OBJECTIVE: In a recent randomized study, we demonstrated that XELOX (oxaliplatin + oral capecitabine) was well tolerated and not inferior in terms of efficacy to the infusional FOLFOX-6 regimen in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective of this additional analysis was to compare the cost of XELOX and FOLFOX-6. METHODS: This cost-minimisation study took into account costs related to drug acquisition, hospital care for chemotherapy administration and for serious adverse event management. Hospital care costs were based on French 'diagnosis-related group' tariffs. Drug acquisition costs were drawn from French official sources. Analysis was performed from the French health insurance perspective. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 282 patients included (143 XELOX, 139 FOLFOX-6) were well balanced. Patients reported less and shorter hospitalisations (day and overnight hospital care) with XELOX: 6.4 ± 2.2 hospitalisations versus 9.7 ± 3.1 (p < 0.001); 11.4 ± 10.6 days versus 17.7 ± 11.8 (p < 0.001). Mean disease management cost per patient was significantly lower with XELOX (EUR 12,918 ± 5,075 vs. EUR 17,229 ± 8,665, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the perspective of our analysis, taking into account hospitalisation and drug acquisition costs, the treatment of mCRC patients with XELOX in comparison to FOLFOX-6 significantly decreased the costs, as well as the mean overall hospitalisation length of stay.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: In a recent randomized study, we demonstrated that XELOX (oxaliplatin + oral capecitabine) was well tolerated and not inferior in terms of efficacy to the infusional FOLFOX-6 regimen in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective of this additional analysis was to compare the cost of XELOX and FOLFOX-6. METHODS: This cost-minimisation study took into account costs related to drug acquisition, hospital care for chemotherapy administration and for serious adverse event management. Hospital care costs were based on French 'diagnosis-related group' tariffs. Drug acquisition costs were drawn from French official sources. Analysis was performed from the French health insurance perspective. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 282 patients included (143 XELOX, 139 FOLFOX-6) were well balanced. Patients reported less and shorter hospitalisations (day and overnight hospital care) with XELOX: 6.4 ± 2.2 hospitalisations versus 9.7 ± 3.1 (p < 0.001); 11.4 ± 10.6 days versus 17.7 ± 11.8 (p < 0.001). Mean disease management cost per patient was significantly lower with XELOX (EUR 12,918 ± 5,075 vs. EUR 17,229 ± 8,665, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the perspective of our analysis, taking into account hospitalisation and drug acquisition costs, the treatment of mCRC patients with XELOX in comparison to FOLFOX-6 significantly decreased the costs, as well as the mean overall hospitalisation length of stay.
Authors: E Chu; D Haller; T Cartwright; C Twelves; J Cassidy; W Sun; M W Saif; E McKenna; S Lee; H-J Schmoll Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 7.640