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]

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.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Abstract Background: In this study, we analyze the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, especially after a recent price drop suggested by the National Healthcare Security Administration. Methods: A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to placebo among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Chinese healthcare payer’s perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical cost (2019 US dollars [USD]). A willing‐to‐pay threshold was set at USD 27,130/QALY, which is three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: Fruquintinib was associated with better health outcomes than placebo (0.640 vs 0.478 QALYs) with a higher cost (USD 20750.9 vs USD 12042.2), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 53508.7 per QALY. This ICER is 25% lower than the one calculated before the price drop (USD 70952.6 per QALY).Conclusion: After the price negotiation, the drug becomes cheaper and the ICER is lower, but the drug is still not cost effective under the standard of 3 times GDP willing‐to‐pay threshold. For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, fruquintinib is not a cost-effective option under the current circumstances in China.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Abstract Background In this study, we analyze the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, especially after a recent price drop suggested by the National Healthcare Security Administration. Methods A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to placebo among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Chinese healthcare payer’s perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical cost (2019 US dollars [USD]). A willing-to-pay threshold was set at USD 27,130/QALY, which is three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results Fruquintinib was associated with better health outcomes than placebo (0.640 vs 0.478 QALYs) with a higher cost (USD 20750.9 vs USD 12042.2), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 53508.7 per QALY. This ICER is 25% lower than the one calculated before the price drop (USD 70952.6 per QALY). Conclusion After the price negotiation, the drug becomes cheaper and the ICER is lower, but the drug is still not cost effective under the standard of 3 times GDP willing-to-pay threshold. For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, fruquintinib is not a cost-effective option under the current circumstances in China.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Abstract Background: In this study, we analyze the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, especially after a recent price drop suggested by the National Healthcare Security Administration. Methods: A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to placebo among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Chinese healthcare payer’s perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical cost (2019 US dollars [USD]). A willing‐to‐pay threshold was set at USD 27,130/QALY, which is three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: Fruquintinib was associated with better health outcomes than placebo (0.640 vs 0.478 QALYs) with a higher cost (USD 20750.9 vs USD 12042.2), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 53508.7 per QALY. This ICER is 25% lower than the one calculated before the price drop (USD 70952.6 per QALY).Conclusion: After the price negotiation, the drug becomes cheaper and the ICER is lower, but the drug is still not cost effective under the standard of 3 times GDP willing‐to‐pay threshold. For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, fruquintinib is not a cost-effective option under the current circumstances in China.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (32) ◽  
pp. 3727-3732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Goldstein ◽  
Bilal B. Ahmad ◽  
Qiushi Chen ◽  
Turgay Ayer ◽  
David H. Howard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
The Third ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost

Purpose Regorafenib is a standard-care option for treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer that increases median overall survival by 6 weeks compared with placebo. Given this small incremental clinical benefit, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib in the third-line setting for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from the US payer perspective. Methods We developed a Markov model to compare the cost and effectiveness of regorafenib with those of placebo in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates in 2014. Model robustness was addressed in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results Regorafenib provided an additional 0.04 QALYs (0.13 life-years) at a cost of $40,000, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $900,000 per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for regorafenib was > $550,000 per QALY in all of our univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusion Regorafenib provides minimal incremental benefit at high incremental cost per QALY in the third-line management of metastatic colorectal cancer. The cost-effectiveness of regorafenib could be improved by the use of value-based pricing.

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.

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.

Nivolumab versus nivolumab with ipilimumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil for metastatic microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer: A modeling decision analysis.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 829-829
Author(s):  
Jacqueline N. Chu ◽  
Jin G. Choi ◽  
Sassan Ostvar ◽  
James A. Torchia ◽  
Kerry Lynn Reynolds ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Microsatellite Instability ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Checkpoint Blockade ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

829 Background: Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who have failed chemotherapy have shown response to checkpoint blockade. We investigate optimal third-line treatment in MSI-H mCRC with regard to overall survival, quality of life years gained (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness. Methods: A Markov Model was created for a base case of a 57 year old man with MSI-H mCRC refractory to two lines of chemotherapy. Treatments compared were nivolumab, nivolumab with ipilimumab, and trifluridine/tipiracil. Patients could remain stable, progress to fourth-line chemotherapy or palliative care, experience drug toxicity, die from age/sex mortality, or die from cancer over their simulated lifetimes. Transitions between health states were based on the CheckMate 142 and RECOURSE trials. Outcomes were survival or unadjusted life years, QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The willingness to pay threshold was $100,000/QALY. Results: Nivolumab with ipilimumab was the most effective strategy as it yielded more unadjusted life-years (4.24) and QALYs (2.53) compared to nivolumab (3.95 LY, 2.33 QALYs) and trifluridine/tipiracil (0.74 LY, 0.07 QALYs). However, nivolumab with ipilimumab was not cost-effective compared to nivolumab and neither treatment strategy was cost-effective compared to trifluridine/tipiracil. Sensitivity analysis found nivolumab monotherapy could be cost-effective with decrease in drug cost to $2000/dose. Conclusions: Our modeling analysis finds that both single and dual checkpoint blockade yield significantly increased overall survival and QALYs for MSI-H mCRC compared to third-line chemotherapy, but were not cost-effective because of nivolumab cost. Decreases in drug pricing and/or duration of maintenance nivolumab could make nivolumab monotherapy cost-effective. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document