V C Tam1, Y J Ko, N Mittmann, M C Cheung, K Kumar, S Hassan, K K W Chan. 1. Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. ; Department of Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Gemcitabine and capecitabine (gem-cap), gemcitabine and erlotinib (gem-e), and folfirinox (5-fluorouracil-leucovorin-irinotecan-oxaliplatin) are new treatment options for metastatic pancreatic cancer, but they are also more expensive and potentially more toxic than gemcitabine alone (gem). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of these treatment options compared with gem. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to examine costs and outcomes of gem-cap, gem-e, folfirinox, and gem in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer from the perspective of a government health care plan. Ontario health economic and costing data (2010 Canadian dollars) were used. Efficacy data for the treatments were obtained from the published literature. Resource utilization data were derived from a chart review of consecutive metastatic patients treated for pancreatic cancer at Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, 2008-2009, and supplemented with data from the literature. Utilities were obtained by surveying medical oncologists across Canada using the EQ-5D. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (icers) were calculated. RESULTS: The icers for gem-cap, gem-e, and folfirinox compared with gem were, respectively, CA$84,299, CA$153,631, and CA$133,184 per quality-adjusted life year (qaly). The model was driven mostly by drug acquisition costs. Given a willingness-to-pay (wtp) threshold greater than CA$130,000/qaly, folfirinox was most cost-effective treatment. When the wtp threshold was less than CA$80,000/qaly, gem alone was most cost-effective. The gem-e option was dominated by the other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The most cost-effective treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer depends on the societal wtp threshold. If the societal wtp threshold were to be relatively high or if drug costs were to be substantially reduced, folfirinox might be cost-effective.
PURPOSE:Gemcitabine and capecitabine (gem-cap), gemcitabine and erlotinib (gem-e), and folfirinox (5-fluorouracil-leucovorin-irinotecan-oxaliplatin) are new treatment options for metastatic pancreatic cancer, but they are also more expensive and potentially more toxic than gemcitabine alone (gem). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of these treatment options compared with gem. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to examine costs and outcomes of gem-cap, gem-e, folfirinox, and gem in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer from the perspective of a government health care plan. Ontario health economic and costing data (2010 Canadian dollars) were used. Efficacy data for the treatments were obtained from the published literature. Resource utilization data were derived from a chart review of consecutive metastatic patients treated for pancreatic cancer at Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, 2008-2009, and supplemented with data from the literature. Utilities were obtained by surveying medical oncologists across Canada using the EQ-5D. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (icers) were calculated. RESULTS: The icers for gem-cap, gem-e, and folfirinox compared with gem were, respectively, CA$84,299, CA$153,631, and CA$133,184 per quality-adjusted life year (qaly). The model was driven mostly by drug acquisition costs. Given a willingness-to-pay (wtp) threshold greater than CA$130,000/qaly, folfirinox was most cost-effective treatment. When the wtp threshold was less than CA$80,000/qaly, gem alone was most cost-effective. The gem-e option was dominated by the other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The most cost-effective treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer depends on the societal wtp threshold. If the societal wtp threshold were to be relatively high or if drug costs were to be substantially reduced, folfirinox might be cost-effective.
Authors: Thierry Conroy; Françoise Desseigne; Marc Ychou; Olivier Bouché; Rosine Guimbaud; Yves Bécouarn; Antoine Adenis; Jean-Luc Raoul; Sophie Gourgou-Bourgade; Christelle de la Fouchardière; Jaafar Bennouna; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Faiza Khemissa-Akouz; Denis Péré-Vergé; Catherine Delbaldo; Eric Assenat; Bruno Chauffert; Pierre Michel; Christine Montoto-Grillot; Michel Ducreux Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Philip A Philip; Jacqueline Benedetti; Christopher L Corless; Ralph Wong; Eileen M O'Reilly; Patrick J Flynn; Kendrith M Rowland; James N Atkins; Barry C Mirtsching; Saul E Rivkin; Alok A Khorana; Bryan Goldman; Cecilia M Fenoglio-Preiser; James L Abbruzzese; Charles D Blanke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-07-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hedy Lee Kindler; Donna Niedzwiecki; Donna Hollis; Susan Sutherland; Deborah Schrag; Herbert Hurwitz; Federico Innocenti; Mary Frances Mulcahy; Eileen O'Reilly; Timothy F Wozniak; Joel Picus; Pankaj Bhargava; Robert J Mayer; Richard L Schilsky; Richard M Goldberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-07-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Scott R Berry; Chaim M Bell; Peter A Ubel; William K Evans; Eric Nadler; Elizabeth L Strevel; Peter J Neumann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mahdi Gharaibeh; Ali McBride; David S Alberts; Marion Slack; Brian Erstad; Nimer Alsaid; J Lyle Bootman; Ivo Abraham Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Walid L Shaib; Amit Surya Narayan; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Sujata R Kane; Christina Wu; Mehmet Akce; Olatunji B Alese; Pretesh R Patel; Shishir K Maithel; Juan M Sarmiento; David A Kooby; Bassel F El-Rayes Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Daniel A Goldstein; Kavya Krishna; Christopher R Flowers; Bassel F El-Rayes; Tanios Bekaii-Saab; Anne M Noonan Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2016-04-11 Impact factor: 3.064