The clinical and economic benefits of capecitabine and tegafur with uracil in metastatic colorectal cancer

Currently available first-line drug therapies for treating pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the 9th most common cancer in the United States and the 4th most common cause of cancer-related death given its poor prognosis.

AREAS COVERED

The authors have performed a literature search for pertinent published clinical trials, ongoing Phase 3 clinical trials, and current treatment guidelines using PubMed, Clinicaltrials.gov, and NCCN, ASCO, ESMO, and JPS websites. The review itself discusses landmark studies and ongoing research into the chemotherapy regimens recommended by each oncologic society. The authors also examine drugs that were promising but failed in Phase 3 trials and those currently being investigated. Finally, the authors provide their expert opinion on the subject and provide their future perspectives.

EXPERT OPINION

While advances in chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer have been limited in comparison to other cancers, there have been improvements in survival. Combination therapy and a goal of R0 resection are key elements to extend life. Novel agents directed at the unique properties of pancreatic cancer are promising.

Pharmacoeconomics Evaluations of Oral Anticancer Agents: Systematic Review of Characteristics, Methodological Trends, and Reporting Quality

OBJECTIVES

To review literature characteristics, describe methodological trends, and assess the reporting quality of the economic evaluations of oral anticancer drugs (OACDs).

METHODS

The review included comparative economic evaluations of OACDs. The search was conducted via PubMed, Embase, EconLit, and Economic Evaluation Database, and studies till December 2017 were included. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist, literature inclusion and data extraction were performed in duplicate by separate investigators. Outcome measures were literature characteristics, gaps and methodological trends, and reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Data were summarized on the basis of methodological themes of interest. Descriptive statistics and tabulations were used for result presentation.

RESULTS

Out of 241 found articles, 21 were included. There is a recent increasing interest in the economics of OACDs, whereby the cost per quality-adjusted life-year, via cost-utility analysis, is the most used for decision making. Most of the studies were from the payer perspective, and the primary sources of data were clinical trials, expert panels, and medical charts. The dominance status (higher effect, lower cost) was a commonly reported outcome. Decision-analytic modeling was used in most of the studies, mostly including Markov modeling. Studies were highly heterogeneous in methodological aspects, and the included studies did not meet most of the reporting quality criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

High heterogeneity in methods in studies may limit the robustness and transferability of results, potentially misleading decision makers toward wrong decisions on OACDs. The transferability and generalizability of results are further limited by a "less than ideal" adherence to current reporting standards.

Phase III trial comparing UFT + PSK to UFT + LV in stage IIB, III colorectal cancer (MCSGO-CCTG)

PURPOSE

Oral adjuvant uracil and tegafur plus leucovorin (UFT/LV) is not inferior to standard weekly fluorouracil and folinate for stage II/III colon cancer. However, protein-bound polysaccharide K (PSK) has been evaluated as postoperative adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer. This report is the first of MCSGO-CCTG, which compared UFT/LV to UFT/PSK as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIB or III colorectal cancer in patients who had undergone Japanese D2/D3 lymph node dissection.

METHODS

The primary endpoint was the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). A randomized non-inferiority study compared UFT/LV to UFT/PSK. The overall survival, adverse events, compliance, and quality of life were also investigated as the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Between March 2006 and December 2010, 357 patients were randomized to UFT/PSK (n = 178) or UFT/LV (n = 179) (median age 65 years, colon/rectum 67.4/32.6%, stage IIB/IIIA/IIIB/IIIC 11.1/15.7/55.0/18.2%). The 3-year DFS rate was 82.3% in those receiving UFT/LV and 72.1% in those receiving UFT/PSK. The non-inferiority of UFT/PSK adjuvant therapy to UFT/LV therapy was not verified (-9.06%, 90% confidence interval -17.06 to -1.06%). The 3-year overall survival rate was 95.4% in those receiving UFT/LV and 90.7% in those receiving UFT/PSK.

CONCLUSIONS

As adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIB and III colorectal cancer patients, UFT/PSK adjuvant therapy was not non-inferior to UFT/LV therapy with respect to the DFS.

Adherence and Patients' Experiences with the Use of Capecitabine in Daily Practice

Introduction: Capecitabine is a widely prescribed oral anticancer agent. We studied medication adherence and explored its use in daily practice from a patients' perspective.

Patients and Methods: Patients (n = 92) starting capecitabine were followed up to five 3-week cycles. Adherence was assessed using a pill count, pharmacy data and dosing information from the patients' medical file. Self-reported adherence was measured using the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS). At baseline and during week 2 of cycles 1, 3, and 5, patients filled out questionnaires about quality of life, symptoms, attitude toward medicines and disease and use in daily practice. Simultaneously, blood samples were taken to determine the area under the curve (AUC) of 5′-deoxy-5-fluorouridine (5′-DFUR), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and α-fluoro-β-alanine (FBAL) by a population pharmacokinetic model. Associations between AUCs and patient-reported symptoms were tested for cycles 3 and 5.

Results: Most patients (84/92; 91%) had an adherence rate of ≥95 and ≤ 105%. The percentage of patients reporting any non-adherence behavior measured with MARS increased from 16% at cycle 1 to 29% at cycle 5. Symptoms were reported frequently and the dosing regimen was adjusted by the physician at least once in 62% of patients. In multivariate analysis the probability of an adjustment increased with the number of co-medication (OR 1.19, 95% CI: 1.03–1.39) and a stronger emotional response to the disease (OR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.10–1.59). The AUC of 5′-DFUR was associated with weight loss (OR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01–1.19), AUC of FBAL with hand-foot syndrome (OR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83–0.99), rhinorrhea (OR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.03–1.42 weight loss (OR 1.09, 95% CI: 1.00–1.20) and depression (OR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.82–0.99). Side effects were reported by one third of patients as the reason to discontinue treatment.

Conclusion: Adherence to capecitabine was generally high. Nevertheless, adherence measured with MARS decreased over time Adherence management to support implementation of correct capecitabine use is specifically relevant in longer term treatment. In addition, it appears that adverse event management is important to support persistence. With the extending armamentarium of oral targeted anticancer agents and prolonged treatment duration, we expect the issue of medication adherence of increasing importance in oncology.

Real-world cost analysis of chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in Japan: detailed costs of various regimens during the entire course of chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Various chemotherapy regimens for advanced colorectal cancer have been introduced to clinical practice in Japan over the past decade. The cost profiles of these regimens, however, remain unclear in Japan. To explore the detailed costs of different regimens used to treat advanced colorectal cancer during the entire course of chemotherapy in patients treated in a practical setting, we conducted a so-called "real-world" cost analysis.

METHOD

A detailed cost analysis was performed retrospectively. Patients with advanced colorectal cancer who had received chemotherapy in a practical healthcare setting from July 2004 through October 2010 were extracted from the ordering system database of Showa University Hospital. Direct medical costs of chemotherapy regimens were calculated from the hospital billing data of the patients. The analysis was conducted from a payer's perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients with advanced colorectal cancer were identified. Twenty patients received up to second-line treatment, and 8 received up to third-line treatment. The regimens identified from among all courses of treatment in all patients were 13 oxaliplatin-based regimens, 31 irinotecan-based regimens, and 11 regimens including molecular targeted agents. The average (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) monthly cost during the overall period from the beginning of treatment to the end of treatment was 308,363 (258,792 to 357,933) Japanese yen (JPY). According to the type of regimen, the average monthly cost was 418,463 (357,413 to 479,513) JPY for oxaliplatin-based regimens, 215,499 (188,359 to 242,639) JPY for irinotecan-based regimens, and 705,460 (586,733 to 824,187) JPY for regimens including molecular targeted agents. Anticancer drug costs and hospital fees accounted for 50 to 77% and 11 to 25% of the overall costs of chemotherapy, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The costs of irinotecan-based regimens were lower than those of oxaliplatin-based regimens and regimens including molecular targeted agents in Japan. Using a lower cost regimen for first-line treatment can potentially reduce the overall cost of chemotherapy. The main cost drivers were the anticancer drug costs and hospitalization costs.

Randomised study of tegafur-uracil plus leucovorin versus capecitabine as first-line therapy in elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer--TLC study

BACKGROUND

Prospective data on chemotherapy for (frail) elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) are scant. UFT/leucovorin might be as effective as and less toxic than capecitabine. We firstly randomized both agents in patients >65 years with aCRC not amenable to receive combination chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomised between first-line oral UFT/leucovorin and capecitabine in a Dutch multicentre trial. Primarily, efficacy and toxicity were determined. Secondary, quality of life (QoL) and abbreviated common geriatric assessment (aCGA) were analysed.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients were randomised with a median age of 77 years and 96% being frail. After interim analysis it was decided to stop recruitment because of low accrual. At a median follow up of 34 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar for both therapies, being 21 weeks (p=0.17) and 12 months (p=0.83), respectively. The overall response rates were 24% and 21%, respectively. Two patients died of possible treatment related complications in the UFT/leucovorin arm and 3 patients in the capecitabine arm. For UFT/leucovorin significantly less grade 3 or 4 hand/foot syndrome (0 vs 5) was observed. Overall, PFS was related to Charlson-comorbidity index (p=0.049), LDH (p=0.0011) and albumin (p=0.009). OS was related to LDH (p=0.0003), albumin (p=0.0001), QoLC30/CR38 (p=0.041), QoL visual analogue scale (VAS; p=0.016), and GFI (p=0.028).

CONCLUSION

UFT/leucovorin and capecitabine had similar efficacy and different toxicity profiles in frail elderly patients with aCRC. Baseline serum levels of albumin and LDH, Charlson-comorbidity index, GFI and QoL were prognostic for clinical outcome.

Comparing the effectiveness of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin therapy for elderly Taiwanese stage III colorectal cancer patients based on quality-of-life measures (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38) and a new cost assessment tool

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in developed countries and its incidence increases with age. Intravenous administration of bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) has been a standard treatment regime for stage III CRC. However, patients generally prefer oral therapy such as Capecitabine. Studies showed that combination of oxaliplatin and capecitabine demonstrated efficacy and safety on par with treatment involving various 5-FU/LV-based regimens in elderly patients as they are in younger ones. However, little is known regarding the cost of adjuvant therapy or the effect of therapy on HRQoL. Thus the aims of this study were to evaluate the influence of different adjuvant care for stage III CRC on the HRQoL of elderly patients and to compare the economic costs associated with capecitabine-based and 5-FU/LV-based adjuvant treatments from a societal perspective in Taiwan.

METHODS

A prospective, open-label, observational, multicenter study involving 123 patients aged 70 and over from 11 different centers was conducted between July 2008 and July 2011 in Taiwan. The adjusted monthly costs per patient and HRQoL were evaluated from individual-level data. The HRQoL of patients was assessed before and after adjuvant treatment. Direct and indirect costs of adjuvant treatment were estimated from a number of sources, and QoL scores were compared between groups.

RESULTS

After correcting for baseline characteristics of patients, no significant differences were observed in the global HRQoL scores between treatment groups during the study period. According to QLQ-CR38 results, capecitabine-based therapy appeared to alleviate problems related to defecation (4.54 vs. 8.5; P = 0.011); however, micturition problems increased (9.27 vs. 7.51; P = 0.04), compared with 5-FU/LV-based treatment. The adjusted monthly treatment cost per patient was NT$27,300 for capecitabine-based treatment and NT$53,671 for 5-FU/LV-based treatment. The total cost of 5-FU/LV-based treatment was 59 % greater than that of capecitabine-based treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyzing from the societal perspective in Taiwan, capecitabine-based therapy incurred lower treatment costs than 5-FU/LV-based therapy and did not jeopardize HRQoL. Therefore, capecitabine, with or without oxaliplatin, could be considered as an alternative treatment option for elderly patients with stage III CRC.

Polymeric nanoparticle technologies for oral drug delivery

Biologics increasingly are being used for the treatment of many diseases. These treatments typically require repeated doses administered by injection. Alternate routes of administration, particularly oral, are considered favorable because of improved convenience and compliance by patients, but physiological barriers such as extreme pH level, enzyme degradation, and poor intestinal epithelium permeability limit absorption. Encapsulating biologics in drug delivery systems such as polymeric nanoparticles prevents inactivation and degradation caused by low pH and enzymes of the gastrointestinal tract. However, transport across the intestinal epithelium remains the most critical barrier to overcome for efficient oral delivery. This review focuses on recent advances in polymeric nanoparticles being developed to overcome transport barriers and their potential for translation into clinical use.

Should capecitabine replace 5-fluorouracil in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer?

Fluoropyrimidines play a central role in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to review whether capecitabine was a safer, non-inferior, economically superior and more convenient alternative to 5-fluorouracil. Capecitabine has previously been compared to 5-fluorouracil-either as a monotherapy or in combination with oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or biological drugs-and has been found to have comparable efficacy and safety profiles. Furthermore, pharmacoeconomic data and patients’ preferences for oral chemotherapy further favor capecitabine. Therefore, capecitabine appears to be an effective and safe alternative to fluorouracil in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Cost identification of Nordic FLIRI, Nordic FLOX, XELIRI and XELOX in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in Sweden -- a clinical practice model approach

INTRODUCTION

The role of health-related economy is crucial due to the finite healthcare resources. Intravenous (i.v.) regimes Nordic FLOX and Nordic FLIRI, and the partly oral alternatives XELIRI and XELOX are four commonly used chemotherapies in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Scandinavian countries, all with different costs.

AIM

To describe and compare costs associated with four commonly used treatments for advanced CRC in clinical routine practice. An additional aim was to evaluate the theoretical cost impact of adverse effects associated with the therapies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The retrospective study was carried out using observations and a clinical quality database of CRC patients treated with Nordic FLOX, Nordic FLIRI, XELIRI and XELOX as first line at an oncology clinic in Gothenburg, Sweden. The treatments are used in parallel in clinical practice. All patients treated from 2003 to 2009 were included. The clinical outcome of the therapies was equivalent; mean treatment time was 5.9-7.7 months. A clinical economic evaluation model was designed. All direct costs associated with the baseline treatment, administration of chemotherapy and drug costs were collected and evaluated.

RESULTS

The maximum cost for the four treatments was estimated to be 72 000-75 000 SEK per patient for six months, of this approximately 8000 SEK was linked to treatment of toxicity. During six months the i.v. treatments could include 17 more outpatient visits per patient compared to the oral alternatives. During treatment at the clinic around 20% of the patients were hospitalised (XELOX excluded, because of few included patients).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that the four regimens are similar in terms of treatment costs. Different costs affect the total cost. The oral alternative makes it possible to treat additional patients with the same labour force resources. Treatment of adverse effects contributes to extensive resource use at the hospital.

The use of capecitabine in daily practice: a study on adherence and patients' experiences

BACKGROUND

Adherence to pharmacological therapy is a complex and multifactorial issue that can substantially alter the outcome of treatment. Especially when using long-term medication, cancer patients have adherence rates similar to those of patients with other diseases. The consequences of poor adherence are poor health outcomes and increased health care costs. Only few studies have focused on the use of oral anticancer agents in daily practice. Information about the reasons for nonadherence is essential for the development of interventions that may improve adherence. This report presents the CAPER-capecitabine protocol, which is designed to study the adherence to capecitabine and the influence of patient attitudes towards medication and self-reported side effects. Furthermore, the relationships between patient characteristics, disease characteristics, side effects, quality of life, patient beliefs and attitudes towards disease and medication, dose adjustments, reasons for discontinuation, and plasma concentration of three of the main metabolites, including the active compound 5-fluorouracil, will be explored.

METHODS

In this multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study, 90 patients aged 18 years or older starting treatment with capecitabine will be included and followed for a period up to five cycles. The main study parameters are adherence, patient attitudes towards medication, and the number and grade of patient-reported side effects. At baseline and during week 2 of cycles 1, 3 and 5, patients will be asked to donate blood and fill out a questionnaire. Blood samples will be analyzed for plasma concentration of the metabolites, 5'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine, 5-fluorouracil, and α-fluoro-β-alanine. The CAPER-capecitabine trial is closely related to the CAPER-erlotinib trial.

DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study is to get more insight into patient experiences with the use of capecitabine in daily practice and the various aspects that govern adherence. We hypothesize that patient attitudes towards medication and the side effects experienced play an important role in the way patients use capecitabine. We expect that our findings will be useful for health care professionals in developing interventions to support patients in improving adherence and persistence with the use of capecitabine.

Use and costs of oral anticancer agents in the Netherlands in the period 2000-2008

PURPOSE

In recent years, the number of oral anticancer agents has increased substantially. Although these agents have quickly been incorporated in the treatment of a variety of malignancies, data on their incidence, prevalence and costs are lacking. The objective of the present study was to obtain insight into the use and the costs of oral anticancer agents (with Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification system (World Health Organisation) code L01) in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2008.

METHODS

Incidence and prevalence were determined using community pharmacy dispensing records obtained from the PHARMO Record Linkage System database. The data of costs were provided by the Genees- en hulpmiddelen Informatie Project of the Dutch Health Care Insurance Board (CVZ, Diemen, The Netherlands).

RESULTS

In the years 2000-2008, the use of oral anticancer agents has more than doubled from 64 to 140 users per 100 000 inhabitants. The increase is mainly caused by the prescription of capecitabine for various indications. There was a 50-fold rise in costs on oral anticancer agents from €2 m in 2000 to approximately €100 m in 2008. The share in the costs of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in 2008 was 67% (€70 m) with the oldest TKI, imatinib, having a share of more than 50% within the group of TKIs.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased use of oral anticancer agents is mainly due to the frequent prescription of capecitabine. The increased costs are caused by the registration of a variety of TKIs, in particular imatinib. The costs of new agents with an orphan drug status are very high as compared with those of capecitabine, a newer agent for which there are alternative treatment options.

The use of erlotinib in daily practice: a study on adherence and patients' experiences

Background

Adherence to pharmacological therapy is a complex and multi-factorial issue that can substantially alter the outcome of treatment. It has been shown that cancer patients, especially when using long-term medication, have similar adherence rates to those of patients with other diseases. The consequences of poor adherence are poor health outcomes and increased health care costs. Only few studies have focused on the use of oral anticancer agents in daily practice. Information about the reasons for non-adherence is essential for the development of interventions that may increase adherence. This paper presents the CAPER-erlotinib protocol, which is designed to study the relationship between adherence to erlotinib and both the plasma concentration and side-effects in patients with NSCLC. Further, the relationships between patient characteristics, disease characteristics, side-effects, quality of life, patient beliefs and attitude towards disease and medication, dose adjustments, reasons for discontinuation and plasma concentration of erlotinib will be explored.

Methods/Design

In this prospective observational cohort study 65 NSCLC patients of 18 years or older starting treatment with erlotinib will be followed for a period up to 16 weeks. The main study parameters are adherence, the plasma concentration of erlotinib and the number and grade of side-effects. At baseline and on erlotinib treatment in weeks 3-4, 8-9, 12 and 15-16, patients will be asked to fill out a questionnaire. In weeks 3-4, 8-9 and 15-16 blood samples are collected, which will be analysed for plasma concentration of erlotinib. Adherence will be measured using a medication event monitoring system.

Discussion

The present study aims to get more insight into patients' experiences with the use of erlotinib in daily practice and the various aspects that govern adherence. We hypothesize that side-effects play an important role in the way patients use erlotinib. We expect that the present study will provide valuable knowledge which will be useful for health care professionals to develop interventions to support patients. This approach will improve the adherence and persistence with the use of erlotinib in order to derive optimal benefit from the medication.

Trial Registration

NTR1830

XELOX in colorectal cancer: a convenient option for the future?

XELOX is a 3-weekly chemotherapy combination of oral capecitabine and intravenous oxaliplatin. The central hypothesis that led to its development was that it would provide a convenient and cost-effective alternative to intravenous fluorouracil-based chemotherapy doublets, without compromising on anti-tumor efficacy. Recently its role in colorectal cancer has become more established in both the metastatic and adjuvant setting. Ongoing investigation of XELOX continues in a number of directions: its combination with novel biological agents, its efficacy and safety in the elderly, and the development of biomarkers that can predict its anti-tumor effect. This article provides a comprehensive and up-to-date synopsis of all pertinent clinical studies detailing this regimen and its promise for the future.

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.

Economic evaluation of capecitabine as adjuvant or metastatic therapy in colorectal cancer

Capecitabine, an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil, is indicated for adjuvant treatment in patients with Dukes' C colon cancer and for subsequent lines in metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of this article is to review the literature on the economics of capecitabine for the treatment of colon cancer. A systematic review was conducted to search for articles published from January 2003 to December 2009 that met the inclusion criteria. For abstracts that were considered acceptable, full-text articles were then reviewed. Of the 42 potential studies that were identified, 13 original studies (16 publications) met the inclusion criteria. To date, the economic evaluation literature has consistently projected or found that capecitabine is not only a cost-effective treatment for adjuvant or for metastatic colorectal cancer (i.e., providing good value for money) but, furthermore, would actually be cost saving in the majority of country settings.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of XELOX for metastatic colorectal cancer based on the NO16966 and NO16967 trials

Background:

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) compared with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) as first-line or second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods:

On the basis of NO16966 and NO16967 trials, mean costs and effectiveness were calculated from patient-level data. Until the disease progressed, the mean costs were calculated from the perspective of health-care payers in Japan. We estimated mean quality-adjusted progression-free survival days (QAPFSD), considering adverse events and patient preference for chemotherapy regimens. Utility scores were obtained by a web-based survey from general people, randomly sampled from a large panel adjusted for sex and age.

Results:

Incremental effectiveness of XELOX as first-line and second-line chemotherapy for colorectal cancer patients was significantly greater. By use of XELOX, patients gained 10.5 QAPFSD from first-line treatment or 11.3 QAPFSD from second-line treatment. Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) was also proven to significantly reduce treatment costs by €3000 (JPY 360 000) and €2300 (JPY 270 000) for first-line and second-line treatment, respectively. In health-care settings in the United Kingdom, XELOX decreased medical costs for National Health Service by £7600 and £3900 for patients who received first-line and second-line treatment, respectively.

Conclusion:

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as first-line and second-line chemotherapy was ‘dominant’. In terms of effectiveness and cost, XELOX was superior to FOLFOX4.

Costs associated with complications are lower with capecitabine than with 5-fluorouracil in patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine, an oral alternative to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), has equal clinical efficacy and a favorable safety profile; however, its use may be limited because of unit cost concerns. In this study, the authors measured the cost of chemotherapy-related complications during treatment with capecitabine- and 5-FU-based regimens.

METHODS

Patients with CRC who received at least 1 administration of capecitabine or 5-FU during 2004 and 2005 were identified from the Thomson MarketScan research databases. Monthly frequency and cost for 23 complications were recorded. Logistic regression was used to predict complication probability. General linear models were used to predict monthly complication cost and total monthly expenditure.

RESULTS

In total, 4973 patients with CRC met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. Although the most frequently observed complications were the same between capecitabine and 5-FU (nausea and vomiting, infection, anemia, neutropenia, diarrhea), each was observed with greater frequency in 5-FU-based regimens. The mean predicted monthly complication cost was significantly higher (by 136%) with 5-FU monotherapy than with capecitabine monotherapy (difference, $601; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], $469-$737). In addition, the mean predicted monthly complication cost for 5-FU+oxaliplatin was higher than the cost with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (difference, $1165; 95% CI, $892-$1595). When acquisition, administration, and complication costs were taken into consideration, there were no significant differences in the total cost between capecitabine regimens and 5-FU regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Capecitabine compared well with 5-FU-based therapy in patients with CRC and was associated with lower complication rates and associated costs.

In vivo characterization of a polymeric nanoparticle platform with potential oral drug delivery capabilities

Nanotechnology has enabled significant advances in the areas of cancer diagnosis and therapy. The field of drug delivery is a sterling example, with nanoparticles being increasingly used for generating therapeutic formulations of poorly water-soluble, yet potent anticancer drugs. Whereas a number of nanoparticle-drug combinations are at various stages of preclinical or clinical assessment, the overwhelming majorities of such systems are injectable formulations and are incapable of being partaken orally. The development of an oral nano-delivery system would have distinct advantages for cancer chemotherapy. We report the synthesis and physicochemical characterization of orally bioavailable polymeric nanoparticles composed of N-isopropylacrylamide, methylmethacrylate, and acrylic acid in the molar ratios of 60:20:20 (designated NMA622). Amphiphilic NMA622 nanoparticles show a size distribution of <100 nm (mean diameter of 80 +/- 34 nm) with low polydispersity and can readily encapsulate a number of poorly water-soluble drugs such as rapamycin within the hydrophobic core. No apparent systemic toxicities are observed in mice receiving as much as 500 mg/kg of the orally administered void NMA622 for 4 weeks. Using NMA622-encapsulated rapamycin ("nanorapamycin") as a prototype for oral nano-drug delivery, we show favorable in vivo pharmacokinetics and therapeutic efficacy in a xenograft model of human pancreatic cancer. Oral nanorapamycin leads to robust inhibition of the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway in pancreatic cancer xenografts, which is accompanied by significant growth inhibition (P < 0.01) compared with control tumors. These data indicate that NMA622 nanoparticles provide a suitable platform for oral delivery of water-insoluble drugs like rapamycin for cancer therapy.

Estimating drug costs in economic evaluations in Ireland and the UK: an analysis of practice and research recommendations

Cost estimates for the drug of interest, its comparator and concomitant drugs are an important component of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. However, whilst in general considerable efforts are made by analysts to ensure valid and accurate parameter inputs, the methods for estimating drug costs are often lacking. We reviewed recent pharmacoeconomic evaluations undertaken in Ireland and the UK and documented the sources of data for drug costs and the methods of cost estimation. Methods were often inadequately described and, where adequate information was available, there was considerable variation and limitations in the methods used, thereby reducing the comparability of studies. Data from a sample of studies from other Northern European countries suggested that the findings from Ireland and the UK were not atypical. In order to improve current practice we suggest a methodological checklist for use in future studies.

Randomised trial comparing biweekly oxaliplatin plus oral capecitabine versus oxaliplatin plus i.v. bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: results of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology study 0401

PURPOSE

Oxaliplatin combined with either fluorouracil/leucovorin (OXAFAFU) or capecitabine (OXXEL) has a demonstrated activity in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. We aimed at comparing these two regimens in terms of response rate (RR), safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and quality of life (QoL) of patients.

METHODS

A total of 322 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were randomized to receive biweekly: oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1, capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) orally twice daily from day 1 to day 11 (OXXEL); or oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1; 6S-leucovorin 250 mg/m(2) i.v. and fluorouracil 850 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 2 (OXAFAFU).

RESULTS

Eleven complete and 42 partial responses were registered with OXXEL (RR = 34%); six complete and 48 partial responses were obtained with OXAFAFU (RR = 33%) (P = 0.999). Severe adverse events were less frequent (32 vs. 43%) with OXXEL, which also reduced the occurrence of severe neutropenia (10 vs. 27%) and febrile neutropenia (6 vs. 13%), but produced more gastric side effects (8 vs. 3%) and diarrhea (13 vs. 8%). QoL did not differ across the two arms. Median PFS was 6.6 months in the OXXEL, and 6.5 months in the OXAFAFU arm (HR = 1.12, P = 0.354). Median overall survival was 16.0 and 17.1 months (HR = 1.01, P = 0.883).

CONCLUSIONS

OXXEL and OXAFAFU regimens were equally active in metastatic colorectal cancer. The choice should be based on patient preference and on pharmacoeconomic evaluations.

Severe sequence-specific toxicity when capecitabine is given after Fluorouracil and leucovorin

PURPOSE

Options for single-agent fluoropyrimidine adjuvant therapy after bowel cancer resection include intravenous fluorouracil with leucovorin (FU/LV) or oral capecitabine. These treatments have similar efficacy but differ in convenience and toxicity. We therefore wished to compare their overall acceptability to patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients scheduled for adjuvant single-agent fluoropyrimidine therapy were randomly assigned to receive once-weekly FU/LV (425 mg/m(2) FU, 45 mg LV) for 6 weeks, followed by two 3-week cycles of capecitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily, days 1 through 14), or the same treatments but in reverse order. After 12 weeks, the patients were asked which treatment they preferred, and received the preferred treatment for an additional 12 weeks. The primary end point was patient preference.

RESULTS

After 40 of the planned 74 patients had been randomly assigned, real-time adverse event monitoring led to early trial closure because of excess sequence-specific toxicity. Eleven of 14 patients (79%) receiving capecitabine as their second treatment experienced grade >/= 3 toxicity. This compared with five of 18 patients (28%) receiving capecitabine as the first treatment, and no patients receiving FU/LV as the first treatment (zero of 16) or the second treatment (zero of 12). Similar imbalances were seen in the proportion of patients requiring interruption of treatment.

CONCLUSION

In chemotherapy-naïve patients, capecitabine produced more toxicity than FU/LV, but at levels in line with previously reported data. However, treatment with capecitabine after FU/LV caused markedly increased toxicity, indicating a sequence-specific interaction. The mechanism has not been determined, but interaction with intracellularly retained folate after FU/LV therapy is a possibility. Oncologists need to be aware of this risk if considering crossing patients over from FU/LV to capecitabine-based regimens.

Toxicity profile and efficacy of oral capecitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy for Chinese patients with Stage III colon cancer

PURPOSE

The Xeloda in Adjuvant Cancer Therapy trial, conducted in a white population of patients, established capecitabine (Xeloda) as adjuvant chemotherapy for Stage III colon cancer. Given the ethnical difference in toxicity of adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer, this study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adjuvant capecitabine in Chinese patients with colon cancer.

METHODS

Chinese patients with curatively resected Stage III colon adenocarcinoma, who received adjuvant capecitabine, were entered into a prospective database. Oral capecitabine was given at 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily, Days 1 to 14, every 21 days, for 8 cycles. Toxicities, laboratory abnormalities, and survival outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were entered into the database between August 2004 and October 2005. The median age was 63.9 years with a male-to-female ratio of 1.15:1. With a median follow-up duration of 20.9 months, 14 patients relapsed and 3 patients died. Disease-free and overall survival at two years was 69 and 97 percent, respectively. Grade 3 toxicities occurred as follows: stomatitis (1.7 percent), diarrhea (0 percent), hand-foot syndrome (41.4 percent), leucopenia (1.7 percent), neutropenia (3.4 percent), and hyperbilirubinemia (1.7 percent). No Grade 4 or 5 toxicity was noted. Compared with the Xeloda in the Adjuvant Cancer Therapy trial, a much higher incidence of serious hand-foot syndrome and a lower rate of severe diarrhea were found in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

A different toxicity profile of adjuvant capecitabine was noted in this study on Chinese patients with colon cancer compared with that reported in the Xeloda in Adjuvant Cancer Therapy trial, whereas the efficacy outcomes were comparable.

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.

A review of the role of capecitabine in the treatment of colorectal cancer

5-fluorouracil/leucovorin, with or without oxaliplatin or irinotecan, is the most widely used treatment for the metastatic as well for the adjuvant setting of colorectal cancer. These agents are administered intravenously (by bolus or infusion), thereby causing significant inconvenience to patients. Capecitabine, an oral fluoropyrimidine, has been demonstrated to be at least as effective as bolus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in terms of time to disease progression, time to treatment failure, and overall survival, but achieves significantly higher response rates and has the advantage of oral administration. In addition, capecitabine has improved tolerability with a significantly lower incidence of stomatitis, nausea, and alopecia than 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin. Clinical trials have shown that combination therapy with capecitabine and either irinotecan or oxaliplatin is effective and well tolerated. The combination of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin, with or without bevacizumab, could represent the new standard of care for metastatic as well as surgically resected high-risk stage II and III colon cancer patients. Some pharmacoeconomic analyses have highlighted that capecitabine plus oxaliplatin results in cost savings compared with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin.

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.