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

Huijuan Wang, Lingfei Huang, Peng Gao, Zhengyi Zhu, Weifeng Ye, Haiying Ding, Luo Fang, Huijuan Wang, Lingfei Huang, Peng Gao, Zhengyi Zhu, Weifeng Ye, Haiying Ding, Luo Fang

Abstract

Objectives: Cetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) is superior to FOLFOX-4 alone as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS wild-type (RAS wt mCRC), with significantly improved survival benefit by TAILOR, an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase III trial. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of these two regimens remains uncertain. The following study aims to determine whether cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is a cost-effective regimen for patients with specific RAS wt mCRC in China.

Design: A cost-effectiveness model combined decision tree and Markov model was built to simulate pateints with RAS wt mCRC based on health states of dead, progressive and stable. The health outcomes from the TAILOR trial and utilities from published data were used respectively. Costs were calculated with reference to the Chinese societal perspective. The robustness of the results was evaluated by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Participants: The included patients were newly diagnosed Chinese patients with fully RAS wt mCRC.

Interventions: First-line treatment with either cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 or FOLFOX-4.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes are costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results: Baseline analysis disclosed that the QALYs was increased by 0.383 caused by additional cetuximab, while an increase of US$62 947 was observed in relation to FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy. The ICER was US$164 044 per QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28 106 per QALY.

Conclusions: Despite the survival benefit, cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is not a cost-effective treatment for the first-line regime of patients with RAS wt mCRC in China.

Trial registration number: TAILOR trial (NCT01228734); Post-results.

Keywords: cetuximab; chemotherapy; cost-effectiveness; metastatic colorectal cancer.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The decision tree and Markov model used to simulate a hypothetical cohort of patients with RAS wt mCRC based on the TAILOR trial. Two groups were analysed: group 1, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab + FOLFOX-4; and group 2, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with FOLFOX-4. A Markov model comprised three health states (PFS, PD and death). FOLFOX, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil and leucovorin chemotherapy; mCRC, metastatic colorectal cancer; PD, progressive disease; PFS, progression-free survival; wt, wild-type.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Tornado diagrams of one-way sensitivity analyses. Tornado diagrams show the influence of factors on the Markov model of the two strategies in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. The factors are listed in descending order of their influence on ICER with variation in the factor values. ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; OS, overall survival; PD, progressive disease; PFS, progression-free survival.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis. (A) Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. The cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier shows the probability of strategies being cost-effective in two strategies. (B) Scatterplot of 1000 iterations of Monte Carlo simulations. FOLFOX, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil and leucovorin; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; WTP, willingness-to-pay

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. . Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394–424. 10.3322/caac.21492
    1. Chen W, Sun K, Zheng R, et al. . Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2014. Chin J Cancer Res 2018;30:1–12. 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2018.01.01
    1. Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Nordlinger B, et al. . Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2014;25 Suppl 3:iii1–9. 10.1093/annonc/mdu260
    1. Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, et al. . Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. The Lancet 2018;391:1023–75. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33326-3
    1. DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, et al. . Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:252–71. 10.3322/caac.21235
    1. Douillard JY, Cunningham D, Roth AD, et al. . Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. The Lancet 2000;355:1041–7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02034-1
    1. Van Cutsem E, Köhne C-H, Hitre E, et al. . Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1408–17. 10.1056/NEJMoa0805019
    1. Saltz LB, Clarke S, Díaz-Rubio E, et al. . Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study. JCO 2008;26:2013–9. 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.9930
    1. Ciardiello F, Tortora G. Egfr antagonists in cancer treatment. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1160–74. 10.1056/NEJMra0707704
    1. Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Makhson A, et al. . Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with and without cetuximab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. JCO 2009;27:663–71. 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.8397
    1. Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Hartmann JT, et al. . Efficacy according to biomarker status of cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: the OPUS study. Ann Oncol 2011;22:1535–46. 10.1093/annonc/mdq632
    1. Van Cutsem E, Köhne C-H, Láng I, et al. . Cetuximab Plus Irinotecan, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin As First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Updated Analysis of Overall Survival According to Tumor KRAS and BRAF Mutation Status. JCO 2011;29:2011–9. 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.5091
    1. Van Cutsem E, Lenz H-J, Köhne C-H, et al. . Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan Plus Cetuximab Treatment and RAS Mutations in Colorectal Cancer. JCO 2015;33:692–700. 10.1200/JCO.2014.59.4812
    1. Bokemeyer C, Köhne C-H, Ciardiello F, et al. . Folfox4 plus cetuximab treatment and Ras mutations in colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 2015;51:1243–52. 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.04.007
    1. Diagnosis And Treatment Guidelines For Colorectal Cancer Working Group CSOCOC, colorectal cancer working group C. Chinese Society of clinical oncology (CSCO) diagnosis and treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer 2018 (English version). Chin J Cancer Res 2019;31:117–34. 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2019.01.07
    1. Qin S, Li J, Wang L, et al. . Efficacy and tolerability of first-line cetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (folfox-4) versus folfox-4 in patients with ras wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: the open-label, randomized, phase iii tailor trial. JCO 2018;36:3031–9. 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.3183
    1. Diaby V, Adunlin G, Montero AJ. Survival modeling for the estimation of transition probabilities in model-based economic evaluations in the absence of individual patient data: a tutorial. Pharmacoeconomics 2014;32:101–8. 10.1007/s40273-013-0123-9
    1. Chouaid C, Luciani L, LeLay K, et al. . Cost-Effectiveness analysis of afatinib versus gefitinib for first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancers. J Thorac Oncol 2017;12:1496–502. 10.1016/j.jtho.2017.07.013
    1. Ramsey SD, Andersen MR, Etzioni R, et al. . Quality of life in survivors of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 2000;88:1294–303. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(20000315)88:6<1294::AID-CNCR4>;2-M
    1. Graham CN, Hechmati G, Hjelmgren J, et al. . 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. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:2791–801. 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.08.016
    1. Riesco-Martínez MC, Berry SR, Ko Y-J, et al. . Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Different Sequences of the Use of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors for Wild-Type KRAS Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. J Oncol Pract 2016;12:e710–23. 10.1200/JOP.2015.008730
    1. Murray CJL, Evans DB, Acharya A, et al. . Development of who guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2000;9:235–51. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200004)9:3<235::AID-HEC502>;2-O
    1. Elbasha EH, Messonnier ML. Cost-Effectiveness analysis and health care resource allocation: decision rules under variable returns to scale. Health Econ 2004;13:21–35. 10.1002/hec.793
    1. Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:479–500. 10.2165/00019053-200017050-00006
    1. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EAL, et al. . Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices Task force working Group-6. Med Decis Making 2012;32:722–32. 10.1177/0272989X12458348
    1. Behl AS, Goddard KAB, Flottemesch TJ, et al. . Cost-Effectiveness analysis of screening for KRAS and BRAF mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:1785–95. 10.1093/jnci/djs433
    1. Mittmann N, Au H-J, Tu D, et al. . Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: evaluation of national cancer Institute of Canada clinical Trials Group CO.17 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1182–92. 10.1093/jnci/djp232
    1. Huxley N, Crathorne L, Varley-Campbell J, et al. . 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. Health Technol Assess 2017;21:1–294. 10.3310/hta21380
    1. Wu B, Yao Y, Zhang K, et al. . Ras testing and cetuximab treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting with limited health resources. Oncotarget 2017;8:71164–72. 10.18632/oncotarget.17029

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever