Cost-effectiveness analysis of KRAS testing and cetuximab as last-line therapy for colorectal cancer

Cost-Effectiveness and the Economics of Genomic Testing and Molecularly Matched Therapies

Cost-effectiveness analysis of precision oncology can help guide value-driven care. Next-generation sequencing is increasingly cost-efficient over single gene testing because diagnostic algorithms require multiple individual gene tests to determine biomarker status. Matched targeted therapy is often not cost-effective due to the high cost associated with drug treatment. However, genomic profiling can promote cost-effective care by identifying patients who are unlikely to benefit from therapy. Additional applications of genomic profiling such as universal testing for hereditary cancer syndromes and germline testing in patients with cancer may represent cost-effective approaches compared with traditional history-based diagnostic methods.

Real-World Cost Effectiveness of a Policy of KRAS Testing to Inform Cetuximab or Panitumumab for Third-Line Therapy of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND

Cetuximab and panitumumab, two anti-EGFR therapies, are widely used for third-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with wild-type KRAS, but there remains uncertainty around their cost effectiveness. The objective of this analysis was to conduct a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of the policy change introducing KRAS testing and third-line anti-EGFR therapy mCRC in British Columbia (BC), Canada.

METHODS

We conducted secondary analysis of administrative data for a cohort of mCRC patients treated in BC in 2006-2015. Patients potentially eligible for KRAS testing and third-line therapy after the policy change (July 2009) were matched 2:1 to pre-policy patients using genetic matching on propensity score and baseline covariates. Costs and survival time were calculated over an 8-year time horizon, with bootstrapping to characterize uncertainty around endpoints. Cost effectiveness was expressed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and the probability of cost effectiveness at a range of thresholds.

RESULTS

The cohort included 1757 mCRC patients (n = 456 pre-policy and n = 1304 post-policy; of those, n = 420 received cetuximab or panitumumab). There was a significant increase in survival and cost following the policy change. Adoption of KRAS testing and anti-EGFR therapy had an ICER of CA$73,759 per life-year gained (LYG) (95% CI 46,133-186,446). In scenario analysis, a reduction in cetuximab and panitumumab cost of at least 50% was required to make the policy change cost effective at a threshold of CA$50,000/LYG.

CONCLUSION

A policy of third-line anti-EGFR therapy informed by KRAS testing may be considered cost effective at thresholds above CA$70,000/LYG. Reduction in drug costs, through price discounts or potential future biosimilars, would make anti-EGFR therapy considerably more cost effective. By using real-world data for a large cohort with long follow-up we can assess the value of a policy of KRAS testing and anti-EGFR therapy achieved in practice.

Evaluating the quality of the economic evidence in colorectal cancer genomics studies

The increase in the use of genome-based screening and diagnostic tests adds to the overall costs of oncologic care for colorectal cancer. This, in turn, has resulted in an increase in published economic analyses. Aim: To perform a systematic literature review of the available economic evidence evaluating the value of genomic testing for colorectal cancer and appraise the quality of the economic studies conducted to date. Methods: A systematic review of the literature for economic studies of colorectal cancer genomics from January 2006 through October 2020, and evaluation of study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was conducted. The validated QHES was then applied to a final set of articles that met eligibility criteria. Results: Our search of the literature initially yielded 12,859 records. A final set of 49 articles met our inclusion criteria. The QHES score ranged from 24 to 100, with an average score of 82. Most of the studies (n = 40, 82%) scored above 75 and were considered of good quality. Conclusion: Our analysis revealed that most of the economic analyses of colorectal cancer genomic molecular diagnostics in the literature may be of good quality. There is, however, some variation in methodological rigor between the articles.

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Palliative Care for Terminal Cancer Patients in a Japanese General Hospital

Background: The concept of cost-effectiveness is necessary for optimal utilization of limited health care resources. However, few studies have assessed the cost-effectiveness of palliative care using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), considered common outcomes in health economics. Objective: We aimed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of palliative care for terminal cancer patients by using QALYs. Design: A retrospective cohort study was performed. Setting/Patients: We included 401 patients with stage IV cancer, who were hospitalized and died at a Japanese general hospital during the period April 2014 to March 2019. Methods: Using the hospital database, we compared the total admission costs and QALYs based on pain levels of patients admitted to the palliative care (PC) department with those of patients admitted to other usual care (UC) departments. Patients in each group were matched through propensity scores to reduce bias. Bootstrapping estimated the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and the probability that PC was more cost-effective than UC. Results: After matching, 128 patients in each group were selected. Converting 1 U.S. dollar (USD) to 100 Japanese yen, PC reduced mean total admission costs by 1732 USD (95% CI: 1584-1879) and improved mean health benefits by 0.0028 QALYs (95% CI: 0.0025-0.0032) compared with UC. Based on the Japanese cost-effectiveness threshold, there was an 82% probability that PC was more cost-effective than UC. Conclusions: Our results indicated that admission of terminal cancer patients to the PC department was associated with improvement in cost-effectiveness. This finding could support the introduction of palliative care for terminal cancer patients. Our study was approved at St. Luke's International University (receipt number 18-R061 and at the Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The Univesity of Tokyo (receipt number 31-29).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tisagenlecleucel for the Treatment of Pediatric and Young Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory B Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Japan

Until recently, treatment options were relatively limited for children and young adults with relapsed or refractory (r/r) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) immunotherapy with promising efficacy and manageable safety that was approved in Japan in 2019 for the treatment of CD19-positive r/r B cell ALL (B-ALL). However, there is no publication assessing the cost-effectiveness of CAR-T in Japan. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a tisagenlecleucel treatment strategy compared to a blinatumomab treatment strategy and a clofarabine combination treatment strategy (i.e., clofarabine + cyclophosphamide + etoposide) in Japan for pediatric and young adult patients up to 25 years of age with r/r B-ALL. A partitioned survival model with a lifetime horizon and monthly cycle was constructed from a Japanese public healthcare payer's perspective. Patients were distributed across the following partitioned health states: event-free survival (EFS), progressive disease, and death, which were informed by the EFS and overall survival (OS) data of respective clinical trials before year 5. For the tisagenlecleucel arm, a decision-tree structure was used to partition patients based on the infusion status; those who discontinued prior to receiving infusion were assigned efficacy and cost inputs of blinatumomab and those who received infusion were assigned efficacy and costs inputs based on tisagenlecleucel-infused patients. As trial data for blinatumomab and clofarabine ended before year 5, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were used to extrapolate OS between the end of trial observation and up to year 5. All surviving patients followed the mortality risk of long-term ALL survivors without additional risk of disease relapse after year 5, regardless of initial treatment strategies. The model accounted for pretreatment costs, treatment costs, adverse event costs, follow-up costs, subsequent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation costs, and terminal care costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-years (LYs) gained and ICERs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were evaluated using a 2% discount rate, and a threshold of ¥7.5 million was used to assess cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The total LYs (discounted) for tisagenlecleucel, blinatumomab, and clofarabine combination treatment strategies were 13.3, 4.0, and 2.7 years, respectively; the corresponding QALYs were 11.6, 3.1, and 2.1 years, respectively. The ICERs per QALY gained for tisagenlecleucel were ¥2,035,071 versus blinatumomab and ¥2,644,702 versus clofarabine combination therapy. Extensive sensitivity analyses supported the findings. Tisagenlecleucel is a cost-effective treatment strategy for pediatric and young adult patients with r/r B-ALL from a Japanese public healthcare payer's perspective.

Health Economic Models for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Methodological Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive and detailed review of structural and methodological assumptions in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of systemic metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatments, and discuss their potential impact on health economic outcome estimates.

METHODS

Five databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment and National Health Service Health Economic Evaluation Database) were searched on 26 August 2019 for model-based full health economic evaluations of systemic mCRC treatment using a combination of free-text terms and subject headings. Full-text publications in English were eligible for inclusion if they were published in or after the year 2000. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of included publications. Study selection, appraisal and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1418 publications, of which 54 were included, representing 51 unique studies. Most studies focused on first-line treatment (n = 29, 57%), followed by third-line treatment (n = 13, 25%). Model structures were health-state driven (n = 27, 53%), treatment driven (n = 19, 37%), or a combination (n = 5, 10%). Cohort-level state-transition modelling (STM) was the most common technique (n = 33, 65%), followed by patient-level STM and partitioned survival analysis (both n = 6, 12%). Only 15 studies (29%) reported some sort of model validation. Health economic outcomes for specific strategies differed substantially between studies. For example, survival following first-line treatment with fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin ranged from 1.21 to 7.33 years, with treatment costs ranging from US$8125 to US$126,606.

CONCLUSIONS

Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of systemic mCRC treatments have adopted varied modelling methods and structures, resulting in substantially different outcomes. As models generally focus on first-line treatment without consideration of downstream treatments, there is a profound source of structural uncertainty implying that the cost-effectiveness of treatments across the mCRC pathway remains uncertain.

Cost-Effectiveness of RAS Genetic Testing Strategies in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have proved beneficial for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), particularly when combined with predictive biomarkers of response. International guidelines recommend anti-EGFR therapy only for RAS (NRAS,KRAS) wild-type tumors because tumors with RAS mutations are unlikely to benefit.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to review the cost-effectiveness of RAS testing in mCRC patients before anti-EGFR therapy and to assess how well economic evaluations adhere to guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic review of full economic evaluations comparing RAS testing with no testing was performed for articles published in English between 2000 and 2018. Study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies scale, and the British Medical Journal and the Philips checklists.

RESULTS

Six economic evaluations (2 cost-effectiveness analyses, 2 cost-utility analyses, and 2 combined cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses) were included. All studies were of good quality and adopted the perspective of the healthcare system/payer; accordingly, only direct medical costs were considered. Four studies presented testing strategies with a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio under the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (£20 000-£30 000/QALY) and the US ($50 000-$100 000/QALY) thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing mCRC patients for RAS status and administering EGFR inhibitors only to patients with RAS wild-type tumors is a more cost-effective strategy than treating all patients without testing. The treatment of mCRC is becoming more personalized, which is essential to avoid inappropriate therapy and unnecessarily high healthcare costs. Future economic assessments should take into account other parameters that reflect the real world (eg, NRAS mutation analysis, toxicity of biological agents, genetic test sensitivity and specificity).

Molecular biomarkers and precision medicine in colorectal cancer: a systematic review of health economic analyses

An increased understanding of the biology of colorectal cancer (CRC) has fuelled identification of biomarkers with potential to drive a stratified precision medicine care approach in this common malignancy.

We conducted a systematic review of health economic assessments of molecular biomarkers (MBMs) and their employment in patient stratification in CRC. Our analysis revealed scenarios where health economic analyses have been applied to evaluate the cost effectiveness of MBM-guided clinical interventions: (i) evaluation of Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene (DPYD) status to identify patients susceptible to 5-Fluouracil toxicity; (ii) determination of Uridine 5′-diphospho- glucuronosyltransferase family 1 member A1 gene (UGT1A1) polymorphism status to help guide irinotecan treatment; (iii) assessment of RAS/RAF mutational status to stratify patients for chemotherapy or Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) therapy and (iv) multigene expression analysis (Oncotype Dx) to identify and spare non-responders the debilitating effects of particular chemotherapy interventions.

Our findings indicate that Oncotype Dx is cost-effective in high income settings within specific price points, by limiting treatment toxicity in CRC patients. DPYD status testing may also be cost effective in certain settings to avoid specific 5-FU toxicities post treatment. In contrast, current research does not support UGT1A1 polymorphism status as a cost-effective guide to irinotecan dosing, while the health economic evidence to support testing of KRAS/NRAS mutational status and chemo/EGFR therapy choice was inconclusive, despite its widespread adoption in CRC treatment management. However, we also show that there is a paucity of high-quality cost-effectiveness studies to support clinical application of precision medicine approaches in CRC.

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

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenetic testing can provide predictive insights about the efficacy and safety of drugs used in cancer treatment. Although many drug-gene associations have been reported in the literature, the strength of evidence supporting each association can vary significantly. Even among the subgroup of drugs classified by the PharmGKB database to have a high or moderate level of evidence, there is limited information regarding the economic value of pharmacogenetic testing.

OBJECTIVES

To: (a) summarize the available pharmacoeconomic evidence assessing the value of pharmacogenetic testing for cancer drugs with clinically relevant drug-gene associations; (b) determine the quality of the studies that contain this evidence; and (c) discuss the quality of this evidence with respect to the level of evidence of the drug-gene associations.

METHODS

The PharmGKB database was used to identify cancer drugs with clinically relevant drug-gene associations graded high (1A, 1B) or moderate (2A, 2B). A systematic literature review was conducted using these drugs. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched to identify cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization studies comparing pharmacogenetic testing to an alternative. Cost and effect values from every relevant comparison within the studies were extracted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was either extracted or calculated for each comparison. Quality assessment was conducted for each study using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the data.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2,191 citations, of which 35 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pharmacoeconomic studies were available for the following drugs from the PharmGKB database: fluoropyrimidine, 6-mercaptopurine, irinotecan, carboplatin, cisplatin, erlotinib, gefitinib, cetuximab, panitumumab, and trastuzumab. The studies were conducted in Asia, Europe, Canada, the United States, and Mexico and reported cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and cost-minimization outcomes. The mean QHES score was 80 (SD = 22) for the studies of drug-gene pairs with high (1A, 1B) and moderate (2A, 2B) levels of evidence (1A = 82, 1B = 93, 2A = 71, and 2B = 74). There was variation across studies in terms of reporting. 109 relevant comparisons were identified within the studies. Of those that reported cost per life-year or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (n = 58 comparisons), pharmacogenetic testing was dominant in 21% overall and 42%, 21%, 17%, and 5% of the comparisons in Asia, Europe, Canada, and the United States, respectively. Variability was observed in the ICER values regardless of geographic region or drug. Pharmacogenetic testing was cost saving in 17 of 19 cost-minimization comparisons and was favored most frequently when compared with genetically indiscriminate strategies containing the drug of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

There was mixed evidence regarding the value of pharmacogenetic testing to guide cancer treatment. For future pharmacogenomic-related economic studies, we recommend prioritizing clinically relevant drug-gene associations and greater adherence to available best practice guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation studies.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this review. Part of Hussain's research time was supported by a Merit Review Award (I01 BX000545), Medical Research Service, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Hussain also reports personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, and France Foundation, outside the submitted work. Onukwugha reports grants from Pfizer and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, along with advisory board fees from Novo Nordisk, outside the submitted work. Faruque, Neuberger, and Noh have nothing to disclose.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab, and Panitumumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The last decade has seen the increasing use of biological medicines in combination with chemotherapy containing 5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin or irinotecan for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). These combinations have resulted in increased progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with mCRC; however, there are remaining concerns over the extent of their effect on overall survival (OS). Published studies to date suggest no major differences between the three currently available monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs); however, there are differences in costs. In addition, there is rising litigation in Brazil in order to access these medicines as they are currently not reimbursed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to investigate the comparative effectiveness and safety of three MoAbs (bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab) associated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens and compared to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy alone in patients with mCRC, through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of concurrent or non-concurrent observational cohort studies, to guide authorities and the judiciary.

METHOD

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on cohort studies published in databases up to November 2017. Effectiveness measures included OS, PFS, post-progression survival (PPS), Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), response rate, metastasectomy and safety. The methodological quality of the studies was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 21 observational cohort studies were included. There were statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits in patients treated with bevacizumab versus no bevacizumab mainly around OS, PFS, PPS and the metastasectomy rate, but not for the disease control rates. However, there was an increase in treatment-related toxicities and concerns with the heterogeneity of the studies.

CONCLUSION

The results pointed to an advantage in favor of bevacizumab for OS, PFS, PPS, and metastasectomy. Although this advantage may be considered clinically modest, bevacizumab represents a hope for increased survival and a chance of metastasectomy for patients with mCRC. However, there are serious adverse events associated with its use, especially severe hypertension and gastrointestinal perforation, that need to be considered.

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

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in targeted therapies have raised expectations that the clinical application of biomarkers would improve patient's health outcomes and potentially save costs. However, the cost-effectiveness of biomarkers remains unclear irrespective of the cost-effectiveness of corresponding therapies. It is thus important to determine whether biomarkers for targeted therapies provide good value for money. This study systematically reviews economic evaluations of biomarkers for targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and assesses the cost-effectiveness of predictive biomarkers in mCRC.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, EconLit, NHSEED. Papers published from 2000 until June 2018 were searched. All economic evaluations assessing biomarker-guided therapies with companion diagnostics in mCRC were searched. To make studies more comparable, cost-effectiveness results were synthesized as per biomarker tests and corresponding therapies. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

RESULTS

Forty-six studies were included in this review. Of these, 17 studies evaluated the intrinsic value of cancer biomarkers, whereas the remaining studies focused on assessing the cost-effectiveness of corresponding drugs. Most studies indicated favourable cost-effectiveness of biomarkers for targeted therapies in mCRC. Some studies reported that biomarkers were cost-effective, while their corresponding therapies were not cost-effective. A considerable number of economic evaluations were conducted in pre-defined genetic populations and thus, often failed to fully capture the biomarker's clinical and economic values. The average QHES score was 73.6.

CONCLUSION

Cancer biomarkers for targeted therapies in mCRC were mostly found to be cost-effective; otherwise, they at least improved the cost-effectiveness of targeted therapies by saving some costs. However, this did not necessarily make their corresponding therapies cost-effective. While companion biomarkers reduced therapy costs, the savings were not sufficient to make the corresponding agents cost-effective. Evaluation of biomarkers was often restricted to the cost of tests and did not consider their clinical values or biomarker prevalence.

RAS testing and cetuximab treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting with limited health resources

PURPOSE

To test the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) from a Chinese medical insurance perspective.

RESULTS

Baseline analysis showed that the addition of cetuximab increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by 0.63, an increase of $17,086 relative to FOLFIRI chemotherapy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,145/QALY. When the patient assistance program (PAP) was available, the ICER decreased to $14,049/QALY, which indicated that the cetuximab is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of China ($22,200/QALY). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the median overall survival time for the cetuximab was the most influential parameter.

METHODS

A Markov model by incorporating clinical, utility and cost data was developed to evaluate the economic outcome of cetuximab in mCRC. The lifetime horizon was used, and sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the robustness of the model results. The impact of PAP was also evaluated in scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

RAS testing with cetuximab treatment is likely to be cost-effective for patients with mCRC when PAP is available in China.

Comparison of cost-effectiveness of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet for treating advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer

Regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet regimens are standard third-line or later treatments for advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer with no significant difference in efficacy. The present study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of using regorafenib vs. the trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet. The expected cost was calculated based on data from patients with advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer who were treated with regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet. The median survival time (MST) from the CORRECT and the RECOURSE study was used to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of the regimens. The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated from the expected cost and MST for the two regimens. The expected cost per patient for the regorafenib and the trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet regimen was ¥705,330.3 and ¥371,198.7, respectively, and the cost-effectiveness ratio was ¥110,207.9/MST and ¥52,281.5/MST, respectively. In conclusion, the findings of the present study demonstrated that the trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet regimen is more cost-effective compared with the regorafenib regimen.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomic and Pharmacogenetic Test-Guided Personalized Therapies: A Systematic Review of the Approved Active Substances for Personalized Medicine in Germany

BACKGROUND

The use of targeted therapies has recently increased. Pharmacogenetic tests are a useful tool to guide patient treatment and to test a response before administering medicines. Pharmacogenetic tests can predict potential drug resistance and may be used for determining genotype-based drug dosage. However, their cost-effectiveness as a diagnostic tool is often debatable. In Germany, 47 active ingredients are currently approved. A prior predictive test is required for 39 of these and is recommended for eight. The objective of this study was to review the cost-effectiveness (CE) of pharmacogenetic test-guided drug therapy and compare the application of drugs with and without prior genetic testing.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify the CE and cost-utility of genetic tests. Studies from January 2000 until November 2015 were searched in 16 databases including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane. A quality assessment of the full-text publications was performed using the validated Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

RESULTS

In the majority of the included studies, the pharmacogenetic test-guided therapy represents a cost-effective/cost-saving treatment option. Only seven studies lacked a clear statement of CE or cost-savings, because of uncertainty, restriction to specific patient populations, or assumptions for comparative therapy. Moreover, the high quality of the available evidence was evaluated.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacogenetic testing constitutes an opportunity to improve the CE of pharmacotherapy. The CE of targeted therapies depends on various factors including costs, prevalence of biomarkers, and test sensitivity and specificity. To guarantee the CE comparability of stratified drug therapies, national and international standards for evaluation studies should be defined.

Economic Evaluation in Stratified Medicine: Methodological Issues and Challenges

BACKGROUND

Stratified Medicine (SM) is becoming a practical reality with the targeting of medicines by using a biomarker or genetic-based diagnostic to identify the eligible patient sub-population. Like any healthcare intervention, SM interventions have costs and consequences that must be considered by reimbursement authorities with limited resources. Methodological standards and guidelines exist for economic evaluations in clinical pharmacology and are an important component for health technology assessments (HTAs) in many countries. However, these guidelines have initially been developed for traditional pharmaceuticals and not for complex interventions with multiple components. This raises the issue as to whether these guidelines are adequate to SM interventions or whether new specific guidance and methodology is needed to avoid inconsistencies and contradictory findings when assessing economic value in SM.

OBJECTIVE

This article describes specific methodological challenges when conducting health economic (HE) evaluations for SM interventions and outlines potential modifications necessary to existing evaluation guidelines /principles that would promote consistent economic evaluations for SM.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Specific methodological aspects for SM comprise considerations on the choice of comparator, measuring effectiveness and outcomes, appropriate modeling structure and the scope of sensitivity analyses. Although current HE methodology can be applied for SM, greater complexity requires further methodology development and modifications in the guidelines.

A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Biomarkers

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic biomarkers have multiple applications along the care process and have a large potential in optimizing treatment decisions. However, many diagnostic biomarkers struggle to gain market access and obtain appropriate coverage because of a lack of evidence on their health economic impact.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to review the (methodological) characteristics of recent economic evaluations on diagnostic biomarkers and examine whether these studies dealt with specific issues such as different payer perspectives, preference heterogeneity, and multiple applications in subpopulations.

METHODS

The PubMed database and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched. Full economic evaluations published after 2009 assessing diagnostic biomarkers for the main non-communicable diseases in middle-income or high-income countries were considered eligible. Empirical and methodological study characteristics were summarized, as was the handling of specific issues related to the economic evaluation of personalized medicine.

RESULTS

Thirty-three economic evaluations were included, of which 25 were model-based analyses. The number of strategies compared ranged from two to 17 per study, and was especially large in studies assessing genetic testing in patients and their relatives. Cost-effectiveness results were most sensitive to test accuracy and costs of the biomarker (N = 7), the relative risk of an event (N = 4), and the proportion of people accepting genetic testing (N = 2). One study incorporated patient preferences, and none of the studies considered different payer perspectives, cost sharing arrangements or variable opportunity costs due to population density variability.

CONCLUSIONS

Published health economic evaluations of biomarkers used for diagnosing, staging diseases, and guiding treatment selection are characterized by a large number of comparators to model the potential clinical applications and to determine their value. Assessing outcomes beyond health as well as specific issues, such as different payer perspectives and patient preferences, is crucial to fully capture the potential health economic impact of diagnostic biomarkers and to inform value-based reimbursement.

Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature

Objective

Due to extended application of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic screening (PGx) tests it is important to assess whether they provide good value for money. This review provides an update of the literature.

Methods

A literature search was performed in PubMed and papers published between August 2010 and September 2014, investigating the cost-effectiveness of PGx screening tests, were included. Papers from 2000 until July 2010 were included via two previous systematic reviews. Studies’ overall quality was assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

Results

We found 38 studies, which combined with the previous 42 studies resulted in a total of 80 included studies. An average QHES score of 76 was found. Since 2010, more studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most recent studies performed cost-utility analysis, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and discussed limitations of their economic evaluations. Most studies indicated favorable cost-effectiveness. Majority of evaluations did not provide information regarding the intrinsic value of the PGx test. There were considerable differences in the costs for PGx testing. Reporting of the direction and magnitude of bias on the cost-effectiveness estimates as well as motivation for the chosen economic model and perspective were frequently missing.

Conclusions

Application of PGx tests was mostly found to be a cost-effective or cost-saving strategy. We found that only the minority of recent pharmacoeconomic evaluations assessed the intrinsic value of the PGx tests. There was an increase in the number of studies and in the reporting of quality associated characteristics. To improve future evaluations, scenario analysis including a broad range of PGx tests costs and equal costs of comparator drugs to assess the intrinsic value of the PGx tests, are recommended. In addition, robust clinical evidence regarding PGx tests’ efficacy remains of utmost importance.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Regorafenib is a standard-care option for treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer that increases median overall survival by 6 weeks compared with placebo. Given this small incremental clinical benefit, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib in the third-line setting for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to compare the cost and effectiveness of regorafenib with those of placebo in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates in 2014. Model robustness was addressed in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Regorafenib provided an additional 0.04 QALYs (0.13 life-years) at a cost of $40,000, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $900,000 per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for regorafenib was > $550,000 per QALY in all of our univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Regorafenib provides minimal incremental benefit at high incremental cost per QALY in the third-line management of metastatic colorectal cancer. The cost-effectiveness of regorafenib could be improved by the use of value-based pricing.

Pharmacogenomics of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal carcinoma

Cetuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Knowledge of the mechanisms that underlie its effectiveness, as well as the primary and secondary resistance mechanisms, have led to important developments in the understanding of cetuximab biology. In light of knowledge gained from recent trials, the efficacy of cetuximab has been clearly demonstrated to depend upon RAS mutational status, moreover cetuximab should only be used in a subset of patients who may benefit. In this article, we critically review clinical and pharmacogenetic issues of cetuximab, focusing on the cost-effectiveness involved with the use of the drug.

KRAS mutation testing of tumours in adults with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Bowel cancer is the third most common cancer in the UK. Most bowel cancers are initially treated with surgery, but around 17% spread to the liver. When this happens, sometimes the liver tumour can be treated surgically, or chemotherapy may be used to shrink the tumour to make surgery possible. Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene (KRAS) mutations make some tumours less responsive to treatment with biological therapies such as cetuximab. There are a variety of tests available to detect these mutations. These vary in the specific mutations that they detect, the amount of mutation they detect, the amount of tumour cells needed, the time to give a result, the error rate and cost.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the performance and cost-effectiveness of KRAS mutation tests in differentiating adults with metastatic colorectal cancer whose metastases are confined to the liver and are unresectable and who may benefit from first-line treatment with cetuximab in combination with standard chemotherapy from those who should receive standard chemotherapy alone.

DATA SOURCES

Thirteen databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, research registers and conference proceedings were searched to January 2013. Additional data were obtained from an online survey of laboratories participating in the UK National External Quality Assurance Scheme pilot for KRAS mutation testing.

METHODS

A systematic review of the evidence was carried out using standard methods. Randomised controlled trials were assessed for quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Diagnostic accuracy studies were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. There were insufficient data for meta-analysis. For accuracy studies we calculated sensitivity and specificity together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Survival data were summarised as hazard ratios and tumour response data were summarised as relative risks, with 95% CIs. The health economic analysis considered the long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with different tests followed by treatment with standard chemotherapy or cetuximab plus standard chemotherapy. The analysis took a 'no comparator' approach, which implies that the cost-effectiveness of each strategy will be presented only compared with the next most cost-effective strategy. The de novo model consisted of a decision tree and Markov model.

RESULTS

The online survey indicated no differences between tests in batch size, turnaround time, number of failed samples or cost. The literature searches identified 7903 references, of which seven publications of five studies were included in the review. Two studies provided data on the accuracy of KRAS mutation testing for predicting response to treatment in patients treated with cetuximab plus standard chemotherapy. Four RCTs provided data on the clinical effectiveness of cetuximab plus standard chemotherapy compared with that of standard chemotherapy in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. There were no clear differences in the treatment effects reported by different studies, regardless of which KRAS mutation test was used to select patients. In the 'linked evidence' analysis the Therascreen KRAS RGQ PCR Kit (QIAGEN) was more expensive but also more effective than pyrosequencing or direct sequencing, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £17,019 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In the 'assumption of equal prognostic value' analysis the total costs associated with the various testing strategies were similar.

LIMITATIONS

The results assume that the differences in outcomes between the trials were solely the result of the different mutation tests used to distinguish between patients; this assumption ignores other factors that might explain this variation.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no strong evidence that any one KRAS mutation test was more effective or cost-effective than any other test.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42013003663.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The use of EGFR inhibitors in colorectal cancer: is it clinically efficacious and cost-effective?

Cetuximab (Erbitux) and panitumumab (Vectibix) are monoclonal antibodies to the EGFR. They are used as monotherapy or in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy and increase both progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer. The most common side effects of therapy are dermatological, including skin (acneiform) rash, pruritus and hair changes. Despite their clinical activity, cost-effectiveness of the two drugs should be addressed in a discussion of their usage in everyday care. This study provides an up-to-date review of the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of anti-EGFR inhibitors.

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

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

DESIGN

A semi-Markov model was constructed from a French health collective perspective, with health states related to first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, resection of metastases, disease-free after successful resection and death.

METHODS

Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression-free and overall survival data from the only head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab and bevacizumab (PEAK) were performed to estimate transitions to disease progression and death. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and French public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second- and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was applied. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Based on a head-to-head clinical trial that demonstrates better efficacy outcomes for patients with wild-type RAS mCRC who receive panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6, the incremental cost per life-year gained was estimated to be €26,918, and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was estimated to be €36,577. Sensitivity analyses indicate the model is robust to alternative parameters and assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

The incremental cost per QALY gained indicates that panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 represents good value for money in comparison to bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 and, with a willingness-to-pay ranging from €40,000 to €60,000, can be considered cost-effective in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC.

Predictive and prognostic biomarkers with therapeutic targets in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancers: a systemic review of current development, evidence, and recommendation

Appropriate evidence-based roles of prognostic and predictive biomarkers of known therapeutic targets in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancers in adults are reviewed, with summary of evidence for use and recommendation. Current development in biomarker studies is also discussed. Computerized literature searches of PubMed (National Library of Medicine), the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and commonly accepted US and international guidelines (American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network) were performed from 2001 to 2012. Literature published before 2001 was noted for historical interest but not evaluated. Literature review was focused on available systematic reviews and meta-analyses of published predictive (associated with treatment response and/or efficacy) and prognostic (associated with disease outcome) biomarkers of known therapeutic targets in colorectal, breast, and non-small cell lung cancers. In general, significant health outcomes (e.g. predicted response to therapy, overall survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, lesser toxicity, and cost-effectiveness) were used for making recommendations. Four breast cancer biomarkers were evaluated, two of which (2D6 genotyping, Oncotype Dx) were considered emerging with insufficient evidence. Seven colorectal cancer biomarkers were evaluated, five of which (EGFR gene expression, K-ras G13D gene mutation, B-raf V600E gene mutation, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency, and UGT1A1 genotyping) were considered emerging. Seven non-small cell lung cancer biomarkers were evaluated, five of which were emerging (EGFR gene expression, ERCC gene expression, RRM1 gene expression, K-ras gene mutation, and TS gene expression). Of all 18 biomarkers evaluated, the following showed evidence of clinical utility and were recommended for routine use in practice: ER/PR and HER2 for breast cancer; K-ras gene mutation (except G13D gene mutation) for colorectal cancer; mismatch repair deficiency or microsatellite instability for colorectal cancer; and EGFR and EML4-ALK gene mutations for non-small cell lung. Not all recommendations for these biomarkers were uniformly supported by all guidelines.

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) imposes a substantial health burden on patients and society. In recent years, advances in the treatment of mCRC have mainly resulted from the introduction of monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs). However, the application of these MoAbs considerably increases treatment costs. The objective of this article is to review and assess the economic evidence of MoAB treatment in mCRC. A systematic literature review was conducted and cost-effectiveness (CE) as well as cost-utility-studies were identified. For this, Medline, Embase, SciSearch, Cochrane, and nine other databases were searched from 2000 through February 2013 for full-text publications. The quality of the studies was assessed via a validated assessment tool (Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES)). A total of 843 publications were screened. Of those, 15 studies involving the MoAbs bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab met all inclusion criteria. Four studies analysed the CE of first-line treatment with bevacizumab and nine the CE of cetuximab in subsequent treatment lines. Two studies dealt with the CE of panitumumab. The analysis of sequential regimes and the direct comparison of two MoABs were analysed by only one study each. The quality of the included studies was high with the exception of one study.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment with bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab is mainly considered to be not cost-effective in patients with mCRC. However, testing for Kirsten ras oncogene (KRAS) mutation prior to the treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab is found to be clearly cost-effective compared to no testing. Future research should focus on the CE of first-line treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab and studies on upcoming agents like regorafenib and aflibercept.

Personalizing health care: feasibility and future implications

Considerable variety in how patients respond to treatments, driven by differences in their geno- and/ or phenotypes, calls for a more tailored approach. This is already happening, and will accelerate with developments in personalized medicine. However, its promise has not always translated into improvements in patient care due to the complexities involved. There are also concerns that advice for tests has been reversed, current tests can be costly, there is fragmentation of funding of care, and companies may seek high prices for new targeted drugs. There is a need to integrate current knowledge from a payer's perspective to provide future guidance. Multiple findings including general considerations; influence of pharmacogenomics on response and toxicity of drug therapies; value of biomarker tests; limitations and costs of tests; and potentially high acquisition costs of new targeted therapies help to give guidance on potential ways forward for all stakeholder groups. Overall, personalized medicine has the potential to revolutionize care. However, current challenges and concerns need to be addressed to enhance its uptake and funding to benefit patients.

Cost of illness in colorectal cancer: an international review

OBJECTIVES

Given the current-and increasing-pressure to limit expenditure on health care provision in many countries, a better understanding of the cost burden of colorectal cancer is needed. Cost-of-illness studies and reviews thereof can be a useful tool for analysing and critically evaluating the cost-related development of colorectal cancer, and they highlight important cost drivers.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted from 2002 to 2012 to identify cost-of-illness studies related to colorectal cancer, searching the Medline, PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Library and the York CRD databases.

RESULTS

Among the 10 studies (from France, the US, Ireland and Taiwan) included in the review, 6 studies reported prevalence-based estimates and 4 studies focussed on incidence-based data. In the studies included in the review, long-term costs for colorectal cancer of up to $50,175 per patient (2008 values) were estimated. Most of the studies in the review showed that the initial and terminal phases of colorectal cancer care are the most expensive, with continuing treatment being the least costly phase. One study also highlighted that stage I CRC disease was the least costly and stage III the most costly of all 4 stages, due to the high cost impact of biological agents.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has highlighted a trend for rising costs associated with CRC, which is linked to the increasing use of targeted biological therapies. COI studies in colorectal cancer can identify specific components and areas of care that are especially costly, thereby focussing attention on more cost-effective approaches, which is especially relevant to the increased use of biological agents in the field of personalised medicine. COI studies are an important tool for further health economic evaluations of personalised medicine.

Influence of pharmacogenomic profiling prior to pharmaceutical treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer on cost effectiveness : a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) imposes a substantial health burden on individual patients and society. Furthermore, rising costs in oncology cause a growing concern about reimbursement for innovations in this sector. The promise of pharmacogenomic profiling and related stratified therapies in mCRC is to improve treatment efficacy and potentially save costs. Among other examples, the commonly used epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab are only effective in patients with kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) wild-type cancers. Hence, the adaptation of predictive biomarker testing might be a valid strategy for healthcare systems worldwide.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to review the clinical and economic evidence supporting pharmacogenomic profiling prior to the administration of pharmaceutical treatment in mCRC. Moreover, key drivers and areas of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness evaluations are analysed.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies evaluating the cost effectiveness of predictive biomarkers and the result dependent usage of pharmaceutical agents in mCRC.

RESULTS

The application of predictive biomarkers to detect KRAS mutations prior to the administration of EGFR antibodies saved treatment costs and was cost effective in all identified evaluations. However, because of the lack of data regarding cost-effectiveness analyses for predictive biomarker testing, e.g. for first-line treatment, definitive conclusions cannot be stated. Key drivers and areas of uncertainty in current cost-effectiveness analyses are, among others, the consideration of predictive biomarker costs, the characteristics of single predictive biomarkers and the availability of clinical data for the respective pharmaceutical intervention. Especially the cost effectiveness of uridine diphosphate-glucuronyl transferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) mutation analysis prior to irinotecan-based chemotherapy remains unclear.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacogenomic profiling has the potential to improve the cost effectiveness of pharmaceutical treatment in mCRC. Hence, quantification of the economic impact of stratified medicine as well as cost-effectiveness analyses of pharmacogenomic profiling are becoming more important. Nevertheless, the methods applied in cost-effectiveness evaluations for the usage of predictive biomarkers for patient selection as well as the level of evidence required to determine clinical effectiveness are areas for further research. However, mCRC is one of the first indications in which stratified therapies are used in clinical practice. Thus, clinical and economic experiences could be helpful when adopting pharmacogenomic profiling into clinical practice for other indications.

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can testing of tumor tissue for mutations in EGFR pathway downstream effector genes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer improve health outcomes by guiding decisions regarding anti-EGFR therapy?

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group (EWG) found that, for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are being considered for treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab, there is convincing evidence to recommend clinical use of KRAS mutation analysis to determine which patients are KRAS mutation positive and therefore unlikely to benefit from these agents before initiation of therapy. The level of certainty of the evidence was deemed high, and the magnitude of net health benefit from avoiding potentially ineffective and harmful treatment, along with promoting more immediate access to what could be the next most effective treatment, is at least moderate.The EWG found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against BRAF V600E testing for the same clinical scenario. The level of certainty for BRAF V600E testing to guide antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy was deemed low. The EWG encourages further studies of the potential value of testing in patients with mCRC who were found to have tumors that are wild type (mutation negative) for KRAS to predict responsiveness to therapy.The EWG found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against testing for mutations in NRAS, or PIK3CA, and/or loss of expression of PTEN or AKT proteins. The level of certainty for this evidence was low. In the absence of supporting evidence, and with consideration of other contextual issues, the EWG discourages the use of these tests in guiding decisions on initiating anti-EGFR therapy with cetuximab or panitumumab unless further evidence supports improved clinical outcomes.

RATIONALE

It has been suggested that patients with mCRC whose tumors harbor certain mutations affecting EGFR pathway signaling are typically unresponsive to therapy with anti-EGFR antibodies (cetuximab and panitumumab). The EWG identified recent evidence reviews that have addressed this topic, and this recommendation statement is based on results of these reviews. In developing these recommendations the EWG considered evidence in the areas described below.

ANALYTIC VALIDITY

Although no research syntheses that have formally evaluated analytic validity of these tests were found, the EWG was able to draw the following conclusions from assessments included in the evidence reviews under consideration. There is adequate evidence that KRAS mutation analysis reliably and accurately detects common mutations (codons 12 and 13), whereas evidence was inadequate for less frequent KRAS mutations (e.g., codon 61). There is also adequate evidence that testing for BRAF V600E accurately and reliably detects the mutation. For common mutations in NRAS, PIK3CA, and expression of PTEN AKT, there is adequate evidence of accurate and reliable detection. However, much less data exist in support. Furthermore, in the specific context of mCRC, no evidence was found on the analytic validity of immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays for PTEN or AKT expression.

CLINICAL VALIDITY

For KRAS mutation analysis, the EWG found convincing evidence for association with treatment response to anti-EGFR therapy, independent of prognostic association. For BRAF V600E mutation testing, the EWG found insufficient evidence for association with treatment response to anti-EGFR therapy independent of prognostic association. The EWG found insufficient evidence for association of results of testing for mutations in NRAS or PIK3CA, and loss of expression of PTEN or ATK proteins, with treatment response to anti-EGFR therapy.

CLINICAL UTILITY

For KRAS mutation analysis, the EWG found adequate evidence that improved health outcomes are achieved by avoiding ineffective chemotherapy and potential side effects and expediting access to the next most effective treatment. Inadequate evidence was found regarding association of BRAF V600E mutation testing or loss of PTEN expression with improved health outcomes among patients with mCRC undergoing anti-EGFR therapy as compared with patients with tumors bearing wild-type BRAF sequence and PTEN expression levels, respectively. No evidence was found to support improved health outcomes associated with testing results for NRAS or PIK3CA variants, or AKT protein expression levels in this clinical scenario.

CONTEXTUAL ISSUES

CRC is an important and highly prevalent health problem. Improvements in mCRC outcomes associated with pharmacogenetic testing could have important clinical, and potentially public health, impacts. Adverse events related to cancer chemotherapy can be common and severe. Therefore, successfully optimizing treatment to maximize efficacy and minimize side effects is important for reducing mCRC-related morbidity and mortality.

Is aggressive treatment of traumatic brain injury cost-effective?

OBJECT

The object of this study was to determine whether aggressive treatment of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), including invasive intracranial monitoring and decompressive craniectomy, is cost-effective.

METHODS

A decision-analytical model was created to compare costs, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of 3 strategies for treating a patient with severe TBI. The aggressive-care approach is compared with "routine care," in which Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines are not followed. A "comfort care" category, in which a single day in the ICU is followed by routine floor care, is included for comparison only. Probabilities of each treatment resulting in various Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores were obtained from the literature. The GOS scores were converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), based on expected longevity and calculated quality of life associated with each GOS category. Estimated direct (acute and long-term medical care) and indirect (loss of productivity) costs were calculated from the perspective of society. Sensitivity analyses employed a 2D Monte Carlo simulation of 1000 trials, each with 1000 patients. The model was also used to estimate these values for patients 40, 60, and 80 years of age.

RESULTS

For the average 20-year-old, aggressive care yields 11.7 (± 1.6 [SD]) QALYs, compared with routine care (10.0 ± 1.5 QALYs). This difference is highly significant (p < 0.0001). Although the differences in effectiveness between the 2 strategies diminish with advancing age, aggressive care remains significantly better at all ages. When all costs are considered, aggressive care is also significantly less costly than routine care ($1,264,000 ± $118,000 vs $1,361,000 ± $107,000) for the average 20-year-old. Aggressive care remains significantly less costly until age 80, at which age it costs more than routine care. However, even in the 80-year-old, aggressive care is likely the more cost-effective approach. Comfort care is associated with poorer outcomes at all ages and with higher costs for all groups except 80-year-olds.

CONCLUSIONS

When all the costs of severe TBI are considered, aggressive treatment is a cost-effective option, even for older patients. Comfort care for severe TBI is associated with poor outcomes and high costs, and should be reserved for situations in which aggressive approaches have failed or testing suggests such treatment is futile.

Economic evaluation of genomic test-directed chemotherapy for early-stage lymph node-positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Multi-parameter genomic tests identify patients with early-stage breast cancer who are likely to derive little benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. These tests can potentially spare patients the morbidity from unnecessary chemotherapy and reduce costs. However, the costs of the test must be balanced against the health benefits and cost savings produced. This economic evaluation compared genomic test-directed chemotherapy using the Oncotype DX 21-gene assay with chemotherapy for all eligible patients with lymph node-positive, estrogen receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

We performed a cost-utility analysis using a state transition model to calculate expected costs and benefits over the lifetime of a cohort of women with estrogen receptor-positive lymph node-positive breast cancer from a UK perspective. Recurrence rates for Oncotype DX-selected risk groups were derived from parametric survival models fitted to data from the Southwest Oncology Group 8814 trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, expressed as the cost (in 2011 GBP) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Confidence in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as a probability of cost-effectiveness and was calculated using Monte Carlo simulation. Model parameters were varied deterministically and probabilistically in sensitivity analysis. Value of information analysis was used to rank priorities for further research.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for Oncotype DX-directed chemotherapy using a recurrence score cutoff of 18 was £5529 (US $8852) per QALY. The probability that test-directed chemotherapy is cost-effective was 0.61 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY. Results were sensitive to the recurrence rate, long-term anthracycline-related cardiac toxicity, quality of life, test cost, and the time horizon. The highest priority for further research identified by value of information analysis is the recurrence rate in test-selected subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness of Oncotype DX-directed chemotherapy. It is particularly important that future research studies to inform cost-effectiveness-based decisions collect long-term outcome data.

Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries

The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.