Jacopo Giuliani1, Andrea Bonetti2. 1. Department of Oncology, Mater Salutis Hospital-Az. ULSS 9 Scaligera, Via Gianella 1-37045, Legnago, VR, Italy. giuliani.jacopo@alice.it. 2. Department of Oncology, Mater Salutis Hospital-Az. ULSS 9 Scaligera, Via Gianella 1-37045, Legnago, VR, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In light of the relevant expenses of pharmacological interventions, it might be interesting to make a balance between the cost of the new drugs administered and the added value represented by the improvement in progression free survival (PFS) in first-line for metastatic colorectal cancer CRC (mCRC). METHODS: Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared at least two first-line chemotherapy regimens for mCRC patients were evaluated. Differences in PFS between the different arms were compared with the pharmacological costs (at the pharmacy of our hospital). The European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) was applied to the above RCTs. RESULTS: Overall 28 phase III RCTs, including 19,958 patients, were analyzed. The FOLFOX resulted the least expensive (56 € per month of PFS gained) while the addition of irinotecan to FOLFOX (FOLFOXIRI) increased only marginally the costs (90 € per month of PFS gained). Treatments including the monoclonal antibodies showed a cost per month of PFS gained of 2823 € (FOLFIRI with cetuximab in KRAS wild-type patients and liver-only metastases), of € 15,822 (FOLFOX with panitumumab in KRAS wild type), and of 13,383 € (FOLFOX with bevacizumab). According to the ESMO-MCBS, the treatments including an EGFR-inhibitor (cetuximab or panitumumab) were associated with a score of 4, while the inclusion of bevacizumab reached a score of 3. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate a huge difference in cost per month of PFS gained in modern first-line treatments in mCRC.
PURPOSE: In light of the relevant expenses of pharmacological interventions, it might be interesting to make a balance between the cost of the new drugs administered and the added value represented by the improvement in progression free survival (PFS) in first-line for metastatic colorectal cancer CRC (mCRC). METHODS: Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared at least two first-line chemotherapy regimens for mCRC patients were evaluated. Differences in PFS between the different arms were compared with the pharmacological costs (at the pharmacy of our hospital). The European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) was applied to the above RCTs. RESULTS: Overall 28 phase III RCTs, including 19,958 patients, were analyzed. The FOLFOX resulted the least expensive (56 € per month of PFS gained) while the addition of irinotecan to FOLFOX (FOLFOXIRI) increased only marginally the costs (90 € per month of PFS gained). Treatments including the monoclonal antibodies showed a cost per month of PFS gained of 2823 € (FOLFIRI with cetuximab in KRAS wild-type patients and liver-only metastases), of € 15,822 (FOLFOX with panitumumab in KRAS wild type), and of 13,383 € (FOLFOX with bevacizumab). According to the ESMO-MCBS, the treatments including an EGFR-inhibitor (cetuximab or panitumumab) were associated with a score of 4, while the inclusion of bevacizumab reached a score of 3. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate a huge difference in cost per month of PFS gained in modern first-line treatments in mCRC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Costs of drugs; ESMO-MCBS; First-line therapy; Metastatic colorectal cancer; Randomized phase III trials
Authors: Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal; Andreas Schalhorn; Martina Stauch; Detlef Quietzsch; Peter A Maubach; Helmut Lambertz; Daniel Oruzio; Rudolf Schlag; Karin Weigang-Köhler; Ute Vehling-Kaiser; Manfred Schulze; Juergen Truckenbrodt; Mariele Goebeler; Johann Mittermüller; Daniel Bosse; Borika Szukics; Marc Grundeis; Thomas Zwingers; Clemens Giessen; Volker Heinemann Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: J Y Douillard; D Cunningham; A D Roth; M Navarro; R D James; P Karasek; P Jandik; T Iveson; J Carmichael; M Alakl; G Gruia; L Awad; P Rougier Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-03-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: C D Blanke; J Shultz; J Cox; M Modiano; R Isaacs; B Kasimis; R Schilsky; J Fleagle; M Moore; N Kemeny; D Carlin; L Hammershaimb; D Haller Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: A de Gramont; A Figer; M Seymour; M Homerin; A Hmissi; J Cassidy; C Boni; H Cortes-Funes; A Cervantes; G Freyer; D Papamichael; N Le Bail; C Louvet; D Hendler; F de Braud; C Wilson; F Morvan; A Bonetti Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard M Goldberg; Daniel J Sargent; Roscoe F Morton; Charles S Fuchs; Ramesh K Ramanathan; Stephen K Williamson; Brian P Findlay; Henry C Pitot; Steven R Alberts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Brigit Gruenberger; Dietmar Tamandl; Johannes Schueller; Werner Scheithauer; Christoph Zielinski; Friedrich Herbst; Thomas Gruenberger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-04-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jolien Tol; Miriam Koopman; Annemieke Cats; Cees J Rodenburg; Geert J M Creemers; Jolanda G Schrama; Frans L G Erdkamp; Allert H Vos; Cees J van Groeningen; Harm A M Sinnige; Dirk J Richel; Emile E Voest; Jeroen R Dijkstra; Marianne E Vink-Börger; Ninja F Antonini; Linda Mol; Johan H J M van Krieken; Otilia Dalesio; Cornelis J A Punt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-02-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J Souglakos; N Androulakis; K Syrigos; A Polyzos; N Ziras; A Athanasiadis; S Kakolyris; S Tsousis; Ch Kouroussis; L Vamvakas; A Kalykaki; G Samonis; D Mavroudis; V Georgoulias Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-03-27 Impact factor: 7.640