Validation of cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil versus best supportive care and regorafenib for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer in the UK using phase IIIb PRECONNECT early access clinical trial data in the real world setting.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 639-639
Author(s):  
Javier Sabater ◽  
Lewis Ralph ◽  
Rachael Batteson ◽  
Grant McCarthy ◽  
Jaro Wex ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Real World Setting ◽  
Phase Iiib ◽  
Previously Treated

639 Background: Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) is indicated and recommended for the treatment of previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previous evaluations used pooled clinical evidence from the Phase III (RECOURSE) and Phase II trials to model cost-effectiveness, but FTD/TPI specific utilities were not available and alternative data sources were used. The aim of this study was to utilize EQ-5D data from an ongoing Phase IIIb trial (PRECONNECT) within an updated cost-effectiveness model to validate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes for mCRC patients receiving FTD/TPI. Methods: EQ-5D-3L data from PRECONNECT trial were analyzed with UK utility tariff applied. Pre- and post-progression health state utilities were estimated using a linear mixed effects regression model. Indirect comparison versus regorafenib was based on evidence from the CORRECT trial. Utilities and UK costs (GBP, 2018) were then implemented into the existing economic model. Results: Mean pre-progression and post-progression utilities were 0.72 and 0.59, respectively, with discounted incremental quality adjusted life years gain of 2.1 months versus best supportive care (BSC) and 0.8 versus regorafenib. Use of FTD/TPI based on PRECONNECT data, as in the previous analysis, was associated with improved mean survival pre-progression (by 1.8 months) and post-progression (by 1.4 months) for the total OS gain of 3.2 months versus BSC. The mean OS gain versus regorafenib was 1.4 months. Updated cost-effectiveness analysis using PRECONNECT derived inputs showed that results remained broadly unchanged with a negligible increase in ICER from £51,589 to £51,792 (£51,101 in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis) when compared to BSC, while FTD/TPI remained dominant (more effective and less costly) versus regorafenib. Conclusions: New HRQoL data from the PRECONNECT study collected in a real-world setting validated previous HRQoL inputs used to model cost-effectiveness of FTD/TPI in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT03306394.

scholarly journals P-284 Phase 3 RECOURSE trial of TAS-102 versus placebo with best supportive care in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: European subgroup

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. iv84
Author(s):  
A. Falcone ◽  
S. Laurent ◽  
C. Grávalos ◽  
M. Benavides ◽  
F. Longo Muñoz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Phase 3

Survival among metastatic colorectal patients in clinical trials compared to the real world.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 673-673
Author(s):  
Ziwei Wang ◽  
Lindsay Hwang ◽  
James Don Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
The Real ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

673 Background: Randomized clinical trials play a central role in clinical research though only a small fraction of patients partake in clinical studies. Questions thus arise regarding the generalizability of clinical trial results to the remainder of the population. This study evaluated whether patient survival from randomized clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer reflects real world outcomes. Methods: A Pubmed search was used to identify randomized phase III clinical trials of first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer published between 2005 and 2010. We excluded secondary or pooled analyses, second-line treatments, non-metastatic patients, non-English language, and non-randomized studies. Thirty-one clinical trials met these criteria, comprised of 79 distinct clinical trial arms. Overall survival among clinical trial patients was compared to metastatic colorectal cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Within SEER, we restricted the analysis time-period and age of patients to match the enrollment period and age of patients within each individual clinical trial. Results: The clinical trials enrolled a total of 16,614 patients. Among all clinical trial arms the median survival ranged from 6.7-62 months, 1-year survival ranged from 30-97%, and 2-year survival ranged from 6-88%. Compared to SEER, the median survival was higher in 95% of the individual clinical trial arms by an average of 5.4 months (p<0.0001). The 1-year survival was higher in 94% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 16.7% (p<0.0001). The 2-year survival was higher in 71% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 7.2% (p<0.0001). Conclusions: This study found substantially improved survival among clinical trial participants compared to patients in the SEER database suggesting that survival estimates from clinical trials may not generalize to the “real world.” Potential patient factors such as differences in underlying comorbidity, performance status, disease burden, as well as variation in treatment could not be addressed in this study, though these factors likely explain some of the observed survival differences.

What is the role of the anti-angiogenic therapy in BRAF (V600E) mutant metastatic colorectal cancer patients in a real-world setting?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 620-620 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nieves Martinez Lago ◽  
Marta Covela Rúa ◽  
Elena Brozos Vazquez ◽  
Ana Fernandez Fernandez Montes ◽  
Juan Cruz De La Camara Gomez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Strong Predictor ◽  
Tumor Resection ◽  
Braf V600e ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
First Line ◽  
Multicentric Study ◽  
Real World Setting

620 Background: Activating B-type Raf kinase (BRAF) mutations, mostly missense V600E, occur in approximately 8% to 12% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). BRAF (V600E)mt is a strong predictor of a poor prognosis, with distinct clinical and pathological features. However, it is unknown whether this mutation is predictive of any treatment benefit in a real world setting. Methods: We conducted an observational, retrospective, multicentric study of patients with BRAF V600E-mt mCRC treated at nine university Spanish hospitals in NW Spain, belonging to GITuD (Galician Research Group on Digestive Tumors). Demographic, clinic and pathological characteristics, overall survival (OS) and first-line progression free survival (PFS) were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Results: Data from 65 patients treated between November 2010 to June 2018 were recorded in this study. Median age was 62.8 years (range 30-83 years), 55.4 % female, 75.4% ECOG PS0-1, 49.2% right-sided, 35.2% high grade, 69.2% synchronous presentation, 66.2% primary tumor resection and median metastatic locations was 2 (range 1-5). With a median follow up of 64.6 months, median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI, 9.8-16.0 months) and first line PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.7-5.5 months). First line PFS according treatment: Bev+Triplet-CT/Bev+Doublet-CT/antiEGFR+Doublet-CT/Doublet-CT: 6.2 vs 4.8 vs 2.9 vs 2.1 months (p = 0.020). Bevacizumab based chemotherapy was associated with a prolonged first line PFS (median 5.0 vs. 2.1 months, HR, 0.406; 95% CI, 0.20-0.81; p = 0.005). Nevertheless, no statistical differences between bevacizumab based regimes, (Triplet-CT vs Doublet-CT (HR 0.830; 95% CI 0.4-1.9; p = 0.666)) or between Doublet-CT with or without a antiEGFR were found (HR 0.511; 95% CI 0.2-1.6; p = 0.223). Conclusions: Our study confirms the negative prognostic impact of BRAF V600Emt in mCRC and encourage the use of anti-angiogenic based chemotherapy in this subgroup of patients.

Open-Label Phase III Trial of Panitumumab Plus Best Supportive Care Compared With Best Supportive Care Alone in Patients With Chemotherapy-Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (13) ◽  
pp. 1658-1664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Salvatore Siena ◽  
Yves Humblet ◽  
Alain Hendlisz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Human Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Tumor Cell Membrane

PurposePanitumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). We compared the activity of panitumumab plus best supportive care (BSC) to that of BSC alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had progressed after standard chemotherapy.Patients and MethodsWe randomly assigned 463 patients with 1% or more EGFR tumor cell membrane staining, measurable disease, and radiologic documentation of disease progression during or within 6 months of most recent chemotherapy to panitumumab 6 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus BSC (n = 231) or BSC alone (n = 232). Tumor assessments by blinded central review were scheduled from week 8 until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included objective response, overall survival (OS), and safety. BSC patients who progressed could receive panitumumab in a cross-over study.ResultsPanitumumab significantly prolonged PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.66, [P < .0001]). Median PFS time was 8 weeks (95% CI, 7.9 to 8.4) for panitumumab and 7.3 weeks (95% CI, 7.1 to 7.7) for BSC. Mean (standard error) PFS time was 13.8 (0.8) weeks for panitumumab and 8.5 (0.5) weeks for BSC. Objective response rates also favored panitumumab over BSC; after a 12-month minimum follow-up, response rates were 10% for panitumumab and 0% for BSC (P < .0001). No difference was observed in OS (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.22), which was confounded by similar activity of panitumumab after 76% of BSC patients entered the cross-over study. Panitumumab was well tolerated. Skin toxicities, hypomagnesaemia, and diarrhea were the most common toxicities observed. No patients had grade 3/4 infusion reactions.ConclusionPanitumumab significantly improved PFS with manageable toxicity in patients with chemorefractory colorectal cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document