Economic impact of simplified de Gramont regimen in first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer

Economic comparison of capecitabine + oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer

Background

Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent and lethal cancers. The aim of this study was to analyze the costs relating to treatment of colorectal cancer between Xelox and Folfox-4 at a regional level according to the clinical experience at an Italian hospital in Lombardy.

Methods

A cost analysis was carried out regarding resource consumption by patients suffering from colorectal cancer based on data collected over a 12-month period between 2010 and 2011. The analysis involved 40 patients who attended the Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology at Carlo Poma Hospital to undergo adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer. A chart was created for each patient containing their medical history, their pharmacological therapy indicating the number and duration of chemotherapy cycles, dose in mg administered for each cycle, number of day hospital visits for each cycle, number of days spent in hospital to position the central vein catheter, type of infusion pump used, any subsequent supportive therapy, and any side effects and outpatient visits connected with side effects.

Results

The cost analysis shows the savings involved in using Xelox for a single cycle of treatment, ie, approximately €1414.00 per patient (53% compared with Folfox-4). For each single cycle of treatment, the savings generated by using capecitabine compared with 5-FU can be attributed mostly to the fact that oral administration of chemotherapy requires fewer resources and does not require use of a central vein catheter (approximately 70% of overall cost) which amply compensates for the higher cost of capecitabine compared with 5-FU-LV. Sensibility analysis confirms the results of the base-case scenario.

Conclusion

The results of our study indicate that infusion via a central vein catheter represents a significant cost, and that substitution with an oral therapy, even when associated with drugs administered intravenously, represents a consistent saving of hospital resources.

A systematic review of economic analyses of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer in the Western world. New drugs in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, such as irinotecan and oxaliplatin, have substantially increased the cost of treatment. A systematic literature review on the cost (-effectiveness) of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer was conducted, in which 13 articles were included. The main topics were: orally versus intravenously administered fluoropyrimidine, raltitrexed, irinotecan and oxaliplatin. Additional information was collected on the cost (-effectiveness) of the monoclonal antibodies, cetuximab and bevacizumab. Only five articles had taken the societal perspective, in most articles no data on quality of life was presented, and only two reported the cost per quality-adjusted life year. As only a limited amount of information is available on the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer, there is a need for more cost-effectiveness studies. These studies are preferably performed by taking a societal perspective and including quality of life outcomes.

Cost considerations in the treatment of colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is among the most common malignancies in developed countries. Screening can reduce mortality significantly, although the most appropriate method is still under debate. Observational studies have revealed that lifestyle measures may also be beneficial for prevention of colorectal cancer. Surgery is still the most effective treatment modality for colorectal cancer. The survival benefits of chemotherapy are only modest. For nearly 5 decades, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been the main cytotoxic agent for treatment of colorectal cancer. In the last decade, the new cytotoxic agents raltitrexed, irinotecan and oxaliplatin have been introduced, next to the oral 5-FU analogues capecitabine and tegafur in combination with uracil (UFT). Moreover, the immunotherapeutics bevacizumab and cetuximab have become approved for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. The economic implications of colorectal cancer treatment are substantial. The costs of treatment are mainly attributable to the early and terminal stage of the disease (i.e. surgery, hospitalisation, chemo- and immunotherapy and supportive care). The introduction of new chemo- and immunotherapeutics has caused a continuing increase of treatment expenditures. Therefore, comparative costs and cost effectiveness are important for assessing the value of new treatment regimens. The available study results suggest that addition of irinotecan or oxaliplatin to 5-FU/folinic acid dosage regimens is cost effective. Also, capecitabine is calculated to be cost effective when compared with 5-FU/folinic acid. For UFT, no comparative studies of cost effectiveness were found. Since raltitrexed and 5-FU/folinic acid have shown equal efficacy in terms of survival, cost-effectiveness analysis is considered not to be applicable and cost-minimisation analysis may be sufficient. At present, pharmacoeconomic analyses of combination treatment with the immunotherapeutics bevacizumab or cetuximab are not available, except for recent cost-effectiveness considerations by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence with negative recommendations for both agents in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Given the high treatment costs, substantial toxicity and relatively limited efficacy of the fast changing chemo- and immunotherapeutic combinations for colorectal cancer, examination of cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted on a routine basis along with determination of clinical benefits.