BACKGROUND: In 2009, the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommended that patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are candidates for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy have their tumors tested for KRAS mutations because tumors with such mutations do not respond to anti-EGFR therapy. Limiting anti-EGFR therapy to those without KRAS mutations will reserve treatment for those likely to benefit while avoiding unnecessary costs and harm to those who would not. Similarly, tumors with BRAF genetic mutations may not respond to anti-EGFR therapy, though this is less clear. Economic analyses of mutation testing have not fully explored the roles of alternative therapies and resection of metastases. METHODS: This paper is based on a decision analytic framework that forms the basis of a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for KRAS and BRAF mutations in mCRC in the context of treatment with cetuximab. A cohort of 50 000 patients with mCRC is simulated 10 000 times, with attributes randomly assigned on the basis of distributions from randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Screening for both KRAS and BRAF mutations compared with the base strategy (of no anti-EGFR therapy) increases expected overall survival by 0.034 years at a cost of $22 033, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $650 000 per additional year of life. Compared with anti-EGFR therapy without screening, adding KRAS testing saves approximately $7500 per patient; adding BRAF testing saves another $1023, with little reduction in expected survival. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for KRAS and BFAF mutation improves the cost-effectiveness of anti-EGFR therapy, but the incremental cost effectiveness ratio remains above the generally accepted threshold for acceptable cost effectiveness ratio of $100 000/quality adjusted life year.
BACKGROUND: In 2009, the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommended that patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are candidates for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy have their tumors tested for KRAS mutations because tumors with such mutations do not respond to anti-EGFR therapy. Limiting anti-EGFR therapy to those without KRAS mutations will reserve treatment for those likely to benefit while avoiding unnecessary costs and harm to those who would not. Similarly, tumors with BRAF genetic mutations may not respond to anti-EGFR therapy, though this is less clear. Economic analyses of mutation testing have not fully explored the roles of alternative therapies and resection of metastases. METHODS: This paper is based on a decision analytic framework that forms the basis of a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for KRAS and BRAF mutations in mCRC in the context of treatment with cetuximab. A cohort of 50 000 patients with mCRC is simulated 10 000 times, with attributes randomly assigned on the basis of distributions from randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Screening for both KRAS and BRAF mutations compared with the base strategy (of no anti-EGFR therapy) increases expected overall survival by 0.034 years at a cost of $22 033, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $650 000 per additional year of life. Compared with anti-EGFR therapy without screening, adding KRAS testing saves approximately $7500 per patient; adding BRAF testing saves another $1023, with little reduction in expected survival. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for KRAS and BFAF mutation improves the cost-effectiveness of anti-EGFR therapy, but the incremental cost effectiveness ratio remains above the generally accepted threshold for acceptable cost effectiveness ratio of $100 000/quality adjusted life year.
Authors: Scott Kopetz; George J Chang; Michael J Overman; Cathy Eng; Daniel J Sargent; David W Larson; Axel Grothey; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; David M Nagorney; Robert R McWilliams Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Y Fong; A M Cohen; J G Fortner; W E Enker; A D Turnbull; D G Coit; A M Marrero; M Prasad; L H Blumgart; M F Brennan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David Cunningham; Wendy Atkin; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Henry T Lynch; Bruce Minsky; Bernard Nordlinger; Naureen Starling Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-03-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: E Van Dessel; K Fierens; P Pattyn; Y Van Nieuwenhove; F Berrevoet; R Troisi; W Ceelen Journal: Acta Chir Belg Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.090
Authors: James S Tomlinson; William R Jarnagin; Ronald P DeMatteo; Yuman Fong; Peter Kornprat; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Kemeny; Murray F Brennan; Leslie H Blumgart; Michael D'Angelica Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Adriana Rico; Lori A Pollack; Trevor D Thompson; Mei-Chin Hsieh; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Jordan J Karlitz; Dee W West; John M Rainey; Vivien W Chen Journal: J Cancer Res Ther (Manch) Date: 2017-01-30
Authors: Daniel A Goldstein; Qiushi Chen; Turgay Ayer; David H Howard; Joseph Lipscomb; Bassel F El-Rayes; Christopher R Flowers Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel A Goldstein; Bilal B Ahmad; Qiushi Chen; Turgay Ayer; David H Howard; Joseph Lipscomb; Bassel F El-Rayes; Christopher R Flowers Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Naoko I Simonds; Muin J Khoury; Sheri D Schully; Katrina Armstrong; Wendy F Cohn; David A Fenstermacher; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Katrina A B Goddard; William A Knaus; Gary H Lyman; Scott D Ramsey; Jianfeng Xu; Andrew N Freedman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 13.506