Bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy first-line for right-side metastatic colorectal cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 777-777
Author(s):  
Gong Chen ◽  
Maobai Liu ◽  
Te Li ◽  
Bin Wu
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
First Line ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Bevacizumab Treatment ◽  
The Impact

777 Background: To test the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab treatment compared with cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment for patients with right-side metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: A Markov model was developed to Chinese clinical practice. The model incorporated clinical and utility data from published literatures, resource utilization and unit prices based on local charge. The lifetime horizontal was used and sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the robustness of the model results. The impact of patient assistance program (PAP) was also evaluated in scenario analyses. Results: Baseline analysis showed that the addition of cetuximab gained additional 0.232 QALYs with more $60,371 relative to bevacizumab therapy, resulting in an ICER of $259,775 /QALY. When PAP was available, the incremental cost decreased to $24,161, which yielded an ICER of $60,371 /QALY, which indicated that the strategy was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 3 times the per capita GDP of China ($22,200/QALY). Sensitivity analyses found that the costs of bevacizumab was the most influential parameter. Conclusions: Bevacizumab treatment for right-side mCRC is not a cost-effective option in comparison with standard chemotherapy in Chinese context.

Cetuximab and bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy first-line for left-side metastatic colorectal cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 732-732
Author(s):  
Yanqiao Zhang ◽  
Tongsen Zheng ◽  
Maobai Liu ◽  
Te Li ◽  
Bin Wu
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
First Line ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Bevacizumab Treatment ◽  
The Impact

732 Background: To test the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab and bevacizumab treatment as first-line treatment for patients with left-side metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: A Markov model was developed to Chinese clinical practice. The model incorporated clinical and utility data from published literatures, resource utilization and unit prices based on local charge. The lifetime horizontal was used and sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the robustness of the model results. The impact of patient assistance program (PAP) was also evaluated in scenario analyses. Results: Baseline analysis showed that the addition of cetuximab gained additional 0.364 QALYs with more $39,450 relative to bevacizumab therapy, resulting in an ICER of $108,287 /QALY. When PAP was available, the incremental cost decreased to $2,464, which yielded an ICER of $6,764 /QALY, which indicated that the strategy might be very cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 3 times the per capita GDP of China ($22,200/QALY). Sensitivity analyses found that the costs of cetuximab and bevacizumab were the most influential parameters. Conclusions: When PAP was available in Chinese context, cetuximab treatment is likely to be cost-effective versus bevacizumab therapy for patients with left-side mCRC.

Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab + FOLFIRI versus bevacizumab + FOLFIRI in the first-line treatment of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in China.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 133-133
Author(s):  
Ilse Van Oostrum ◽  
Yannan Hu ◽  
Zijiao Yuan ◽  
Michael Schlichting ◽  
Libo Tao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health State ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment

133 Background: Adding cetuximab to FOLFIRI chemotherapy (cet+CT) as first-line (1L) treatment for RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been reported as cost-effective vs bevacizumab + FOLFIRI (bev+CT) in multiple jurisdictions. This study determined the cost-effectiveness (CE) of cet+CT for patients with mCRC in China. Methods: A published 3–health-state (nonprogressive, progressive, death) CE model was adapted to reflect Chinese patient characteristics, health state utilities, unit costs, and discounting rates, applying FIRE-3 trial–based resource utilization and adverse event rates. Progression-free and overall survival estimates were based on published FIRE-3 trial simulations to statistically adjust for available later-line treatment modalities in China vs those observed in FIRE-3. [1] Cetuximab and bevacizumab costs were based on up-to-date prices after the 2019 national reimbursement drug listing negotiations. Incremental CE ratios (ICERs) are given as cost (Chinese Yuan [¥]) per life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was ¥193,931, equivalent to 3 times the gross domestic product per capita, following WHO guidance. Results: Overall costs/costs restricted to 1L treatment were ¥483,771/¥249,619 (cet+CT) and ¥366,036/¥156,802 (bev+CT). Health effects were 3.32/2.68 (cet+CT) and 2.39/1.94 (bev+CT) LYs/QALYs gained. Discounted ICERs for cet+CT vs bev+CT were ¥148,311 and ¥186,517 per LY and QALY gained in deterministic analysis. cet+CT had a 71.8% (LY) and 52.5% (QALY) probability of being cost-effective. Treatment duration with a biologic in 1L, utilities in 3L treatment, and duration of 2L treatment were the main outcome drivers. Conclusions: Projections suggest that cet+CT is cost-effective vs bev+CT for 1L treatment of patients with RAS wt mCRC in China, with ICERs below the current WTP threshold in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. [1] Van Oostrum I, et al. Value Health. 2020;23(Suppl 1): S8.

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.

Cost-effectiveness for metastatic colorectal cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15003-e15003
Author(s):  
Linli Yao ◽  
Jiaqi Han ◽  
Longjiang She ◽  
Dong Ding ◽  
Mengting Liao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Third ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost

e15003 Background: As standard third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer, regorafenib and fruquintinib, compared with placebo, increase median overall survival by 2.5 months and 2.7 months, respectively. Given the incremental clinical benefit, we aim to estimate the cost effectiveness of regorafenib versus fruquintinib in the third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from Chinese payer perspective. Methods: A mathematical Markov model was established to project the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib versus fruquintinib from the CONCUR and FRESCO clinical trials. Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were analyzed with extracted data from the trials. Willingness to pay (WTP) of $26508 was used. Drug costs were estimated from the perspectives of the health care system in the People’s Republic of China. One way sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters of the model. Results: Fruquintinib, compared with regorafenib, provided an additional 0.028 QALYs (0.274 QALYs versus 0.246 QALYs) at less cost ($33536 versus $35607). Conclusions: Fruquintinib is more cost-effective than regorafenib as the third-line management for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when WTP is $26508.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (5) ◽  
pp. 400-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng-Fei Zhang ◽  
Dan Xie ◽  
Qiu Li
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of addition of fruquintinib to best supportive care (BSC) in third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: To conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov model was established to simulate the course of metastatic CRC. Three health states—progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death—were included. Clinical data were derived from the FRESCO trial and health utility values were extracted from previous literature. The primary outcome of the study was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in US dollars per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from a Chinese societal perspective. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the study. Results: Addition of fruquintinib to BSC gained 0.54 QALY at a cost of $15,404.57 while the BSC group gained 0.38 QALY at a cost of $9603.94. ICER of fruquintinib versus BSC was $36,253.94/QALY. In the 1-way sensitivity analyses, utility for PD in both groups, utility for PFS in both groups, and cost of fruquintinib significantly influenced the results of the analysis. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $28,988.40/QALY, probabilities of addition of fruquintinib to BSC or BSC alone as the cost-effective option were 0% and 100%, indicating addition of fruquintinib is not a dominant option compared with BSC. Conclusions: Addition of fruquintinib to BSC is not a cost-effective regimen in the third-line setting for patients with metastatic CRC from the Chinese societal perspective.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Different Sequences of the Use of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors for Wild-Type KRAS Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. e710-e723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Carmen Riesco-Martínez ◽  
Scott R. Berry ◽  
Yoo-Joung Ko ◽  
Nicole Mittmann ◽  
Angie Giotis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Purpose: Patients with unresectable wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer benefit from fluoropyrimidines (FP), oxaliplatin (O), irinotecan (I), bevacizumab (Bev), and epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI). The most cost-effective regimen remains unclear. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to examine the costs and outcomes of three treatment strategies: strategy A (reference strategy): EGFRI monotherapy in third line ([3L]; ie, first-line [1L]: Bev + FOLFIRI [FP + I] or FOLFOX [FP + O]; second line [2L]: FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: EGFRI); strategy B: EGFRI and I in 3L (ie, 1L: Bev + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 2L: FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: EGFRI + I); and strategy C: EGFRI in 1L (ie, 1L: EGFRI + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 2L: Bev + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: best supportive care). Efficacy data of the treatments were obtained from the literature. Health system resource use information was derived from chart review and the literature. Using Euro-QOL 5 Dimensions, utilities were obtained by surveying medical oncologists and costs from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the literature. The perspective of the Canadian public health care system was used over a 5-year time horizon with a 5% discount in 2012 Canadian dollars. Results: All three strategies had similar efficacy, but strategy C was most expensive. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for strategies B and C compared with A were 119,623 and 3,176,591, respectively. The model was primarily driven by the acquisition cost of the drugs. Strategy B was most cost effective when the willingness-to-pay threshold was > $130,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analysis showed that strategy C would be cost-effective only when the progression-free survival of EGFRI is better than Bev in 1L with hazard ratio < 0.23 at willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusion: First-line use of EGFRI in metastatic colorectal cancer is not cost effective at its current pricing relative to Bev.

Fruquintinib or regorafenib as the third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer based on CONCUR and FRESCO trials: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15011-e15011
Author(s):  
Qiu Li ◽  
Mengxi Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
The Third ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Impact

e15011 Background: Survival benefit of regorafenib and fruquintinib as third-line agents have been respectively demonstrated in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. This study tries to explore the cost-effectiveness of the two agents. Methods: A Markov model was performed based on two phase 3 trials, FRESCO and CONCUR. Health outcomes were measured with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The key outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic sensitivity and one-way sensitivity analysis were performed to estimate the impact of essential variables on the results of the analysis. Results: No statistical differences were observed in the baseline patient characteristics, except that the CONCUR trial enrolled older patients and higher ratios of prior use of VEGF or EGFR antibodies in comparison with the FRESCO trial.Treatment with fruquintinib was estimated to cost $25,550.15 with an effectiveness gain of 0.54 QALYs, whereas regorafenib resulted in 0.53 QALY at a mean cost of $29,681.52, yielding ICER of $-413,137.00 per QALY. By using treble the Chinese Gross Domestic Product per Capita as willingness-to-pay threshold, the probability for fruquintinib being cost-effective was higher than regorafenib in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: Fruquintinib provides a more cost-effective option for metastatic colorectal patients compared with regorafenib in the third line treatment.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals First- and Second-Line Bevacizumab in Addition to Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A United States–Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (10) ◽  
pp. 1112-1118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Goldstein ◽  
Qiushi Chen ◽  
Turgay Ayer ◽  
David H. Howard ◽  
Joseph Lipscomb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
First Line ◽  
Life Years

Purpose The addition of bevacizumab to fluorouracil-based chemotherapy is a standard of care for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. Continuation of bevacizumab beyond progression is an accepted standard of care based on a 1.4-month increase in median overall survival observed in a randomized trial. No United States–based cost-effectiveness modeling analyses are currently available addressing the use of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in the first-line setting and when continued beyond progression from the perspective of US payers. Methods We developed two Markov models to compare the cost and effectiveness of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with or without bevacizumab in the first-line treatment and subsequent fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan with or without bevacizumab in the second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Model robustness was addressed by univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results Using bevacizumab in first-line therapy provided an additional 0.10 QALYs (0.14 life-years) at a cost of $59,361. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $571,240 per QALY. Continuing bevacizumab beyond progression provided an additional 0.11 QALYs (0.16 life-years) at a cost of $39,209. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $364,083 per QALY. In univariable sensitivity analyses, the variables with the greatest influence on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were bevacizumab cost, overall survival, and utility. Conclusion Bevacizumab provides minimal incremental benefit at high incremental cost per QALY in both the first- and second-line settings of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document