Display options
Cite
Ewara EM, Zaric GS, Welch S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Curr Oncol. 2014;21(4):e541-50doi: 10.3747/co.21.1837.
Ewara, E. M., Zaric, G. S., Welch, S., & Sarma, S. (2014). Cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 21(4), e541-50. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1837
Ewara, E M, et al. "Cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer." Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) vol. 21,4 (2014): e541-50. doi: https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1837
Ewara EM, Zaric GS, Welch S, Sarma S. Cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Curr Oncol. 2014 Aug;21(4):e541-50. doi: 10.3747/co.21.1837. PMID: 25089105; PMCID: PMC4117621.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Curr Oncol. 2014 Aug;21(4):e541-50. doi: 10.3747/co.21.1837.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.)

E M Ewara, G S Zaric, S Welch, S Sarma

Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON.
  2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON. ; Richard Ivey School of Business, Western University, London, ON.
  3. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Western University, London, ON.

PMID: 25089105 PMCID: PMC4117621 DOI: 10.3747/co.21.1837

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Combinations of chemotherapy regimens and monoclonal antibodies have been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc). Although these combination treatment strategies are safe and effective in first-line treatment for mcrc, little is known about their economic consequences and resource allocation implications. In the present study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus folfiri, cetuximab plus folfiri, and panitumumab plus folfiri for patients with KRAS wild-type mcrc.

METHODS: A Markov model simulated the lifetime patient outcomes and costs of each first-line treatment strategy and subsequent lines of treatment from the perspective of the health care payer in Ontario. The model was parameterized using data from the Ontario Cancer Registry, Ontario health administrative databases, and published randomized control trials. Patient outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (qalys), and costs were measured in monetary terms. Costs and outcomes were both discounted at 5% and expressed in 2012 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS: For mcrc patients with KRAS wild-type disease, the treatment strategy of bevacizumab plus folfiri was found to dominate the other two first-line treatment strategies. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values were sensitive to the effectiveness of treatment, the costs of bevacizumab and cetuximab, and health utility values.

CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from Ontario showed that bevacizumab plus folfiri is the cost-effective first-line treatment strategy for patients with KRAS wild-type mcrc. The panitumumab plus folfiri and cetuximab plus folfiri options were both dominated, but the cetuximab plus folfiri strategy must be further investigated given that, in the sensitivity analyses, the cost-effectiveness of that strategy was found to be superior to that of bevacizumab plus folfiri under certain ranges of parameter values.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Ontario; bevacizumab; cetuximab; folfiri; metastatic colorectal cancer; panitumumab; wild-type KRAS

References

  1. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 1;27(7):1130-6 - PubMed
  2. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011 Feb;26(2):173-81 - PubMed
  3. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Aug;31(8):663-75 - PubMed
  4. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jan 15;22(2):229-37 - PubMed
  5. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Oct 20;25(30):4779-86 - PubMed
  6. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Aug 1;23(22):4866-75 - PubMed
  7. J Clin Oncol. 2011 May 20;29(15):2011-9 - PubMed
  8. N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 2;360(14):1408-17 - PubMed
  9. Health Technol Assess. 2010 Oct;14(Suppl. 2):47-53 - PubMed
  10. Clin Ther. 2011 Apr;33(4):482-97 - PubMed
  11. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 1;28(31):4697-705 - PubMed
  12. Eur J Cancer. 2006 Sep;42(14):2212-21 - PubMed
  13. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 20;26(12):2013-9 - PubMed
  14. Curr Oncol. 2010 Oct;17(5):12-6 - PubMed
  15. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jul 20;24(21):3347-53 - PubMed
  16. Ann Oncol. 2010 Jun;21(6):1152-1162 - PubMed
  17. Cancer. 2000 Mar 15;88(6):1294-303 - PubMed
  18. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Oct 10;25(29):4575-80 - PubMed
  19. Br J Cancer. 2011 Nov 8;105(10):1495-502 - PubMed
  20. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011 Mar-Apr;61(2):69-90 - PubMed
  21. Oncology. 2009;77(2):113-9 - PubMed
  22. J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 1;25(13):1658-64 - PubMed
  23. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(1):3-6 - PubMed
  24. J Surg Oncol. 2011 Nov 1;104(6):661-6 - PubMed
  25. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Nov 20;26(33):5326-34 - PubMed
  26. Ann Oncol. 2009 Nov;20(11):1842-7 - PubMed

Publication Types