Literature DB >> 23338963

Influence of pharmacogenomic profiling prior to pharmaceutical treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer on cost effectiveness : a systematic review.

Martin Frank1, Thomas Mittendorf.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) imposes a substantial health burden on individual patients and society. Furthermore, rising costs in oncology cause a growing concern about reimbursement for innovations in this sector. The promise of pharmacogenomic profiling and related stratified therapies in mCRC is to improve treatment efficacy and potentially save costs. Among other examples, the commonly used epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab are only effective in patients with kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) wild-type cancers. Hence, the adaptation of predictive biomarker testing might be a valid strategy for healthcare systems worldwide.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review the clinical and economic evidence supporting pharmacogenomic profiling prior to the administration of pharmaceutical treatment in mCRC. Moreover, key drivers and areas of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness evaluations are analysed.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies evaluating the cost effectiveness of predictive biomarkers and the result dependent usage of pharmaceutical agents in mCRC.
RESULTS: The application of predictive biomarkers to detect KRAS mutations prior to the administration of EGFR antibodies saved treatment costs and was cost effective in all identified evaluations. However, because of the lack of data regarding cost-effectiveness analyses for predictive biomarker testing, e.g. for first-line treatment, definitive conclusions cannot be stated. Key drivers and areas of uncertainty in current cost-effectiveness analyses are, among others, the consideration of predictive biomarker costs, the characteristics of single predictive biomarkers and the availability of clinical data for the respective pharmaceutical intervention. Especially the cost effectiveness of uridine diphosphate-glucuronyl transferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) mutation analysis prior to irinotecan-based chemotherapy remains unclear.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacogenomic profiling has the potential to improve the cost effectiveness of pharmaceutical treatment in mCRC. Hence, quantification of the economic impact of stratified medicine as well as cost-effectiveness analyses of pharmacogenomic profiling are becoming more important. Nevertheless, the methods applied in cost-effectiveness evaluations for the usage of predictive biomarkers for patient selection as well as the level of evidence required to determine clinical effectiveness are areas for further research. However, mCRC is one of the first indications in which stratified therapies are used in clinical practice. Thus, clinical and economic experiences could be helpful when adopting pharmacogenomic profiling into clinical practice for other indications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23338963     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-012-0017-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  74 in total

Review 1.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework.

Authors: 
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 6.875

2.  Real-time allele-specific amplification for sensitive detection of the BRAF mutation V600E.

Authors:  Anne Jarry; Damien Masson; Elisabeth Cassagnau; Sigrid Parois; Christian Laboisse; Marc G Denis
Journal:  Mol Cell Probes       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.365

3.  Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test.

Authors:  Sara T Brookes; Elise Whitely; Matthias Egger; George Davey Smith; Paul A Mulheran; Tim J Peters
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Association of KRAS p.G13D mutation with outcome in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab.

Authors:  Wendy De Roock; Derek J Jonker; Federica Di Nicolantonio; Andrea Sartore-Bianchi; Dongsheng Tu; Salvatore Siena; Simona Lamba; Sabrina Arena; Milo Frattini; Hubert Piessevaux; Eric Van Cutsem; Chris J O'Callaghan; Shirin Khambata-Ford; John R Zalcberg; John Simes; Christos S Karapetis; Alberto Bardelli; Sabine Tejpar
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Improved survival in metastatic colorectal cancer is associated with adoption of hepatic resection and improved chemotherapy.

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

6.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 7.  An update on the current and emerging targeted agents in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Edward Chu
Journal:  Clin Colorectal Cancer       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 4.481

8.  ERCC1 and thymidylate synthase mRNA levels predict survival for colorectal cancer patients receiving combination oxaliplatin and fluorouracil chemotherapy.

Authors:  Y Shirota; J Stoehlmacher; J Brabender; Y P Xiong; H Uetake; K D Danenberg; S Groshen; D D Tsao-Wei; P V Danenberg; H J Lenz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 9.  Pyrimidine degradation defects and severe 5-fluorouracil toxicity.

Authors:  A B P van Kuilenburg; R Meinsma; A H van Gennip
Journal:  Nucleosides Nucleotides Nucleic Acids       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.381

10.  Actual 10-year survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases defines cure.

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

View more
  16 in total

1.  What evidence is there for the reimbursement of personalised medicine?

Authors:  Peter S Hall; Christopher McCabe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Cost Implications of Value-Based Pricing for Companion Diagnostic Tests in Precision Medicine.

Authors:  Gregory S Zaric
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Can ad hoc analyses of clinical trials help personalize treatment decisions?

Authors:  Eman Biltaji; Shaun S Kumar; Elena Y Enioutina; Catherine M T Sherwin
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 4.335

4.  The role of personalized medicine in metastatic colorectal cancer: an evolving landscape.

Authors:  Sing Yu Moorcraft; Elizabeth C Smyth; David Cunningham
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.409

Review 5.  Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature.

Authors:  Amy J Davidoff; Kaitlin Akif; Michael T Halpern
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2022-07-05

Review 6.  Tools for the Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine: A Scoping Review of Frameworks for Valuing Heterogeneity-Informed Decisions.

Authors:  Reka E Pataky; Stirling Bryan; Mohsen Sadatsafavi; Stuart Peacock; Dean A Regier
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 4.558

Review 7.  Irinotecan-induced toxicity pharmacogenetics: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Authors:  J M Campbell; M D Stephenson; E Bateman; M D J Peters; D M Keefe; J M Bowen
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 3.550

8.  Comparison of KRAS mutation analysis of colorectal cancer samples by standard testing and next-generation sequencing.

Authors:  Nishi Kothari; Michael J Schell; Jamie K Teer; Timothy Yeatman; David Shibata; Richard Kim
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Glutathione S-transferase M1 null genotype related to poor prognosis of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Shushan Yan; Zengfang Wang; Zengyan Wang; Quanhong Duan; Xiaochen Wang; Jun Li; Beicheng Sun
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2016-01-30

Review 10.  Personalizing health care: feasibility and future implications.

Authors:  Brian Godman; Alexander E Finlayson; Parneet K Cheema; Eva Zebedin-Brandl; Inaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea; Jan Jones; Rickard E Malmström; Elina Asola; Christoph Baumgärtel; Marion Bennie; Iain Bishop; Anna Bucsics; Stephen Campbell; Eduardo Diogene; Alessandra Ferrario; Jurij Fürst; Kristina Garuoliene; Miguel Gomes; Katharine Harris; Alan Haycox; Harald Herholz; Krystyna Hviding; Saira Jan; Marija Kalaba; Christina Kvalheim; Ott Laius; Sven-Ake Lööv; Kamila Malinowska; Andrew Martin; Laura McCullagh; Fredrik Nilsson; Ken Paterson; Ulrich Schwabe; Gisbert Selke; Catherine Sermet; Steven Simoens; Dominik Tomek; Vera Vlahovic-Palcevski; Luka Voncina; Magdalena Wladysiuk; Menno van Woerkom; Durhane Wong-Rieger; Corrine Zara; Raghib Ali; Lars L Gustafsson
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 8.775

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.