Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jul;95(27):e3762.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003762.

Economic evaluation study (CHEER-compliant): Cost-effectiveness analysis of RAS screening for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer based on the CALGB 80405 trial

Affiliations

Economic evaluation study (CHEER-compliant): Cost-effectiveness analysis of RAS screening for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer based on the CALGB 80405 trial

Jing Zhou et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jul.

Abstract

Cetuximab (Cetux)/Bevacizumab (Bev) treatments have shown considerably survival benefits for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the last decade. But they are costly. Currently, no data is available on the health economic implications of testing for extended RAS wild-type (wt) prior to Cetux/Bev treatments of patients with mCRC. This paper aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of predictive testing for extended RAS-wt status in mCRC in the context of targeting the use of Cetux/Bev.Markov model 1 was conducted to provide evidence evaluating the cost-effectiveness of predictive testing for KRAS-wt or extended RAS-wt status based on treatments of chemotherapy plus Cetux/Bev. Markov model 2 assessed the cost-effectiveness of FOLFOX plus Cetux/Bev or FOLFIRI plus Cetux/Bev in extended RAS-wt population. Primary base case data were identified from the CALGB 80405 trial and the literatures. Costs were estimated from West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China. Survival benefits were reported in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated.In analysis 1, the cost per QALY was $88,394.09 for KRAS-Cetux, $80,797.82 for KRAS-Bev, $82,590.72 for RAS-Cetux, and $75,358.42 for RAS-Bev. The ICER for RAS-Cetux versus RAS-Bev was $420,700.50 per QALY gained. In analysis 2, the cost per QALY was $81,572.61, $80,856.50, $80,592.22, and $66,794.96 for FOLFOX-Cetux, FOLFOX-Bev, FOLFIRI-Cetux, and FOLFIRI-Bev, respectively. The analyses showed that the extended RAS-wt testing was less costly and more effective versus KRAS-wt testing before chemotherapy plus Cetux/Bev. Furthermore, FOLFIRI plus Bev was the most cost-effective strategy compared with others in extended RAS-wt population.It was economically favorable to identify patients with extended RAS-wt status. Furthermore, FOLFIRI plus Bev was the preferred strategy in extended RAS-wt patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of the Markov models. Simulation represents the transitions of the hypothetical cohorts through various health states from commencement of Stable Disease to Death. Bev = Bevacizumab, Cetux = Cetuximab, FOLFIRI = irinotecan, leucovorin, fluorouracil, FOLFOX = oxaliplatin, leucovorin, fluorouracil, mCRC = metastatic colorectal cancer.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cost-effectiveness plane. Bev = Bevacizumab, Cetux = Cetuximab, FOLFIRI = irinotecan, leucovorin, fluorouracil, FOLFOX = oxaliplatin, leucovorin, fluorouracil, QALM = quality-adjusted life-month. dominated, defines a strategy that is either more costly and/or less effective than at least one other strategy.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Tornado diagrams of 1-way sensitivity analyses. Bev = Bevacizumab, Cetux = Cetuximab, FOLFIRI = irinotecan, leucovorin, fluorouracil, FOLFOX = oxaliplatin, leucovorin, fluorouracil, ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, p = transition probability, PD = progressive disease, SD = stable disease, QALY = quality-adjusted life-years.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Winder T, Lenz HJ. Vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor signaling pathways as therapeutic targets for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2010; 138:2163–2176. - PubMed
    1. Parks R, Gonen M, Kemeny N, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases: analysis of data from two continents. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204:753–761. - PubMed
    1. Kopetz S, Chang GJ, Overman MJ, et al. Improved survival in metastatic colorectal cancer is associated with adoption of hepatic resection and improved chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:3677–3683. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ferrara N, Gerber HP, LeCouter J. The biology of VEGF and its receptors. Nat Med 2003; 9:669–676. - PubMed
    1. Welch S, Spithoff K, Rumble RB, et al. Grp GCDS. Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy for patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol 2010; 21:1152–1162. - PubMed

MeSH terms