Literature DB >> 28682222

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (review of technology appraisal no. 176) and panitumumab (partial review of technology appraisal no. 240) for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Nicola Huxley1, Louise Crathorne1, Jo Varley-Campbell1, Irina Tikhonova1, Tristan Snowsill1, Simon Briscoe1, Jaime Peters1, Mary Bond1, Mark Napier2, Martin Hoyle1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast, lung and prostate cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually treated with active chemotherapy as first- or second-line therapy. Targeted agents are available, including the antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents cetuximab (Erbitux®, Merck Serono UK Ltd, Feltham, UK) and panitumumab (Vecitibix®, Amgen UK Ltd, Cambridge, UK).
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy and cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy for rat sarcoma (RAS) wild-type (WT) patients for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. DATA SOURCES: The assessment included a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, a review and critique of manufacturer submissions, and a de novo cohort-based economic analysis. For the assessment of effectiveness, a literature search was conducted up to 27 April 2015 in a range of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. REVIEW
METHODS: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of RCTs of cetuximab or panitumumab in participants with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS WT status. All steps in the review were performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Narrative synthesis and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted for outcomes of interest. An economic model was developed focusing on first-line treatment and using a 30-year time horizon to capture costs and benefits. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses and probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: The searches identified 2811 titles and abstracts, of which five clinical trials were included. Additional data from these trials were provided by the manufacturers. No data were available for panitumumab plus irinotecan-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + irinotecan) (FOLFIRI) in previously untreated patients. Studies reported results for RAS WT subgroups. First-line treatment with anti-EGFR therapies in combination with chemotherapy appeared to have statistically significant benefits for patients who are RAS WT. For the independent economic evaluation, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RAS WT patients for cetuximab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin) (FOLFOX) compared with FOLFOX was £104,205 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained; for panitumumab plus FOLFOX compared with FOLFOX was £204,103 per QALY gained; and for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI was £122,554 per QALY gained. The ICERs were sensitive to treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival (resected patients only) and resection rates. LIMITATIONS: The trials included RAS WT populations only as subgroups. No evidence was available for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI. Two networks were used for the NMA and model, based on the different chemotherapies (FOLFOX and FOLFIRI), as insufficient evidence was available to the assessment group to connect these networks.
CONCLUSIONS: Although cetuximab and panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy appear to be clinically beneficial for RAS WT patients compared with chemotherapy alone, they are likely to represent poor value for money when judged by cost-effectiveness criteria currently used in the UK. It would be useful to conduct a RCT in patients with RAS WT. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016111. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28682222      PMCID: PMC5512008          DOI: 10.3310/hta21380

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Technol Assess        ISSN: 1366-5278            Impact factor:   4.014


  12 in total

1.  Economic Analysis of First-Line Treatment with Cetuximab or Panitumumab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in England.

Authors:  Irina A Tikhonova; Nicola Huxley; Tristan Snowsill; Louise Crathorne; Jo Varley-Campbell; Mark Napier; Martin Hoyle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  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

3.  Is Improved Survival in Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer Worth the Extra Cost at High-Volume Centers?

Authors:  Lauren M Perry; Sarah B Bateni; Richard J Bold; Jeffrey S Hoch
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 6.113

4.  A Patient-Centered Utility Index for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States.

Authors:  J Shannon Swan; Inga T Lennes; Natalie N Stump; Jennifer S Temel; David Wang; Lisa Keller; Karen Donelan
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2018-10-15

5.  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

6.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab combined with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer based on the TAILOR trial.

Authors:  Huijuan Wang; Lingfei Huang; Peng Gao; Zhengyi Zhu; Weifeng Ye; Haiying Ding; Luo Fang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Therapy Versus Bevacizumab in KRAS Wild-Type (WT), Pan-RAS WT, and Pan-RAS WT Left-Sided Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Shing Fung Lee; Horace C W Choi; Sik Kwan Chan; Ka On Lam; Victor H F Lee; Irene O L Wong; Chi Leung Chiang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 6.244

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

9.  Molecular profile in Paraguayan colorectal cancer patients, towards to a precision medicine strategy.

Authors:  Tania Fleitas-Kanonnikoff; Carolina Martinez-Ciarpaglini; Josefina Ayala; Cinthia Gauna; Rita Denis; Ita Yoffe; Silvia Sforza; María Teresa Martínez; Alicia Pomata; Maider Ibarrola-Villava; Sipan Arevshatyan; Verónica Burriel; Diego Boscá; Oscar Pastor; Ana Ferrer-Martinez; Francisca Carrasco; Cristina Mongort; Samuel Navarro; Gloria Ribas; Andres Cervantes
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 4.452

10.  Epidemiology characteristics of ethnic minority colorectal cancer in Yunnan in Southwestern China.

Authors:  Shaoxiang Wan; Qi Tang; Daying Feng; Zaoxiu Hu; Weiqing Shao; Yajuan Chen
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 0.496

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.