Costs and consequences of different chemotherapy regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer

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.

Economic evaluation of policy initiatives in the organisation and delivery of healthcare: a case study of gastroenterology endoscopy services

BACKGROUND

Complex clinical interventions are increasingly subject to evaluation by randomised trial linked to economic evaluation. However evaluations of policy initiatives tend to eschew experimental designs in favour of interpretative perspectives which rarely allow the economic evaluation methods used in clinical trials. As evidence of the cost effectiveness of such initiatives is critical in informing policy, it is important to explore whether conventional economic evaluation methods apply to experimental evaluations of policy initiatives.

METHODS

We used mixed methods based on a quasi-experimental design to evaluate a policy initiative whose aim was to expedite the modernisation of gastroenterology endoscopy services in England. We compared 10 sites which had received funding and support to modernise their endoscopy services with 10 controls. We collected data from five waves of patients undergoing endoscopy. The economic component of the study compared sites by levels of investment in modernisation and patients' use of health service resources, time off work and health related quality of life.

RESULTS

We found no statistically significant difference between intervention and control sites in investment in modernisation or any patient outcome including health.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights difficulties in applying the rigour of a randomised trial and associated technique of economic evaluation to a policy initiative. It nevertheless demonstrates the feasibility of using this approach although further work is needed to demonstrate its generalisability in other applications. The present application shows that the small incentives offered to intervention sites did not enhance modernisation of gastroenterology endoscopy services or improve patient outcomes.

Colorectal cancer: current care, future innovations and economic considerations

For those involved in colorectal cancer management, the present day is an exciting time. There is a multitude of new techniques to be considered for early detection (screening). National population screening for 60-69-year olds in England is due to start this year. Also, minimally invasive surgical techniques and multimodal pathways of care are aiding faster recovery, and there are increasing options for both adjuvant and palliative therapies. This article summarizes how colorectal cancer is currently managed in the UK and discusses the developments that are in the early stages of clinical use or on the horizon. Current management is discussed in detail in the hope that innovators reading the article may identify areas for improvement and allow comparison of new interventions with what are currently the gold standards. As changes are moving so fast, this review will probably only relate to the next 10 years at most. It does not provide a detailed reference list to support all therapies but indicates the key publications that will enable more detailed reading.

The unit costs of inpatient hospital days, outpatient visits, and daycare treatments in the fields of oncology and hematology

OBJECTIVES

Many economic evaluations are conducted in the fields of oncology and hematology, partially owing to the introduction of new expensive drugs in this field. Even though inpatient days, outpatient visits, and daycare treatments are frequently the main drivers of total treatment costs, their unit costs often lack generalizability. Therefore, we aimed to determine the unit costs of inpatient hospital days, outpatient visits, and daycare treatments specifically for oncological and hematological diseases in The Netherlands from the hospital's perspective.

METHODS

Unit costs were collected from 30 oncological and hematological departments of 6 university and 24 general hospitals. Costs included direct labor and indirect labor, hotel and nutrition, overheads and capital. Ordinary least squares regression models were constructed to examine the degree of association between unit costs and hospital and hospital department characteristics. All costs were based on Euro 2007 cost data.

RESULTS

At university hospitals, the unit costs per inpatient day were determined at €633 in oncological and €680 in hematological departments. At general hospitals, the mean costs per inpatient day were €400. Unit costs for inpatient hospital days, outpatient visits. and daycare treatments equalled the relative ratio 100:21:44. Direct labor costs were the major cost driver and the type of hospital (university, yes/no) was a strong predictor of unit costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provided unit costs for inpatient hospital days, outpatient visits, and daycare treatments in the fields of oncology and hematology. The results may be used as Dutch reference unit prices in economic evaluations assessing oncological and hematological diseases.

Systematic review of economic evidence for the detection, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the availability and consistency of economic evidence for the detection, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of colorectal cancer.

Methods: A systematic review of UK economic evaluations of colorectal cancer interventions was undertaken. Searches were undertaken across ten electronic databases. Studies were critically appraised through reference to a conceptual model of UK colorectal cancer services.

Results: Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. There is a substantial economic evidence base surrounding population-level colorectal screening, surgical procedures, and cytotoxic therapies for the adjuvant and palliative treatment of colorectal cancer. There is limited evidence concerning the diagnosis of suspected colorectal cancer, curative treatments for metastatic disease and follow-up regimens for nonmetastatic disease. No studies were identified relating to the economics of radiotherapy, surveillance of increased-risk groups, end-of-life care, or the management of hereditary colorectal cancer. Where evidence is available, studies are subject to important differences concerning treatment options, decision criteria, and incongruent assumptions concerning the disease and its management.

Conclusions: Across many aspects of the colorectal cancer service, current practice appears to have emerged without the consideration or support of economic evidence. There is a need to develop a common understanding how colorectal cancer models should be structured and implemented.

Hospital costs of colorectal cancer care

Objective:

In a hospital based setting, identify factors which influence the cost of colorectal cancer care?

Design:

Retrospective case note review

Setting:

Nottingham, United Kingdom

Participants:

227 patients treated for colorectal cancer

Methods:

Retrospective review of the hospital records provided the primary data for the costing study and included all CRC related resource consumption over the study period.

Results:

Of 700 people identified, 227 (32%) sets of hospital notes were reviewed. The median age of the study group was 70.3 (IQR 11.3) years and there were 128 (56%) males. At two years, there was a significant difference in costs between Dukes D cancers (£3641) and the other stages (£3776 Dukes A; £4921 Dukes B). Using univariate and multivariate regression, the year of diagnosis, Dukes stage of disease, intensive nursing care, stoma requirements and recurrent disease all significantly affected the total cost of care.

Conclusions:

CRC remains costly with no significant difference in costs if diagnosed before compared to after 1992. Very early and very late stage cancers remain the least costly stage of cancers to treat. Other significant effectors of hospital costs were the site of cancer (rectal), intensive nursing care, recurrent disease and the need for a stoma.

Treated Colorectal Cancer: What is the Cost to Primary Care?

Background:

Colorectal cancer is the second commonest cause of cancer death and the cost to primary care has not been estimated.

Aim:

To determine the direct primary care costs of colorectal cancer care.

Design:

Retrospective case note review.

Setting:

Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Methods:

We identified people with colorectal cancer between 1995 and 1998, from computerised pathology records. Colorectal cancer related resources consumed in primary care, from hospital discharge to death, were identified from retrospective notes review. Outcome measures were costs incurred by the General Practitioner (GP) and the total cost to primary care. We used multiple linear regression to identify predictors of cost.

Results:

Of 416 people identified from pathology records, the median age at primary operation of the 135 (33%) people we selected was 74.2 (IQR 14.4) years, 75 (56%) were male. The median GP cost was: Dukes A £61.0 (IQR 516.2) and Dukes D £936.2 (1196.2) p < 0.01. The geometric mean ratio found Dukes D cancers to be 10 times as costly as Dukes A. The median total cost was: Dukes A £1038.3 (IQR 5090.6) and Dukes D £1815.2 (2092.5) p = 0.06. Using multivariate analysis, Dukes stage was the most important predictor of GP costs. For total costs, the presence of a permanent stoma was the most predictive variable, followed by adjuvant therapy and advanced Dukes stage (Dukes C and D).

Conclusions:

Contrary to hospital based care costs, late stage disease (Dukes D) costs substantially more to general practice than any other stage. Stoma care products are the most costly prescribable item. Costs savings may be realised in primary care by screening detection of early stage colorectal cancers.

Risk-stratified intensive follow up for treated colorectal cancer - realistic and cost saving?

OBJECTIVE

Intensive follow-up post surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is thought to improve long-term survival principally through the earlier detection of recurrent disease. This paper aims to calculate the additional resource and cost implications of intensive follow up post-CRC resection, examine the possibility of risk-stratifying this follow up to those at highest risk of recurrence and investigating the impact that population screening might have on the future cost and outcomes of follow up.

METHOD

Two follow-up regimens were constructed: the 'standard' follow-up protocol used the principles of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines whilst the 'intensive' follow-up protocol used the most intensive arm of the follow up after colorectal surgery (FACS) trial. Using ONS data, the number of CRC diagnosed in a given year was calculated for 2003 and projected for 2016 based on the population of England and Wales. The resource requirements and costs of follow up over a 5-year period were then calculated for the two time periods. Risk stratifying entry to follow up and the introduction of population CRC screening were then considered.

RESULTS

For the 2003 cohort, an intensive follow-up program would detect 853 additional resectable recurrences over 5 years with 795 fewer subjects requiring palliative care. An additional 26 302 outpatient appointments, 181 352 CEA tests and 79 695 CT scans over 5 years would be required to achieve this. The cost of investigating subjects who would never develop detectable recurrences was pound15.6 million. The cost per additional resectable recurrence was pound18 077, a figure also found for a nonscreened population in 2016. An identical intensive follow-up policy with biennial FOBT screening in 2016 saw the cost per additional resectable recurrence rise to pound36 255.

CONCLUSION

Intensive follow up will detect considerably more resectable recurrences but at considerable cost and it is unclear if such follow up will be achievable in an already over-stretched NHS. If population-based CRC screening increases the number of Dukes A cancers this may offer the possibility of risk-stratifying future follow up to those at highest risk of recurrence; minimizing tests on those who will never have recurrent disease and better utilizing our scarce 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.

Advanced Colorectal Cancer: Current Treatment and Nursing Management With Economic Considerations

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers affecting men and women in the United States. In 2005, 10% of all new cancer cases in men will be colorectal; for women, 11% of new cases will be colorectal. The disease is the third most frequent cancer occurring in both sexes. Colorectal cancer also is the third most frequent cause of death for men and women, and more than 56,000 cancer deaths in 2005 will be attributed to colorectal cancer. Chemotherapy options for treatment of the disease remained relatively stagnant until the approval of irinotecan in 1996 followed by capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and the new targeted agents. The new agents have improved efficacy of treatment for colorectal cancer and the lives of patients with advanced disease. With the new options for treatment come increased nursing and patient-teaching responsibilities, as well as increased costs associated with the newer drugs in the armamentarium of chemotherapy agents. Formulary budgets are seeing dramatic rises in expenditures for the new, targeted therapy treatments; discussion of the most appropriate therapies may be considered. This article will discuss epidemiology of colorectal cancer, treatment options in advanced colorectal cancer, and nursing care crucial to patients undergoing chemotherapy. Discussion of economic impact also will be presented.

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.

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (xelox) versus protracted 5-fluorouracil venous infusion plus oxaliplatin (pvifox) as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer: a GOAM phase II randomised study (FOCA trial)

This phase II randomised trial compares oxaliplatin plus protracted infusion of 5-fluorouracil (pviFOX) or oxaliplatin plus capecitabine (XELOX) in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC).

METHODS

From December 2001 to March 2005, 118 patients were randomised to arm A (pviFOX: pvi5-FU by a central venous catheter 250 mg/m2/daily d1-21+oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 d1 q3w) (56 pts) or arm B (XELOX: capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 po bid d1-14+oxaliplatin at the same schedule) (62 pts).

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were well-balanced between the two arms. Median number of complete cycles was six. The objective responses were: CR 1 (1.7%) and 3 (4.8%), PR 26 (46.4 %) and 24 (38.7%), SD 13 (23.2%) and 20 (32.3%), P 13(23.2%) and 10 (16.1%), not evaluable 3 (5.4%) and 5 (8.1 %) in arms A and B, respectively; the CR+PR rate was 48.2% (95% confidence limits 34.6%-61.9%) versus 43.5 % (31.0%-56.7%). Median TTP was 7 versus 9 months, respectively. About 50% of the patients with symptoms or low performance status at baseline experienced improvement without major differences between the two arms. G3-4 diarrhoea was observed in 14.0% versus 8.2%, G3 stomatitis in 3.7% versus 0, and G3 neurotoxicity in 18.5% versus 24.6% in arms A and B, respectively. Eight patients in arm A (14.8%) had venous line problems that obliged the temporary suspension (six cases) or stopping (two cases) of the 5-FU infusion.

CONCLUSION

Both pviFOX and XELOX are effective and safe first-line treatments for patients with ACRC. By avoiding intravenous (i.v.) administration by a central catheter, XELOX is favoured in clinical practice.

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

The cost of chemotherapy has dramatically increased in advanced colorectal cancer patients, and the schedule of fluorouracil administration appears to be a determining factor. This retrospective study compared direct medical costs related to two different de Gramont schedules (standard vs. simplified) given in first-line chemotherapy with oxaliplatin or irinotecan. This cost-minimization analysis was performed from the French Health System perspective. Consecutive unselected patients treated in first-line therapy by LV5FU2 de Gramont with oxaliplatin (Folfox regimen) or with irinotecan (Folfiri regimen) were enrolled. Hospital and outpatient resources related to chemotherapy and adverse events were collected from 1999 to 2004 in 87 patients. Overall cost was reduced in the simplified regimen. The major factor which explained cost saving was the lower need for admissions for chemotherapy. Amount of cost saving depended on the method for assessing hospital stay. In patients treated by the Folfox regimen the per diem and DRG methods found cost savings of Euro 1,997 and Euro 5,982 according to studied schedules; in patients treated by Folfiri regimen cost savings of Euro 4,773 and Euro 7,274 were observed, respectively. In addition, travel costs were also reduced by simplified regimens. The robustness of our results was showed by one-way sensitivity analyses. These findings demonstrate that the simplified de Gramont schedule reduces costs of current first-line chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Interestingly, our study showed several differences in costs between two costing approaches of hospital stay: average per diem and DRG costs. These results suggested that standard regimen may be considered a profitable strategy from the hospital perspective. The opposition between health system perspective and hospital perspective is worth examining and may affect daily practices. In conclusion, our study shows that the simplified de Gramont schedule in combination with oxaliplatin or irinotecan is an attractive option from the French Health System perspective. This safe and less costly regimen must compared to alternative options such as oral fluoropyrimidines.

Phase I dose-escalation trial of irinotecan with continuous infusion 5-FU first line, in metastatic colorectal cancer

This single-centre phase I trial was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose of irinotecan and the recommended dose to use in combination with a fixed dose of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) administered as a protracted venous infusion, for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Tolerability and efficacy were secondary end points. In all, 22 patients, median age 57 years, were treated with escalating, weekly doses of irinotecan (50, 75, 100 and 85 mg m⁻²) in combination with 250 mg m⁻² 5-FU administered as a continuous infusion. All patients had measurable disease. The combination was well tolerated up to an irinotecan dose of 75 mg m⁻². However, three out of five patients at the 100 mg m⁻² irinotecan dose level had their dose reduced due to multiple grade 2 toxicities, and eventually one patient stopped treatment due to grade 3 diarrhoea and multiple grade 2 toxicities. Subsequent patients were recruited at an irinotecan dose level of 85 mg m⁻². The overall response rate was 55%, comprising one complete and 11 partial responses (PRs). Six patients also achieved sustained stable disease (SD), giving a clinical benefit (complete response/PR/SD) response of 82%. The median duration of response was 238 days (8.5 months) and median time to progression was 224 days (8.0 months). Two patients who achieved PRs underwent partial hepatectomies. Thus, irinotecan (85 mg m⁻²) combined with a continuous infusion of 5-FU (250 mg m⁻²) is an active and well-tolerated regimen for the treatment of metastatic CRC. It represents an effective treatment for patients who require close supervision and support, throughout their initial exposure to chemotherapy for this disease, and this dose combination was recommended for an ongoing phase II study.

Irinotecan plus raltitrexed as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer: a phase II study

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of irinotecan (CPT-11) in combination with raltitrexed as first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). A total of 91 previously untreated patients with advanced CRC and measurable disease were enrolled in this phase II study. The median age was 62 years (range 31–77); male/female 54/37; ECOG performance status was 0 in 50 patients (55%), one in 39 (43%) and two in two (2%). Treatment consisted of CPT-11 350 mg m⁻² in a 30-min intravenous infusion on day 1, followed after 30 min by a 15-min infusion of raltitrexed 3 mg m⁻². Measurements of efficacy included the following: response rate, time to disease progression and overall survival. Of the 83 evaluable patients valuable to objective response, there were five complete responses (6%) and 23 partial responses (28%), for an overall response rate of 34% (95% CI: 25.9–46.5%). In all, 36 patients (43%) had stable disease, whereas 19 (23%) had a progression. The median time to progression was 11.1 months and the median overall survival was 15.6 months. A total of 487 cycles of chemotherapy were delivered with a median of five per patient. Grade 3–4 WHO toxicities were as follows: diarrhoea in 13 patients (15%), nausea/vomiting in four (4%), transaminase increase in six (7%), stomatitis in two (2%), febrile neutropenia in three (3%), anaemia in five (6%) and asthenia in three (3%). The combination CPT-11–raltitrexed is an effective, well-tolerated and convenient regimen as front-line treatment of advanced CRC.

Why hasn't the National Institute been 'NICE' to patients with colorectal cancer? National Institute of Clinical Excellence

British Journal of Cancer (2002) 86, 1667–1669. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600369www.bjcancer.com

© 2002 Cancer Research UK