectal surgeries of 90 identified colorectal cancer patients who received an unplanned reoperation from 2010 to 2018. Patients were stratified according to those with preoperative CT imaging (CT group, n=36) and those without preoperative CT imaging (NCT group, n=54). Twenty-four statistical indicators of each patient were studied, including their preoperative risk, surgical characteristics, and postoperative outcomes, and satisfaction was evaluated. All data were statistically analysed for predicting postoperative complications by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results. Ninety patients received an unplanned reoperation in the study, and 40% (36/90) of these patients underwent preoperative CT examination. Patients’ risk factors were similar between CT and NCT groups. Preoperative imaging was more commonly performed for reoperative new anastomosis + ileostomy but less common for reoperative Dixon’s procedure. The operative duration of the NCT group was longer (139 vs. 104 min, respectively, P=0.01). Preoperative NCT examination (OR 1.24; 95% CI=1.09‐1.42; P=0.01) was an independent predictor of postoperative complications. Importantly, three patients died after an unplanned reoperation for colorectal cancer, which occurred only in the NCT group (5.6% vs. 0.0%, P=0.01). Conclusion. The use of conventional preoperative CT optimizes the choice of the surgical site and the strategy of laparotomy, so as to reduce the length of operation. Preoperative imaging evaluation should be performed for patients undergoing repeat abdominal surgery.


Tumor Biology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 101042832092523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mouadh Barbirou ◽  
Ikram Sghaier ◽  
Sinda Bedoui ◽  
Rahma Ben Abderrazek ◽  
Hazar Kraiem ◽  
...  

The KCNB1 gene variants were differentially associated with cancers. However, their association with colorectal cancer has not yet been explored. We investigated the contribution of the KCNB1 gene variants rs3331, rs1051295, and indel (insertion/deletion) rs11468831 Polymorphism as predictors of the treatment response in colorectal cancer patients. A retrospective study, which involved 291 Tunisian colorectal cancer patients (aged 60.0 ± 13.1 years), who were stratified into responder and non-responder groups, according to TNM stages and their responsiveness to chemotherapy based on fluorouracil. KCNB1 genotyping was performed with amplification-refractory mutation system–polymerase chain reaction, and was confirmed by Sanger sequencing. Sex-specific response was found and colorectal cancer females are less likely to achieve a positive response during the chemotherapy strategy, compared to males. Weight and body mass index, tumor size, and tumor localization are considered as predictive factors to treatment responsiveness. Carriage of rs11468831 Ins allele was significantly associated with successful therapy achievement ( p adjusted < 0.001). Stratification of colorectal cancer patients’ response according to tumor localization and TNM stages reveals negative association of rs3331 Major allele to treatment response among the patients with advanced cancer stages (subgroup G2). The presence of rs3331 (homozygous minor) C/C genotype was positively associated with decline in carcino-embryonic antigen ( p = 0.043) and CA19-9 ( p = 0.014) serum levels. On the other hand, the presence of rs1051295 (homozygous minor) A/A genotype was correlated with marked decline in CA19-9 serum levels. KCNB1 haplotype did not reveal any association between haplotypes and treatment response. The results obtained suggest that gender-specific strategies for screening treatment and prevention protocols as well as KCNB1 variants may constitute an effective model for ongoing personalization medicine.


2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 1325-1326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl Chartrand-Lefebvre ◽  
Réal Lapointe ◽  
Louise Samson ◽  
Marie-Pierre Cordeau ◽  
Julie Prenovault

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document