Literature DB >> 26418570

Cost-effectiveness of RAS screening before monoclonal antibodies therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer based on FIRE3 Study.

Feng Wen1,2,3, Yu Yang1,2,3, Pengfei Zhang1,2, Jian Zhang1,2, Jing Zhou1,2, Ruilei Tang1,2, Hongdou Chen1,2, Hanrui Zheng2,4, Ping Fu2,5, Qiu Li1,2.   

Abstract

The surprising results published by FIRE-3 revealed that the overall survival (OS) of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with Cetuximab(Cmab) and FOLFIRI combination was prolonged to 33.1 months. The substantial increase in testing and treatment costs, however, impose a considerable health burden on patients and society. Hence the study was aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of RAS screening before monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) therapy based on FIRE-3 study. Four groups were analyzed: group 1, patients with KRAS testing treated with Cmab and FOLFIRI; group 2, patients with RAS testing treated with Cmab and FOLFIRI; group 3, patients with KRAS testing treated with bevacizumab(Bmab) and FOLFIRI; group 4, patients with RAS testing treated with Bmab and FOLFIRI. A Markov model comprising 3 health states (progression-free survival, progressive disease and death) was built. The costs were calculated from a Chinese payer perspective, and survival was reported in quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs). Average total lifetime costs ranged from $104,682.44 (RAS-Bmab) to $136,867.44 (RAS-Cmab), while the survival gained varied from 16.88 QALMs in RAS-Bmab to 21.85 QALMs in RAS-Cmab. The cost per QALM was $6,263.86 for RAS-Cmab, $6,145.84 for KRAS-Bmab, $6,201.57 for RAS-Bmab and $6,960.70 for KRAS-Cmab respectively. The KRAS-Cmab strategy was dominated by the other 3 groups. The first-treatment cost of RAS-Cmab was the most influential one to the model. In all, the RAS screening prior to Cmab treatment in mCRC seems to be a cost-effective strategy in the time of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) therapy with the most gained QALMs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  RAS screening; cost-effectiveness; metastatic colorectal cancer; monoclonal antibodies chemotherapy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26418570      PMCID: PMC4846122          DOI: 10.1080/15384047.2015.1095398

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Biol Ther        ISSN: 1538-4047            Impact factor:   4.742


  20 in total

Review 1.  Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  C J Murray; D B Evans; A Acharya; R M Baltussen
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Cost-effectiveness analysis and health care resource allocation: decision rules under variable returns to scale.

Authors:  Elamin H Elbasha; Mark L Messonnier
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge?

Authors:  Hans-Georg Eichler; Sheldon X Kong; William C Gerth; Panagiotis Mavros; Bengt Jönsson
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  RAS mutations in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Jean-Yves Douillard; Alan Rong; Roger Sidhu
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a review.

Authors:  Jolien Tol; Cornelis J A Punt
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.393

6.  Continuation of bevacizumab after first progression in metastatic colorectal cancer (ML18147): a randomised phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Jaafar Bennouna; Javier Sastre; Dirk Arnold; Pia Österlund; Richard Greil; Eric Van Cutsem; Roger von Moos; Jose Maria Viéitez; Olivier Bouché; Christophe Borg; Claus-Christoph Steffens; Vicente Alonso-Orduña; Christoph Schlichting; Irmarie Reyes-Rivera; Belguendouz Bendahmane; Thierry André; Stefan Kubicka
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2012-11-16       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  KRAS and BRAF mutation analysis in metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from a Swiss perspective.

Authors:  Patricia R Blank; Holger Moch; Thomas D Szucs; Matthias Schwenkglenks
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 8.  Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer: numbers needed to test and treat.

Authors:  J Kievit
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 9.162

9.  FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Volker Heinemann; Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal; Thomas Decker; Alexander Kiani; Ursula Vehling-Kaiser; Salah-Eddin Al-Batran; Tobias Heintges; Christian Lerchenmüller; Christoph Kahl; Gernot Seipelt; Frank Kullmann; Martina Stauch; Werner Scheithauer; Jörg Hielscher; Michael Scholz; Sebastian Müller; Hartmut Link; Norbert Niederle; Andreas Rost; Heinz-Gert Höffkes; Markus Moehler; Reinhard U Lindig; Dominik P Modest; Lisa Rossius; Thomas Kirchner; Andreas Jung; Sebastian Stintzing
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 41.316

10.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Christopher N Graham; Guy Hechmati; Jonas Hjelmgren; Frédérique de Liège; Julie Lanier; Hediyyih Knox; Beth Barber
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 9.162

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Tumour heterogeneity: principles and practical consequences.

Authors:  Giorgio Stanta; Stephan Wenzel Jahn; Serena Bonin; Gerald Hoefler
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Economic Evaluation of Monoclonal Antibodies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Stavroula Koilakou; Panagiotis Petrou
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 4.074

3.  Economic Value of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Cancer Drugs with Clinically Relevant Drug-Gene Associations: A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Fahim Faruque; Heejung Noh; Arif Hussain; Edward Neuberger; Eberechukwu Onukwugha
Journal:  J Manag Care Spec Pharm       Date:  2019-02

4.  OPTIMAL and ENSURE trials-based combined cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib versus chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of Asian patients with non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Feng Wen; Hanrui Zheng; Pengfei Zhang; David Hutton; Qiu Li
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Consequences of Biomarker Analysis on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab in Combination with FOLFIRI as a First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Personalised Medicine at Work.

Authors:  Gerard Harty; James Jarrett; Mireia Jofre-Bonet
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.561

6.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line Cetuximab Plus Leucovorin, Fluorouracil, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) versus FOLFOX-4 in Patients with RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Liangliang Bai; Pengfei Zhang; Kexun Zhou; Weiting Liao; Qiu Li
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 3.989

7.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line FOLFIRI Combined With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab in Patients With RAS Wild-Type Left-Sided Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Jiaqi Han; Desheng Xiao; Chongqing Tan; Xiaohui Zeng; Huabin Hu; Shan Zeng; Qin Jiang; Longjiang She; Linli Yao; Li Li; Lanhua Tang; Jian Ma; Jin Huang; Liangfang Shen
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.302

8.  Do cancer biomarkers make targeted therapies cost-effective? A systematic review in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Mikyung Kelly Seo; John Cairns
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.