Health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with panitumumab in first- or second-line treatment

Impact of Systemic Treatments on Outcomes and Quality of Life in Patients with RAS-Positive Stage IV Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

This systematic review critically evaluates the impact of systemic treatments on outcomes and quality of life (QoL) in patients with RAS-positive stage IV colorectal cancer, with studies published up to December 2023 across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. From an initial pool of 1345 articles, 11 relevant studies were selected for inclusion, encompassing a diverse range of systemic treatments, including panitumumab combined with FOLFOX4 and FOLFIRI, irinotecan paired with panitumumab, regorafenib followed by cetuximab ± irinotecan and vice versa, and panitumumab as a maintenance therapy post-induction. Patient demographics predominantly included middle-aged to elderly individuals, with a slight male predominance. Racial composition, where reported, showed a majority of Caucasian participants, highlighting the need for broader demographic inclusivity in future research. Key findings revealed that the addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy (FOLFOX4 or FOLFIRI) did not significantly compromise QoL while notably improving disease-free survival, with baseline EQ-5D HSI mean scores ranging from 0.76 to 0.78 and VAS mean scores from 70.1 to 74.1. Improvements in FACT-C scores and EQ-5D Index scores particularly favored panitumumab plus best supportive care in KRAS wild-type mCRC, with early dropout rates of 38-42% for panitumumab + BSC. Notably, cetuximab + FOLFIRI was associated with a median survival of 25.7 months versus 16.4 months for FOLFIRI alone, emphasizing the potential benefits of integrating targeted therapies with chemotherapy. In conclusion, the review underscores the significant impact of systemic treatments, particularly targeted therapies and their combinations with chemotherapy, on survival outcomes and QoL in patients with RAS-positive stage IV colorectal cancer, and the need for personalized treatment.

Impacts of systemic treatments on health-related quality of life for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

There is limited evidence of comparative results among different treatments regarding impacts of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to compare efficacy of systemic treatments on HRQoL among patients with mCRC.

METHODS

We collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in English up until July 2023, from databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and prominent conference databases, for this Bayesian network meta-analysis. Phase 2 or 3 trials that evaluated at least two therapeutic regimens were included. Primary outcomes were short-term and long-term mean changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) scores. Secondary outcome was mean change in EQ-5D health utility scores. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as effect size. Subgroup analysis was performed based on whether patients received systemic treatments before. We conducted various sensitivity analyses, including differentiating between chemotherapy types, and analyzed patient cohorts with non-specified gene expression levels as well as those with target KRAS expression statuses. The current systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023453315 and CRD42023420498).

RESULTS

Immunotherapy and targeted therapy significantly improved HRQoL over chemotherapy, with MDs of 9.27 (95% CI: 3.96 to 14.6) and 4.04 (95% CI: 0.11 to 7.94), respectively. Monotherapy significantly outperformed both combination therapy (MD 5.71, 95%CI 0.78 to 10.63) and no active treatment (MD 3.7, 95%CI 1.41 to 6.01) regarding GHS/QoL in the short-term. Combining targeted therapy with chemotherapy did not improve HRQoL. Focusing on HRQoL, cetuximab excelled when gene expression baselines were unspecified. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses upheld these robust findings, unaffected by model or patient baseline characteristics. Evidence from clinical trials without specific gene level data suggested that monotherapies, especially targeted therapies such as cetuximab, demonstrated superiority in HRQoL. For KRAS wild-type patients, no significant HRQoL differences emerged between chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or their combination..

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted therapies and immunotherapy demonstrate superior HRQoL benefits, monotherapy such as cetuximab is associated with significant improvements as compared to combination therapy. However, tailoring these results to individual gene expression profiles requires more evidence.

Upfront DPYD Genotype-Guided Treatment for Fluoropyrimidine-Based Chemotherapy in Advanced and Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Fluoropyrimidines are the most widely used chemotherapy drugs for advanced and metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Individuals with certain DPYD gene variants are exposed to an increased risk of severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicities. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of preemptive DPYD genotyping to guide fluoropyrimidine therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic CRC.

METHODS

Overall survival of DPYD wild-type patients who received a standard dose and variant carriers treated with a reduced dose were analyzed by parametric survival models. A decision tree and a partitioned survival analysis model with a lifetime horizon were designed, taking the Iranian healthcare perspective. Input parameters were extracted from the literature or expert opinion. To address parameter uncertainty, scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, the genotype-guided treatment strategy was cost-saving ($41.7). Nevertheless, due to a possible reduction in the survival of patients receiving reduced-dose regimens, it was associated with fewer quality-adjusted life-years (9.45 vs 9.28). In sensitivity analyses, the prevalence of DPYD variants had the most significant impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The genotyping strategy would remain cost-saving, as long as the genotyping cost is < $49 per test. In a scenario in which we assumed equal efficacy for the 2 strategies, genotyping was the dominant strategy, associated with less costs (∼$1) and more quality-adjusted life-years (0.1292).

CONCLUSIONS

DPYD genotyping to guide fluoropyrimidine treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic CRC is cost-saving from the perspective of the Iranian health system.

Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To perform a scoping review on the use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in randomized trials on systemic therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) between 2010 and 2021.

METHODS

First, a search on clinicaltrials.gov was performed, looking for randomized trials in mCRC. The use of PROMs was analyzed quantitatively. Subsequently, we assessed the completeness of PROM reporting based on the CONSORT PRO extension in publications related to the selected trials acquired using Embase and PubMed.

RESULTS

A total of 46/176 trials were registered on clinicaltrials.gov used PROMs. All these trials used validated PROM instruments. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (37 times), followed by the EQ-5D (21 times) and the EORTC QLQ-CR29 (six times). A total of 56/176 registered trials were published. In 35% (n = 20), the results of the PROMs were available. Overall, 7/20 (35%) trials documented all items of the CONSORT PRO extension and quality of reporting according to the CONSORT PRO extension was higher than in the period 2004-2012. In 3/20 (15%) of the published trials, the results of PROMs were not discussed nor included in the positioning of the new treatment compared to the reference treatment.

CONCLUSION

When PROMs are used, the quality of reporting on patient-reported outcomes is improving, but this must continue in order to optimize the translation of trial results to individual patient values.

Clinical outcomes of chemotherapy-based therapies for previously treated advanced colorectal cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of standard therapies in previously treated, advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases (January 2000-July 2021), annual oncology conferences (2019-2021), and clinicaltrials.gov to identify studies evaluating the use of licensed interventions in second-line or later settings. The primary outcome of interest was objective response rate (ORR) and secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). ORR was pooled using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. For survival outcomes, published Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and PFS were digitized to re-construct individual patient-level data and pooled following the methodology described by Combescure et al. (2014).

RESULTS

Twenty-three trials evaluating standard chemotherapies with or without targeted therapies across 4,791 advanced CRC patients contributed to our meta-analysis. In the second-line setting, the random effects pooled estimate of ORR was 22.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 18.0, 27.1), median PFS was 7.0 months (95% CI: 6.4, 7.4), and median OS was 14.9 months (95% CI: 13.6, 16.1). In the third-line or later setting, the random effects pooled estimate of ORR was 1.7% (95% CI: 0.8, 2.7), median PFS was 2.3 months (95% CI: 2.0, 2.8), and median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI: 7.1, 9.1).

CONCLUSION

Standard treatments have limited efficacy in the second-line or later setting with worsening outcomes in later lines. Given the global burden of CRC, further research into novel and emerging therapeutic options following treatment failure is needed.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Curative Resection and/or Local Ablative Therapy or Systemic Therapy in the Finnish RAXO-Study

Metastasectomy and/or local ablative therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients often provide long-term survival. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in curatively treated mCRC are limited. In the RAXO-study that evaluated repeated resectability, a multi-cross-sectional HRQoL substudy with 15D, EQ-5D-3L, QLQ-C30, and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires was conducted. Mean values of patients in different treatment groups were compared with age- and gender-standardized general Finnish populations. The questionnaire completion rate was 444/477 patients (93%, 1751 questionnaires). Mean HRQoL was 0.89−0.91 with the 15D, 0.85−0.87 with the EQ-5D, 68−80 with the EQ-5D-VAS, and 68−79 for global health status during curative treatment phases, with improvements in the remission phase (disease-free >18 months). In the remission phase, mean EQ-5D and 15D scores were similar to the general population. HRQoL remained stable during first- to later-line treatments, when the aim was no longer cure, and declined notably when tumour-controlling therapy was no longer meaningful. The symptom burden affecting mCRC survivors’ well-being included insomnia, impotence, urinary frequency, and fatigue. Symptom burden was lower after treatment and slightly higher, though stable, through all phases of systemic therapy. HRQoL was high in curative treatment phases, further emphasizing the strategy of metastasectomy in mCRC when clinically meaningful.

Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of pembrolizumab versus other interventions for previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic, microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer

Aim: To compare pembrolizumab with competing interventions for previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer. Method: Trials were identified via a systematic literature review and synthesized using a Bayesian network meta-analysis with time-varying hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Using intention-to-treat data, HRs for overall survival were generally in favor of pembrolizumab but not statistically significant; however, statistical significance was reached versus all comparators by month 16 when accounting for crossover. Estimated HRs for progression-free survival significantly favored pembrolizumab versus all comparators by month 12. Pembrolizumab was also superior to all comparators in terms of grade ≥3 adverse events. Conclusion: These analyses suggest that pembrolizumab is a highly efficacious and safe treatment in this population.

DPYD Genotyping in Patients Who Have Planned Cancer Treatment With Fluoropyrimidines: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Fluoropyrimidine drugs (such as 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine) are used to treat different types of cancer. However, these drugs may cause severe toxicity in about 10% to 40% of patients. A deficiency in the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme, encoded by the DPYD gene, increases the risk of severe toxicity. DPYD genotyping aims to identify variants that lead to DPD deficiency and may help to identify people who are at higher risk of developing severe toxicity, allowing their treatment to be modified before it begins. Recommendations for fluoropyrimidine treatment modification are available for four DPYD variants, which are the focus of this review: DPYD∗2A, DPYD∗13, c.2846A>T, and c.1236G>A. We conducted a health technology assessment of DPYD genotyping for patients who have planned cancer treatment with fluoropyrimidines, which included an evaluation of clinical validity, clinical utility, the effectiveness of treatment with a reduced fluoropyrimidine dose, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding DPYD genotyping, and patient preferences and values.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included systematic review and primary study using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively, and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature review and conducted cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses with a half-year time horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding pre-treatment DPYD genotyping in patients with planned fluoropyrimidine treatment in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of DPYD testing, we spoke with people who had planned cancer treatment with fluoropyrimidines.

RESULTS

We included 29 observational studies in the clinical evidence review, 25 of which compared the risk of severe toxicity in carriers of a DPYD variant treated with a standard fluoropyrimidine dose with the risk in wild-type patients (i.e., non-carriers of the variants under assessment). Heterozygous carriers of a DPYD variant treated with a standard fluoropyrimidine dose may have a higher risk of severe toxicity, dose reduction, treatment discontinuation, and hospitalization compared to wild-type patients (GRADE: Low). Six studies evaluated the risk of severe toxicity in DPYD carriers treated with a genotype-guided reduced fluoropyrimidine dose versus the risk in wild-type patients; one study also included a second comparator group of DPYD carriers treated with a standard dose. The evidence was uncertain, because the results of most of these studies were imprecise (GRADE: Very low). The length of hospital stay was shorter in DPYD carriers treated with a reduced dose than in DPYD carriers treated with a standard dose, but the evidence was uncertain (GRADE: Very low). One study assessed the effectiveness of a genotype-guided reduced fluoropyrimidine dose in DPYD∗2A carriers versus wild-type patients, but the results were imprecise (GRADE: Very low).We found two cost-minimization analyses that compared the costs of the DPYD genotyping strategy with usual care (no testing) in the economic literature review. Both studies found that DPYD genotyping was cost-saving compared to usual care. Our primary economic evaluation, a cost-utility analysis, found that DPYD genotyping might be slightly more effective (incremental quality-adjusted life years of 0.0011) and less costly than usual care (a savings of $144.88 per patient), with some uncertainty. The probability of DPYD genotyping being cost-effective compared to usual care was 91% and 96% at the commonly used willingness-to-pay values of $50,000 and $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Assuming a slow uptake, we estimated that publicly funding pre-treatment DPYD genotyping in Ontario would lead to a savings of $714,963 over the next 5 years.The participants we spoke to had been diagnosed with cancer and treated with fluoropyrimidines. They reported on the negative side effects of their treatment, which affected their day-to-day activities, employment, and mental health. Participants viewed DPYD testing as a beneficial addition to their treatment journey; they noted the importance of having all available information possible so they could make informed decisions to avoid adverse reactions. Barriers to DPYD testing include lack of awareness of the test and the fact that the test is being offered in only one hospital in Ontario.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies found that carriers of a DPYD variant who were treated with a standard fluoropyrimidine dose may have a higher risk of severe toxicity than wild-type patients treated with a standard dose. DPYD genotyping led to fluoropyrimidine treatment modifications. It is uncertain whether genotype-guided dose reduction in heterozygous DPYD carriers resulted in a risk of severe toxicity comparable to that of wild-type patients. It is also uncertain if the reduced dose resulted in a lower risk of severe toxicity compared to DPYD carriers treated with a standard dose. It is also uncertain whether the treatment effectiveness of a reduced dose in carriers was comparable to the effectiveness of a standard dose in wild-type patients.For patients with planned cancer treatment with fluoropyrimidines, DPYD genotyping is likely cost-effective compared to usual care. We estimate that publicly funding DPYD genotyping in Ontario may be cost-saving, with an estimated total of $714,963 over the next 5 years, provided that the implementation, service delivery, and program coordination costs do not exceed this amount.For people treated with fluoropyrimidines, cancer and treatment side effects had a substantial negative effect on their quality of life and mental health. Most saw the value of DPYD testing as a way of reducing the risk of serious adverse events. Barriers to receipt of DPYD genotyping included lack of awareness and limited access to DPYD testing.

Health-related quality of life in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with panitumumab-based first-line treatment strategy: A pre-specified secondary analysis of the Valentino study

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QoL) patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data from pivotal first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are poor. The Valentino study showed that de-escalation to single-agent panitumumab after 4-month induction with panitumumab-FOLFOX is inferior to panitumumab-5-FU/LV in patients with RAS wild-type mCRC, although slightly reducing toxicity. We report QoL, a secondary end-point.

METHODS

PROs were assessed by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ-CR29, EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaires, at baseline and every 8 weeks until disease progression. First two evaluations correspond to induction treatment (identical in both arms), while subsequent to maintenance. To describe QoL changes over time, mean changes from baseline at each time point were calculated in overall population. To compare maintenance between two arms, mean changes and proportion of improved/stable/worse patients versus baseline were compared for each item.

RESULTS

In arm A/B, 91.5%/92.0% of enrolled patients completed questionnaires at baseline. No significant differences in the two arms were reported in compliance, baseline scores and mean changes versus baseline for the three questionnaires during maintenance (24/32/40 weeks). Overall, mean changes versus baseline showed an early deterioration during induction with partial recovering during maintenance for global QoL, functional scales and several symptoms/items of QLQ-C30 (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, diarrhoea) and QLQ-CR29 (body image, dry mouth, hair loss, taste, faecal incontinence, sore skin), and EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score.

CONCLUSION

In patients with RAS wild-type mCRC, induction with oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy plus anti-EGFRs induces a transient significant QoL deterioration. After induction phase, treatment deintensification determines an overall recovery of health-related QoL, besides the expected prevention of oxaliplatin-related neurotoxicity.

Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Panitumumab Plus FOLFIRI for the Second-Line Treatment of Patients with Wild-Type Ras Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The NCT00339183 trial demonstrated that adding panitumumab to fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as a second-line therapy of wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) increases the median progression-free survival (PFS). Nevertheless, panitumumab is not yet approved in China, and the costs and outcomes of the therapy are still unclear. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of this intervention from the perspective of Chinese health care systems by constructing two pricing scenarios for panitumumab. Scenario 1: Pricing is based on the price of a similar product (cetuximab) in China. Scenario 2: We estimated the value-based price.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was created based on the results of the NCT00339183 trial, which evaluated panitumumab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI. The model simulated the disease progression. We calculated medical costs from the perspectives of the Chinese health care systems. The primary outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

In scenario 1, compared with FOLFIRI alone, FOLFIRI with panitumumab arm had an ICER of ¥1,539,988/QALY. The most influential factors were the mean overall survival (OS), utility before progression and cost of panitumumab. The probability of panitumumab plus FOLFIRI being cost-effective in China was 0% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was ¥193,932/QALY. In scenario 2, when the cost of panitumumab was assumed to be ¥4032.61 or ¥5218.96 per cycle, the ICERs approximated the WTP thresholds of ¥193,932/QALY or ¥420,633/QALY, respectively. In this value-based pricing scenario, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI is estimated to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

We construct two pricing scenarios in China. In scenario 1, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI as a second-line therapy of mCRC provided an incremental benefit, but simultaneously increased costs (at the current price) even further. In scenario 2, when the value-based price was adopted, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI was estimated to be cost-effective. Our study establishes a pricing framework for new anticancer drugs to reflect the economics of drugs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00339183.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor Panitumumab in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

Despite progress in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the last 15 years, it is still a condition with a relatively low 5-year survival rate. Panitumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), is able to prolong survival in patients with mCRC. Panitumumab is used in different lines of therapy in combination with chemotherapy, and as monotherapy for the treatment of wild-type (WT) RAS mCRC. It is administered as an intravenous infusion of 6 mg/kg every 2 weeks and has a t_½ of approximately 7.5 days. Elimination takes place via two different mechanisms, and immunogenicity rates are low. Only RAS mutations have been confirmed as a negative predictor of efficacy with anti-EGFR antibodies. Panitumumab is generally well tolerated and has a manageable toxicity profile, despite a very high prevalence of dermatologic side effects. This article presents an overview of the clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of panitumumab, including a description of the studies that led to its approval in the different lines of therapy of mCRC.

The impact of panitumumab treatment on survival and quality of life in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer

Panitumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). It is currently approved for the treatment of RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in combination with chemotherapy in first- and second-line and as monotherapy in chemorefractory patients. This review will provide an overview of main efficacy data on panitumumab from its early development up to latest evidences, including novel perspectives on predictive biomarkers of anti-EGFRs efficacy and mechanisms of secondary resistance. Quality of life (QoL) related issues and panitumumab safety profile will be addressed as well.

Impact of drug substitution on cost of care: an example of economic analysis of cetuximab versus panitumumab

Background

The alarming increase in the cost of cancer care is forcing all stakeholders to re-evaluate their approach to treatment. Drugs are the main contributor to the cost. To evaluate the significance of drug substitution on the cost of care we assessed the economic value of panitumumab vs. cetuximab in chemo-refractory metastatic CRC (mCRC) with wild-type KRAS from a US societal perspective.

Methods

We developed a Markov model with three health states: progression-free, progressive, and death. We calculated the transition probabilities between states using the ASPECCT trial report and US life tables. Costs of drug and administration were based on the Medicare reimbursement rates. Published data were used for cost of toxicities and utilities. All costs were converted to 2017 US dollars. The model used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to measure health outcomes for each treatment option.

Results

Panitumumab and cetuximab produced 0.45 QALYs at a per patient cost of $66,006 and $71,956, respectively. The incremental net monetary benefit of panitumumab compared to cetuximab is $5237 under a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000. The model showed robustness to one-way sensitivity analyses and various alternative scenarios and was found to be most sensitive to the cost of cetuximab.

Conclusions

Panitumumab can lower the cost of care without impacting outcomes in chemo-refractory mCRC settings. This finding provides a strong argument to consider panitumumab in lieu of cetuximab in these patients.

Papulopustular lesions of the face caused by panitumumab: case report and literature review

Introduction:Panitumumab (VECTIBIX®) is a monoclonal antibody used alone or in combination with a chemotherapy for management of metastatic colorectal cancer.Observation:A patient treated with this protocol manifested skin lesions; the etiological diagnosis was difficult. The lesions, namely a papulopustular rash at the lower third of the face, and the medical history allowed to diagnose an acute skin toxicity case due to this monoclonal antibody.Commentary:Many side effects are related to the panitumumab, among which dermatologic adverse events having already been the subject of some publications. Nevertheless, several studies conclude that the therapeutic benefit of this epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor makes acceptable these complications.Conclusion:Stop treatment and corticosteroids allowed a whole and quick disappearance of skin lesions. Alongside dermatologists and infectious diseases specialists, the opinion of an oral surgeon was useful to provide an answer to these symptoms.

FOLFIRI plus panitumumab in the treatment of wild-type KRAS and wild-type NRAS metastatic colorectal cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line panitumumab plus folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in patients with wild-type KRAS and wild-type NRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods

Patients with wild-type KRAS and wild-type NRAS mCRC presenting to the medical oncology department of the Okmeydani Training and Research Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey, between April 2014 and January 2018 were enrolled in this study.

Results

A total of 64 patients (35 males and 29 females) with a median age of 59 (35–81) years old were enrolled. The median follow-up was 18.9 months, and the median progression-free survival was 13 months. The median overall survival (OS) was 26 months in the patients with wild-type KRAS and wild-type NRAS mCRC. It was 90.4% for the 6-month OS, 79.5% for the 1-year OS, 53.7% for the 2-year OS and 31.1% for the 3-year OS. The median OS of the patients who underwent metastasectomies was 40 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 19.9–60.1] months, and the median OS of the patients without metastasectomies was 22 (95% CI = 17.7–26.4) months. There was a statistically significant difference between these (P = 0.007).

Conclusion

The first-line FOLFIRI plus panitumumab was associated with favourable efficacy in the patients with wild-type KRAS and wild-type NRAS mCRC, and it was well tolerated. The removal of the metastases that became resectable after chemotherapy further prolonged the patients’ survival.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered: 33886

How health-related quality of life assessment should be used in advanced colorectal cancer clinical trials

Traditionally, the efficacy of cancer treatment in patients with advance or metastatic disease in clinical studies has been studied using overall survival and more recently tumor-based end points such as progression-free survival, measurements of response to treatment. However, these seem not to be the relevant clinical end points in current situation if such end points were no validated as surrogate of overall survival to demonstrate the clinical efficacy. Appropriate, meaningful, primary patient-oriented and patient-reported end points that adequately measure the effects of new therapeutic interventions are then crucial for the advancement of clinical research in metastatic colorectal cancer to complement the results of tumor-based end points. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is effectively an evaluation of quality of life and its relationship with health over time. HRQoL includes the patient report at least of the way a disease or its treatment affects its physical, emotional and social well-being. Over the past few years, several phase III trials in a variety of solid cancers have assessed the incremental value of HRQoL in addition to the traditional end points of tumor response and survival results. HRQoL could provide not only complementary clinical data to the primary outcomes, but also more precise predictive and prognostic value. This end point is useful for both clinicians and patients in order to achieve the dogma of precision medicine. The present article examines the use of HRQoL in phase III metastatic colorectal cancer clinical trials, outlines the importance of HRQoL assessment methods, analysis, and results presentation. Moreover, it discusses the relevance of including HRQoL as a primary/co-primary end point to support the progression-free survival results and to assess efficacy of treatment in the advanced disease setting.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors prevent cell growth and have shown benefit in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, whether used as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy. Clear benefit has been shown in trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies (EGFR MAb) but not EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKI). However, there is ongoing debate as to which patient populations gain maximum benefit from EGFR inhibition and where they should be used in the metastatic colorectal cancer treatment paradigm to maximise efficacy and minimise toxicity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, safety profile, and potential harms of EGFR inhibitors in the treatment of people with metastatic colorectal cancer when given alone, in combination with chemotherapy, or with other biological agents.The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival; secondary outcomes included overall survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2016; Ovid MEDLINE (from 1950); and Ovid Embase (from 1974) on 9 September 2016; and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 14 March 2017. We also searched proceedings from the major oncology conferences ESMO, ASCO, and ASCO GI from 2012 to December 2016. We further scanned reference lists from eligible publications and contacted corresponding authors for trials for further information where needed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials on participants with metastatic colorectal cancer comparing: 1) the combination of EGFR MAb and 'standard therapy' (whether chemotherapy or best supportive care) to standard therapy alone, 2) the combination of EGFR TKI and standard therapy to standard therapy alone, 3) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI) and standard therapy to another EGFR inhibitor (or the same inhibitor with a different dosing regimen) and standard therapy, or 4) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI), anti-angiogenic therapy, and standard therapy to anti-angiogenic therapy and standard therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures defined by Cochrane. Summary statistics for the endpoints used hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival and progression-free survival, and odds ratios (OR) for response rate (RR) and toxicity. Subgroup analyses were performed by Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) and neuroblastoma RAS viral (V-Ras) oncogene homolog (NRAS) status - firstly by status of KRAS exon 2 testing (mutant or wild type) and also by status of extended KRAS/NRAS testing (any mutation present or wild type).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 randomised controlled trials for analysis (15,025 participants), including trials of both EGFR MAb and EGFR TKI. Looking across studies, significant risk of bias was present, particularly with regard to the risk of selection bias (15/33 unclear risk, 1/33 high risk), performance bias (9/33 unclear risk, 9/33 high risk), and detection bias (7/33 unclear risk, 11/33 high risk).The addition of EGFR MAb to standard therapy in the KRAS exon 2 wild-type population improves progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82; high-quality evidence), overall survival (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; high-quality evidence), and response rate (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.41; high-quality evidence). We noted evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity in all three of these analyses (progression-free survival: I² = 76%; overall survival: I² = 40%; and response rate: I² = 77%), likely due to pooling of studies investigating EGFR MAb use in different lines of therapy. Rates of overall grade 3 to 4 toxicity, diarrhoea, and rash were increased (moderate-quality evidence for all three outcomes), but there was no evidence for increased rates of neutropenia.For the extended RAS wild-type population (no mutations in KRAS or NRAS), addition of EGFR MAb improved progression-free survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75; moderate-quality evidence) and overall survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88; high-quality evidence). Response rate was also improved (OR 4.28, 95% CI 2.61 to 7.03; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the progression-free survival analysis (I² = 61%), likely due to the pooling of studies combining EGFR MAb with chemotherapy with monotherapy studies.We observed no evidence of a statistically significant difference when EGFR MAb was compared to bevacizumab, in progression-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; high quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the overall survival analysis (I² = 51%), likely due to the pooling of first-line and second-line studies.The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy in molecularly unselected participants did not show benefit in limited data sets (meta-analysis not performed). The addition of EGFR MAb to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve progression-free survival (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.29; very low quality evidence), overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.47; low-quality evidence), or response rate (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.12; very low-quality evidence) but increased toxicity (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.57; low-quality evidence). We noted significant between-study heterogeneity in most analyses.Scant information on quality of life was reported in the identified studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of EGFR MAb to either chemotherapy or best supportive care improves progression-free survival (moderate- to high-quality evidence), overall survival (high-quality evidence), and tumour response rate (moderate- to high-quality evidence), but may increase toxicity in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type or extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (moderate-quality evidence). The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy does not improve clinical outcomes. EGFR MAb combined with bevacizumab is of no clinical value (very low-quality evidence). Future studies should focus on optimal sequencing and predictive biomarkers and collect quality of life data.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors prevent cell growth and have shown benefit in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, whether used as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy. Clear benefit has been shown in trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies (EGFR MAb) but not EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKI). However, there is ongoing debate as to which patient populations gain maximum benefit from EGFR inhibition and where they should be used in the metastatic colorectal cancer treatment paradigm to maximise efficacy and minimise toxicity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, safety profile, and potential harms of EGFR inhibitors in the treatment of people with metastatic colorectal cancer when given alone, in combination with chemotherapy, or with other biological agents.The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival; secondary outcomes included overall survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2016; Ovid MEDLINE (from 1950); and Ovid Embase (from 1974) on 9 September 2016; and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 14 March 2017. We also searched proceedings from the major oncology conferences ESMO, ASCO, and ASCO GI from 2012 to December 2016. We further scanned reference lists from eligible publications and contacted corresponding authors for trials for further information where needed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials on participants with metastatic colorectal cancer comparing: 1) the combination of EGFR MAb and 'standard therapy' (whether chemotherapy or best supportive care) to standard therapy alone, 2) the combination of EGFR TKI and standard therapy to standard therapy alone, 3) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI) and standard therapy to another EGFR inhibitor (or the same inhibitor with a different dosing regimen) and standard therapy, or 4) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI), anti-angiogenic therapy, and standard therapy to anti-angiogenic therapy and standard therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures defined by Cochrane. Summary statistics for the endpoints used hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival and progression-free survival, and odds ratios (OR) for response rate (RR) and toxicity. Subgroup analyses were performed by Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) and neuroblastoma RAS viral (V-Ras) oncogene homolog (NRAS) status - firstly by status of KRAS exon 2 testing (mutant or wild type) and also by status of extended KRAS/NRAS testing (any mutation present or wild type).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 randomised controlled trials for analysis (15,025 participants), including trials of both EGFR MAb and EGFR TKI. Looking across studies, significant risk of bias was present, particularly with regard to the risk of selection bias (15/33 unclear risk, 1/33 high risk), performance bias (9/33 unclear risk, 9/33 high risk), and detection bias (7/33 unclear risk, 11/33 high risk).The addition of EGFR MAb to standard therapy in the KRAS exon 2 wild-type population improves progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82; high-quality evidence), overall survival (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; high-quality evidence), and response rate (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.41; high-quality evidence). We noted evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity in all three of these analyses (progression-free survival: I2 = 76%; overall survival: I2 = 40%; and response rate: I2 = 77%), likely due to pooling of studies investigating EGFR MAb use in different lines of therapy. Rates of overall grade 3 to 4 toxicity, diarrhoea, and rash were increased (moderate-quality evidence for all three outcomes), but there was no evidence for increased rates of neutropenia.For the extended RAS wild-type population (no mutations in KRAS or NRAS), addition of EGFR MAb improved progression-free survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75; moderate-quality evidence) and overall survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88; high-quality evidence). Response rate was also improved (OR 4.28, 95% CI 2.61 to 7.03; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the progression-free survival analysis (I2 = 61%), likely due to the pooling of studies combining EGFR MAb with chemotherapy with monotherapy studies.We observed no evidence of a statistically significant difference when EGFR MAb was compared to bevacizumab, in progression-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; high quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the overall survival analysis (I2 = 51%), likely due to the pooling of first-line and second-line studies.The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy in molecularly unselected participants did not show benefit in limited data sets (meta-analysis not performed). The addition of EGFR MAb to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve progression-free survival (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.29; very low quality evidence), overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.47; low-quality evidence), or response rate (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.12; very low-quality evidence) but increased toxicity (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.57; low-quality evidence). We noted significant between-study heterogeneity in most analyses.Scant information on quality of life was reported in the identified studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of EGFR MAb to either chemotherapy or best supportive care improves progression-free survival (moderate- to high-quality evidence), overall survival (high-quality evidence), and tumour response rate (moderate- to high-quality evidence), but may increase toxicity in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type or extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (moderate-quality evidence). The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy does not improve clinical outcomes. EGFR MAb combined with bevacizumab is of no clinical value (very low-quality evidence). Future studies should focus on optimal sequencing and predictive biomarkers and collect quality of life data.

First-line panitumumab plus FOLFOX4 or FOLFIRI in colorectal cancer with multiple or unresectable liver metastases: A randomised, phase II trial (PLANET-TTD)

BACKGROUND

In first-line wild-type (WT)-Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), panitumumab (Pmab) improves outcomes when added to FOLFOX [folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin] or FOLFIRI [folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan]. However no trial has directly compared these combinations.

METHODS

Multicentre, open-label study in untreated patients ≥ 18 years with (WT)-KRAS mCRC and multiple or unresectable liver-limited disease (LLD) randomised to either Pmab-FOLFOX4 or Pmab-FOLFIRI. The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end-points included liver metastases resection rate (R0 + R1), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events and perioperative safety. Exploratory end-points were: response by RAS status, early tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) in WT-RAS patients.

RESULTS

Data on 77 patients were analysed (38 Pmab-FOLFOX4; 39 Pmab-FOLFIRI; WT-RAS: 27/26, respectively). ORR was 74% with Pmab-FOLFOX4 and 67% with Pmab-FOLFIRI (WT-RAS: 78%/73%). Out of the above, 45% and 59% underwent surgical resection, respectively (WT-RAS: 37%/69%). The R0-R1 resection rate was 34%/46% (WT-RAS:26%/54%). Median PFS was 13/14 months (hazard ratio [HR] Pmab-FOLFIRI versus Pmab-FOLFOX4: 0.9; 95% confidence interval: [0.6-1.5]; WT-RAS:13/15; HR: 0.7 [0.4-1.3]). Median OS was 37/41 months (HR:1.0 [0.6-1.8]; WT-RAS: 39/49; HR:0.9 [0.4-1.9]). In WT-RAS patients with confirmed response, median DpR was 71%/66%, and 65%/77% of patients showed ETS ≥ 30%/ ≥ 20% at week 8, without significant differences between arms; these patients had longer median PFS and OS and higher resectability rates. Surgery was associated with longer survival. Perioperative and overall safety were similar, except for higher grade 3/4 neutropenia (40%/10%; p = 0.003) and neuropathy (13%/0%; p = 0.025) in the Pmab-FOLFOX4 arm.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with WT-KRAS mCRC and LLD, both first-line Pmab-FOLFOX4 and Pmab-FOLFIRI resulted in high ORR and ETS, allowing potentially curative resection. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between the two regimens. (clinicaltrials.gov:NCT00885885).

Health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, association with systemic inflammatory response and RAS and BRAF mutation status

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of cetuximab on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the NORDIC-VII trial on metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), and to assess HRQoL in relation to RAS and BRAF mutation status and inflammatory biomarkers.

PATIENT AND METHODS

HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline, after every fourth cycle of chemotherapy, and at the end of treatment. HRQoL during 12 cycles of chemotherapy was evaluated over time, compared between treatment arms, and assessed for association with tumour mutation status and inflammatory markers.

RESULTS

QLQ-C30 was completed by 512 patients (90%) before start of treatment. HRQoL variables were well balanced across treatment arms at baseline, and no statistically significant differences during treatment were seen. Patients with BRAF-mutated tumours reported poorer HRQoL at baseline and subsequent time points than patients with RAS-mutated or RAS/BRAF wild-type tumours. Patients with high serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) or C-reactive protein (CRP) had markedly impaired HRQoL compared to patients with normal levels. There was a statistically significant association between reduction in IL-6 and CRP levels and improvement in HRQoL during treatment from baseline to cycle 4.

CONCLUSION

The addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy did not affect HRQoL in mCRC patients. Patients with BRAF-mutated tumours have both a worse prognosis and a poor HRQoL. The associations between levels of systemic inflammatory markers and reduced HRQoL suggest that the patients might benefit from anti-inflammatory treatment.

Improving Outcomes in Patients with CRC: The Role of Patient Reported Outcomes-An ESDO Report

Colorectal cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide and nearly half of patients will develop metastatic disease at some point during the course of their disease. The goal of anticancer therapy in this context is to extend survival, while trying to maximise the patient’s health-related quality of life. To this end, we need to understand how to incorporate patient-reported outcomes into clinical trials and routine practice to accurately assess if treatment strategies are providing clinical benefit for the patient. This review reflects the proceedings of a 2016 European Society of Digestive Oncology workshop, where the authors discussed the use of patient-reported outcomes to measure health-related quality of life when evaluating treatment during the management of colorectal cancer. A summary of the challenges associated with implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials is provided, as well as a review of the current clinical evidence surrounding patient-reported outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Management of adverse events during treatment of gastrointestinal cancers with epidermal growth factor inhibitors

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is involved in development and progression of some gastrointestinal cancers, and is targeted by monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) used to treat these conditions. Targeted agents are generally better tolerated than conventional chemotherapy, but have characteristic toxicities that can affect adherence, dosing, and outcomes. Skin conditions are the most common toxicities associated with EGFR inhibitors, particularly papulopustular rash. Other common toxicities include mucosal toxicity, electrolyte imbalances (notably hypomagnesaemia), and diarrhoea, while the chimaeric mAb cetuximab is also associated with increased risk of infusion reactions. With appropriate prophylaxis, the incidence and severity of these events can be reduced, while management strategies tailored to the patient and the degree of toxicity can help to ensure continuation of anti-cancer therapy. Here, we review the main toxicities associated with EGFR-inhibiting mAbs and TKIs in patients with gastrointestinal cancers, and provide recommendations for prophylaxis and treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences of Chemotherapies and Targeted Biologics for Elderly Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Treatment patterns for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients have changed considerably over the last decade with the introduction of new chemotherapies and targeted biologics. These treatments are often administered in various sequences with limited evidence regarding their cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of commonly administered treatment sequences among elderly mCRC patients.

METHODS

A probabilistic discrete event simulation model assuming Weibull distribution was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the following common treatment sequences: (a) first-line oxaliplatin/irinotecan followed by second-line oxaliplatin/irinotecan + bevacizumab (OI-OIB); (b) first-line oxaliplatin/irinotecan + bevacizumab followed by second-line oxaliplatin/irinotecan + bevacizumab (OIB-OIB); (c) OI-OIB followed by a third-line targeted biologic (OI-OIB-TB); and (d) OIB-OIB followed by a third-line targeted biologic (OIB-OIB-TB). Input parameters for the model were primarily obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked dataset for incident mCRC patients aged 65 years and older diagnosed from January 2004 through December 2009. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for parameter uncertainty. Costs (2014 U.S. dollars) and effectiveness were discounted at an annual rate of 3%.

RESULTS

In the base case analyses, at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, the treatment sequence OIB-OIB (vs. OI-OIB) was not cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per patient of $119,007/QALY; OI-OIB-TB (vs. OIB-OIB) was dominated; and OIB-OIB-TB (vs. OIB-OIB) was not cost-effective with an ICER of $405,857/QALY. Results similar to the base case analysis were obtained assuming log-normal distribution. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a WTP of $100,000/QALY gained, sequence OI-OIB was 34% cost-effective, followed by OIB-OIB (31%), OI-OIB-TB (20%), and OIB-OIB-TB (15%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, survival increases marginally with the addition of targeted biologics, such as bevacizumab, at first line and third line at substantial costs. Treatment sequences with bevacizumab at first line and targeted biologics at third line may not be cost-effective at the commonly used threshold of $100,000/QALY gained, but a marginal decrease in the cost of bevacizumab may make treatment sequences with first-line bevacizumab cost-effective. Future economic evaluations should validate the study results using parameters from ongoing clinical trials.

DISCLOSURES

This study was supported in part by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01-HS018956) and in part by a grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RP130051), which were obtained by Du. The authors report no conflicts of interest. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Parikh, along with the other authors. All authors participated in data collection, and Parikh took the lead in data interpretation and analysis, along with Lairson and Morgan, with assistance from Du. The manuscript was written primarily by Parikh, along with Lairson, Morgan, and Du, and revised by Parikh.

Systematic review of health state utility values for economic evaluation of colorectal cancer

Cost-utility analyses undertaken to inform decision making regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) require a set of health state utility values (HSUVs) so that the time CRC patients spend in different health states can be aggregated into quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). This study reviews CRC-related HSUVs that could be used in economic evaluation and assesses their advantages and disadvantages with respect to valuation methods used and CRC clinical pathways. Fifty-seven potentially relevant studies were identified which collectively report 321 CRC-related HSUVs. HSUVs (even for similar health states) vary markedly and this adds to the uncertainty regarding estimates of cost-effectiveness. There are relatively few methodologically robust HSUVs that can be directly used in economic evaluations concerned with CRC. There is considerable scope to develop new HSUVs which improve on those currently available either by expanded collection of generic measures or by making greater use of condition-specific data, for example, using mapping algorithms.

Impact of tumour RAS/BRAF status in a first-line study of panitumumab + FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To investigate tumour biomarker status and efficacy of first-line panitumumab+FOLFIRI for metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC).

METHODS

154 patients received first-line panitumumab + FOLFIRI every 14 days. Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Data were analysed by tumour RAS (KRAS/NRAS) and BRAF status, and baseline amphiregulin (AREG) expression.

RESULTS

Objective responses occurred more frequently in RAS wild type (WT) (59%) vs RAS mutant (MT) (41%) mCRC and in RAS WT/BRAF WT (68%) vs RAS or BRAF MT (37%) disease. Median response duration was longer in RAS WT (13.0 months) vs RAS MT (5.8 months) (hazard ratio (HR): 0.16). Median progression-free survival was longer in RAS WT vs MT (11.2 vs 7.3 months; HR, 0.37) and was also longer in RAS WT/BRAF WT vs RAS or BRAF MT (13.2 vs 6.9 months; HR, 0.25). Incidence of adverse events was similar regardless of RAS/BRAF status, and no new safety signals were noted. Among patients with RAS WT tumours, ORR was 67% with high AREG expression and 38% with low AREG expression.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line panitumumab+FOLFIRI was associated with favourable efficacy in patients with RAS WT and RAS WT/BRAF WT vs MT mCRC tumours and was well tolerated.

Impact of Treatment with Naloxegol for Opioid-Induced Constipation on Patients' Health State Utility

Introduction

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is the most common side effect of opioid treatment. Treatment for OIC typically involves a laxative. However, some patients have an inadequate response to these (laxative inadequate responders, or LIR). This has led to the development of treatments such as naloxegol. This analysis estimates the impact of naloxegol on the health state utility of LIR patients, examines if this utility impact is driven by the change in OIC status, and estimates the utility impact of relief of OIC.

Methods

The analysis was conducted using data from two 12-week randomized controlled trials, KODIAC 4 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01309841) and KODIAC 5 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01323790), plus KODIAC 7 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01395524), a 12-week extension to KODIAC 4. All were designed to assess the efficacy and safety of oral naloxegol (12.5 and 25 mg) compared to placebo. Health state utility data were collected through the EuroQol—five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). Descriptive analysis was undertaken to estimate how EQ-5D utility scores and EQ-5D domain responses varied with treatment, OIC status, and over time. A repeated measure mixed-effects model was used to predict the change from baseline in health state utility score over time.

Results

Compared with placebo, LIR patients treated with naloxegol 25 mg reported a 0.08 improvement in the EQ-5D overall score after 12 weeks of treatment. The analyses also suggest that change in OIC status is a key driver of the impact of OIC treatment on health state utility. When other factors are controlled, relieving OIC is associated with a 0.05 improvement in health state utility, although treatment with naloxegol is associated with an improvement in health state utility over and above the improvement in OIC status.

Conclusion

These analyses suggest that treatment with naloxegol improves patients’ health state utility; driven predominantly by the relief of patients’ constipation.

Funding

AstraZeneca.

Fluorouracil plasma monitoring: systematic review and economic evaluation of the My5-FU assay for guiding dose adjustment in patients receiving fluorouracil chemotherapy by continuous infusion

BACKGROUND

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is a chemotherapy used in colorectal, head and neck (H&N) and other cancers. Dose adjustment is based on body surface area (BSA) but wide variations occur. Pharmacokinetic (PK) dosing is suggested to bring plasma levels into the therapeutic range to promote fewer side effects and better patient outcomes. We investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the My5-FU assay for PK dose adjustment to 5-FU therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence on the accuracy of the My5-FU assay compared with gold standard methods [high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)]; the effectiveness of My5-FU PK dosing compared with BSA; the effectiveness of HPLC and/or LC-MS compared with BSA; the generalisability of published My5-FU and PK studies; costs of using My5-FU; to develop a cost-effectiveness model.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and other databases between January and April 2014.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts with arbitration and consensus agreement. We undertook quality assessment. We reconstructed Kaplan-Meier plots for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for comparison of BSA and PK dosing. We developed a Markov model to compare My5-FU with BSA dosing which modelled PFS, OS and adverse events, using a 2-week cycle over a 20 year time horizon with a 3.5% discount rate. Health impacts were evaluated from the patient perspective, while costs were evaluated from the NHS and Personal Social Services perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 8341 records were identified through electronic searches and 35 and 54 studies were included in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness reviews respectively. There was a high apparent correlation between My5-FU, HPLC and LC-MS/mass spectrometer but upper and lower limits of agreement were -18% to 30%. Median OS were estimated as 19.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.0 to 21.0] months for PK versus 14.6 (95% CI 14.1 to 15.3) months for BSA for 5-FU+folinic acid (FA); and 27.4 (95% CI 23.2 to 38.8) months for PK versus 20.6 (95% CI 18.4 to 22.9) months for BSA for FOLFOX6 in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PK versus BSA studies were generalisable to the relevant populations. We developed cost-effectiveness models for mCRC and H&N cancer. The base case assumed a cost per My5-FU assay of £ 61.03. For mCRC for 12 cycles of a oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil and FA (FOLFOX) regimen, there was a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.599 with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £ 4148 per QALY. Probabilistic and scenario analyses gave similar results. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed My5-FU to be 100% cost-effective at a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY. For H&N cancer, again, given caveats about the poor evidence base, we also estimated that My5-FU is likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Quality and quantity of evidence were very weak for PK versus BSA dosing for all cancers with no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using current regimens. For H&N cancer, two studies of regimens no longer in use were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a linked evidence approach, My5-FU appears to be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £ 20,000 per QALY for both mCRC and H&N cancer. Considerable uncertainties remain about evidence quality and practical implementation. RCTs are needed of PK versus BSA dosing in relevant cancers.

Skin toxicity and quality of life during treatment with panitumumab for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal carcinoma: results from three randomised clinical trials

Purpose

Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors such as panitumumab are associated with characteristic skin toxicities. We summarise data from three panitumumab clinical trials to investigate the potential impact of skin toxicity on quality of life (QoL) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods

The studies were randomised, open-label trials comparing standard treatment (first-line FOLFOX4 [n = 456], second-line FOLFIRI [n = 381], or best supportive care [n = 114]) with or without panitumumab in adults with KRAS/NRAS (RAS) wild-type mCRC. QoL was assessed using the EuroQoL 5-domain health state index (HSI) and overall health rating (OHR) measures. Impact of skin toxicity on changes in QoL scores was estimated using a linear mixed-effects model. Worst skin toxicity was defined in separate models as a subgroup variable or as a measure over time.

Results

Regardless of analysis method, there were no statistically significant differences between the panitumumab and comparator arms in any of the studies in terms of change in HSI or OHR scores. There were no statistically significant differences in QoL outcomes between patients with worst skin toxicity grade <3 and those with grade ≥3. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences between the panitumumab and comparator arms in subgroups of patients with worst skin toxicity of grade <3 and ≥3.

Conclusions

Addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy in RAS wild-type mCRC has no statistically significant negative effect on overall QoL, despite skin toxicity. Skin toxicity of worst grade ≥3 appeared to have similar impact on QoL as skin toxicity of grade <3.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1288-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Quality of life during first-line FOLFOX4±panitumumab in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal carcinoma: results from a randomised controlled trial

Introduction

Metastatic colorectal cancer is rarely curable. Improving quality of life is therefore a key treatment goal. We report quality of life for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in the PRIME study.

Methods

A randomised phase 3 open-label study of first-line panitumumab+FOLFOX4 vs FOLFOX4 enrolled adults with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. This analysis includes patients with wild-type RAS tumours (n=505). Quality of life (prespecified end point) was assessed using the EuroQoL 5-domain health state index and overall health rating in all patients and by early tumour shrinkage status (≥30% reduction in size by week 8; exploratory end point). Differences in quality of life were assessed using analysis of covariance and a mixed-effect piecewise linear model, and were also analysed by skin toxicity severity.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms from baseline to progression or to discontinuation. Grade 3+ skin toxicity was reported by 38% of patients receiving panitumumab+FOLFOX4 and 2% receiving FOLFOX4 alone. There were no significant differences in quality of life between patients with grade 0–2 skin toxicity and those with grade 3+ skin toxicity. More patients receiving panitumumab+FOLFOX4 vs FOLFOX4 had early tumour shrinkage (p<.001). In patients with tumour symptoms at baseline, there were statistically significant improvements in quality of life in those with early tumour shrinkage versus those without early tumour shrinkage.

Conclusions

Addition of panitumumab to FOLFOX4 in first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs survival and has no negative effect on overall quality of life compared with FOLFOX4 alone. Specific quality of life assessments for skin toxicity should be included in study designs to better define the direct effect of these adverse events.

Trial registration number

NCT00364013.

Association of Financial Strain With Symptom Burden and Quality of Life for Patients With Lung or Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

To measure the association between patient financial strain and symptom burden and quality of life (QOL) for patients with new diagnoses of lung or colorectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients participating in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance study were interviewed about their financial reserves, QOL, and symptom burden at 4 months of diagnosis and, for survivors, at 12 months of diagnosis. We assessed the association of patient-reported financial reserves with patient-reported outcomes including the Brief Pain Inventory, symptom burden on the basis of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30, and QOL on the basis of the EuroQoL-5 Dimension scale. Multivariable linear regression models were fit for each outcome and cancer type, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, sex, income, insurance, stage at diagnosis, and comorbidity.

RESULTS

Among patients with lung and colorectal cancer, 40% and 33%, respectively, reported limited financial reserves (≤ 2 months). Relative to patients with more than 12 months of financial reserves, those with limited financial reserves reported significantly increased pain (adjusted mean difference, 5.03 [95% CI, 3.29 to 7.22] and 3.45 [95% CI, 1.25 to 5.66], respectively, for lung and colorectal), greater symptom burden (5.25 [95% CI, 3.29 to .22] and 5.31 [95% CI, 3.58 to 7.04]), and poorer QOL (4.70 [95% CI, 2.82 to 6.58] and 5.22 [95% CI, 3.61 to 6.82]). With decreasing financial reserves, a clear dose-response relationship was present across all measures of well-being. These associations were also manifest for survivors reporting outcomes again at 1 year and persisted after adjustment for stage, comorbidity, insurance, and other clinical attributes.

CONCLUSION

Patients with cancer and limited financial reserves are more likely to have higher symptom burden and decreased QOL. Assessment of financial reserves may help identify patients who need intensive support.

Clinical Perspectives on Targeting Therapies for Personalized Medicine

Expected benefits from new technology include more efficient patient selection for clinical trials, more cost-effective treatment pathways for patients and health services and a more profitable accelerated approach for drug developers. Regulatory authorities expect the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries to accelerate their development of companion diagnostics and companion therapeutics toward the goal of safer and more effective personalized medicine, and expect health services to fund and prescribers to adopt these new therapeutic technologies.

This review discusses the importance of a range of new approaches to developing new and reprofiled medicines to treat common and serious diseases, and rare diseases: new network pharmacology approaches, adaptive trial designs with enriched populations more likely to respond safely to treatment, as assessed by companion diagnostics for response and toxicity risk and use of “real world” data.

Case studies are described of single and multiple protein drug targets in several important therapeutic areas. These case studies also illustrate the value and complexity of use of selective biomarkers of clinical response and risk of adverse drug effects, either singly or in combination.

Effectiveness and safety of monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of chemotherapy (CT) for select cases of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) has been well established in the literature, however, it provides limited benefits and in many cases constitutes a treatment with high toxicity. The use of specific molecular biological treatments with monoclonal antibodies (MA) has been shown to be relevant, particularly for its potential for increasing the response rate of the host to the tumour, as these have molecular targets present in the cancerous cells and their microenvironment thereby blocking their development. The combination of MA and CT can bring a significant increase in the rate of resectability of metastases, the progression-free survival (PFS), and the global survival (GS) in MCRC patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of MA in the treatment of MCRC.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out with a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing the use of cetuximab, bevacizumab, and panitumumab in the treatment of MCRC.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials were selected. The quality of the evidence on the question was considered moderate and data from eight randomised clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. The GS and PFS were greater in the groups which received the MA associated with CT, however, the differences were not statistically significant between the groups (mean of 17.7 months versus 17.1 months; mean difference of 1.09 (CI: 0.10-2.07); p = 0.84; and 7.4 versus 6.9 months. mean difference of 0.76 (CI: 0.08-1.44); p = 0.14 respectively). The meta-analysis was not done for any of the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The addition of MA to CT for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer does not prolong GS and PFS.

Improving Quality of Life for People with Incurable Large-Bowel Obstruction: Randomized Control Trial of Colonic Stent Insertion

BACKGROUND

Surgery remains the dominant treatment for large-bowel obstruction, with emerging data on self-expanding metallic stents.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess whether stent insertion improves quality of life and survival in comparison with surgical decompression.

DESIGN

This study reports on a randomized control trial (registry number ACTRN012606000199516).

SETTING

This study was conducted at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, and Western Hospital, Melbourne.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

Patients with malignant incurable large-bowel obstruction were randomly assigned to surgical decompression or stent insertion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was differences in EuroQOL EQ-5D quality of life. Secondary end points included overall survival, 30-day mortality, stoma rates, postoperative recovery, complications, and readmissions.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients of 58 needed to reach the calculated sample size were evaluated. Stent insertion was successful in 19 of 26 (73%) patients. The remaining 7 patients required a stoma compared with 24 of 26 (92%) surgery group patients (p < 0.001). There were no stent-related perforations or deaths. The surgery group had significantly reduced quality of life compared with the stent group from baseline to 1 and 2 weeks (p = 0.001 and p = 0.012), and from baseline to 12 months (p = 0.01) in favor of the stent group, whereas both reported reduced quality of life. The stent group had an 8% 30-day mortality compared with 15% for the surgery group (p = 0.668). Median survival was 5.2 and 5.5 months for the groups (p = 0.613). The stent group had significantly reduced procedure time (p = 0.014), postprocedure stay (p = 0.027), days nothing by mouth (p = 0.002), and days before free access to solids (p = 0.022).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the lack of an EQ-5D Australian-based population set.

CONCLUSIONS

Stent use in patients with incurable large-bowel obstruction has a number of advantages with faster return to diet, decreased stoma rates, reduced postprocedure stay, and some quality-of-life benefits.

Quality of life across chemotherapy lines in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a prospective single-center observational study

BACKGROUND

Palliative chemotherapy in patients with nonresectable advanced colorectal carcinoma is performed to prolong survival, alleviate tumor-associated symptoms, and maintain or improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL). In this prospective single-center observational study, we assessed HRQOL across the various lines of palliative chemotherapy.

METHODS

HRQOL data were acquired using the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30) questionnaire. The first assessment was performed at the beginning of each chemotherapy line, the second after three cycles, and the third at the end of chemotherapy. Further assessments were conducted during checkups every 3 months in our outpatient unit.

RESULTS

In total, 100 consecutive patients with colorectal carcinoma (mean age 66.4 years; 60 % men) treated with palliative chemotherapy were recruited. Generally, QOL deteriorated constantly across time. Physical functioning, fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and appetite worsened steadily from first-line chemotherapy to the later treatment phase. Global QOL, emotional functioning, and role functioning improved slightly after the end of first-line chemotherapy, deteriorated during second-line chemotherapy to the level of first-line chemotherapy, and further deteriorated in the later treatment phases. In additional analyses, we found the largest differences between patients with and without a treatment response for pain (19.0 vs. 37.2 points) and appetite loss (17.4 vs. 32.7 points).

CONCLUSION

The individual QOL domains deteriorated constantly across time. Our data indicate that patients undergoing first- and second-line palliative chemotherapy experience stabilization of global QOL and psychosocial symptoms. We also found that unselected patients who achieved a treatment response had a lower symptom burden and better QOL than did patients with progressive disease.

The cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1 genotyping before colorectal cancer treatment with irinotecan from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance

BACKGROUND

The evidence concerning the cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1*28 genotyping is ambiguous and does not allow drawing valid conclusions for Germany. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1 genotyping in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing irinotecan-based chemotherapy compared to no testing from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A decision-analytic Markov model with a life time horizon was developed. No testing was compared to two genotype-dependent therapy strategies: 1) dose reduction by 25%; and 2) administration of a prophylactic G-CSF growth factor analog for homozygous and heterozygous patients. Probability, quality of life and cost parameters used in this study were based on published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameter uncertainties.

RESULTS

Strategy 1 dominated all remaining strategies. Compared to no testing, it resulted in only marginal QALY increases (0.0002) but a cost reduction of €580 per patient. Strategy 2 resulted in the same health gains but increased costs by €10 773. In the probabilistic analysis, genotyping and dose reduction was the optimal strategy in approximately 100% of simulations at a threshold of €50 000 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis shows that uncertainty for this strategy originated primarily from costs for irinotecan-based chemotherapy, from the prevalence of neutropenia among heterozygous patients, and from whether dose reduction is applied to both homozygotes and heterozygotes or only to the former.

CONCLUSION

This model-based synthesis of the most recent evidence suggests that pharmacogenetic UGT1A1 testing prior to irinotecan-based chemotherapy dominates non-personalized colon cancer care in Germany. However, as structural uncertainty remains high, these results require validation in clinical practice, e.g. based on a managed-entry agreement.

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.

Assessing health-state utility values in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a utility study in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands

PURPOSE

This study aimed to elicit EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) utility values from patients with second-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) pre- and post-progression.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in five hospitals in the Netherlands and the UK. Patients with mCRC were eligible if prescribed a second or subsequent line of therapy or best supportive care (BSC), received prior oxaliplatin in first-line therapy, and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores of 0-2 at second-line initiation. Patients completed the EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire and were categorized as pre- or post-progression. Chart data including patient demographics, clinical history, prior/current treatments and serious adverse events (SAEs) were collected. Mean utilities were estimated; uni- and multivariate analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were enrolled; 42 were pre-progression defined as second line or third line following an AE on second line and 33 were post-progression defined as third or subsequent therapy lines or BSC. Patient/disease characteristics and number of SAEs were similar between cohorts. Mean utility scores were 0.741 (SD = 0.230) and 0.731 (SD = 0.292) for pre- and post-progression cohorts, respectively. Compared to pre-progression, more patients reported increased anxiety/depression (36 vs. 12 %) and fewer problems with daily activities (64 vs. 38 %) post-progression. More patients pre-progression were on active treatment at enrolment (83 vs. 42 %) compared to post-progression.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first real-world study to collect utilities for patients with second-line mCRC pre- and post-disease progression. Utility values were similar pre- and post-progression. To further explore the effect of radiological progression on utilities, longitudinal research is required that includes patients in palliative care centres.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Combinations of chemotherapy regimens and monoclonal antibodies have been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc). Although these combination treatment strategies are safe and effective in first-line treatment for mcrc, little is known about their economic consequences and resource allocation implications. In the present study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus folfiri, cetuximab plus folfiri, and panitumumab plus folfiri for patients with KRAS wild-type mcrc.

METHODS

A Markov model simulated the lifetime patient outcomes and costs of each first-line treatment strategy and subsequent lines of treatment from the perspective of the health care payer in Ontario. The model was parameterized using data from the Ontario Cancer Registry, Ontario health administrative databases, and published randomized control trials. Patient outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (qalys), and costs were measured in monetary terms. Costs and outcomes were both discounted at 5% and expressed in 2012 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

For mcrc patients with KRAS wild-type disease, the treatment strategy of bevacizumab plus folfiri was found to dominate the other two first-line treatment strategies. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values were sensitive to the effectiveness of treatment, the costs of bevacizumab and cetuximab, and health utility values.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from Ontario showed that bevacizumab plus folfiri is the cost-effective first-line treatment strategy for patients with KRAS wild-type mcrc. The panitumumab plus folfiri and cetuximab plus folfiri options were both dominated, but the cetuximab plus folfiri strategy must be further investigated given that, in the sensitivity analyses, the cost-effectiveness of that strategy was found to be superior to that of bevacizumab plus folfiri under certain ranges of parameter values.

Risk/benefit profile of panitumumab-based therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: evidence from five randomized controlled trials

This study aims to evaluate the risk and benefit profiles of panitumumab-based therapy (PBT) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified by searching PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Data on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), all grade and severe (grade ≥3) adverse events were extracted and pooled to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Number needed to treat (NNT) for PFS and number needed to harm (NNH) for significantly changed toxicities were calculated. A total of 4,155 patients were included in the analysis. PBT significantly improved PFS (HRrandom = 0.66, 95 % CI = 0.45-0.95) but not OS (HRfixed = 0.93, 95 % CI = 0.83-1.04) when used in the subsequent-line setting. The effect on PFS was more evident in patients with wild-type KRAS (HRrandom = 0.64, 95 % CI = 0.47-0.87) and the NNT for PFS is 11 to 23at 1 year. PBT did not benefit patients when used in the first-line setting. In addition, PBT significantly increased the risk of skin toxicity, infections, diarrhea, dehydration, mucositis, hypokalemia, fatigue, hypomagnesemia, pulmonary embolism and paronychia. The NNHs for skin toxicity, diarrhea, infection, hypokalemia and mucositis are less than 23. In conclusion, when used in the subsequent-line setting, PBT can improve the disease progression, especially in mCRC patients with wild-type KRAS. Regarding the adverse events associated with the PBT, close monitoring and necessary preparations are recommended during the therapy.

Utility values in health technology assessments: a statistician's perspective

This paper provides an introduction to utilities for statisticians working mainly in clinical research who have not had experience of health technology assessment work. Utility is the numeric valuation applied to a health state based on the preference of being in that state relative to perfect health. Utilities are often combined with survival data in health economic modelling to obtain quality-adjusted life years. There are several methods available for deriving the preference weights and the health states to which they are applied, and combining them to estimate utilities, and the clinical statistician has valuable skills that can be applied in ensuring the robustness of the trial design, data collection and analyses to obtain and handle this data. In addition to raising awareness of the subject and providing source references, the paper outlines the concepts and approaches around utilities using examples, discusses some of the key issues, and proposes areas where statisticians can collaborate with health economic colleagues to improve the quality of this important element of health technology assessment.

Impact of cetuximab in current treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Cetuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeting the EGFR, which has proven effective in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), wild-type Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS).

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this manuscript is to discuss the current impact of cetuximab in the most important scenarios of mCRC. We review the currently available data regarding the role of other biomarkers, such as the mutational status of neuroblastoma RAS viral (v-ras) oncogene homolog in identifying patients who could benefit most from anti-EGFR. In addition, a review is included of the most relevant clinical trials that have assessed the effectiveness of cetuximab in the management of patients with potentially resectable metastatic disease and in the first-line treatment of wild-type KRAS mCRC, as well as the impact of this anti-EGFR agent on patient quality of life.

EXPERT OPINION

Cetuximab has had a progressive clinical development from the earliest to the later stages of the evolution of mCRC and has been consolidated as a therapeutic option for all scenarios of unresectable disease. Patient selection by analysis of KRAS mutations has been a fundamental event to increase efficiency, being a dynamic process that continues in assessment. There are few comparative data with other biological agents in combination with chemotherapy, although data from a recent study are promising.

Using companion and coupled diagnostics within strategy to personalize targeted medicines

Regulatory authorities expect the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries to accelerate their development of companion diagnostics and companion therapeutics towards the goal of personalized medicine, and expect health services to fund, prescribers to adopt and patients to accept these new therapeutic technologies. Expected benefits from more systematic development of combination products (companion diagnostic and its companion therapeutic) are expected to include safer and improved clinical and cost-effective use of medicines, more efficient patient selection for clinical trials, more cost-effective treatment pathways for health services, and a more profitable approach for drug developers. This review discusses challenges to timely development of companion diagnostics and provides case studies of single and multiple protein and genetic biomarkers of clinical response and risk of adverse drug effects.