4.3 Article

Consequences of Biomarker Analysis on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab in Combination with FOLFIRI as a First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Personalised Medicine at Work

期刊

APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 515-525

出版社

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0395-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Merck KGaA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Therapies may be more efficacious when targeting a patient subpopulation with specific attributes, thereby enhancing the cost-effectiveness of treatment. In the CRYSTAL study, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were treated with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFIRI alone until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects or withdrawal of consent. Objective To determine if stratified use of cetuximab based on genetic biomarker detection improves cost-effectiveness. Methods We used individual patient data from CRYSTAL to compare the cost-effectiveness, cost per life-year (LY) and cost per quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained of cetuximab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI alone in three cohorts of patients with mCRC: all randomised patients (intent-to-treat; ITT), tumours with no detectable mutations in codons 12 and 13 of exon 2 of the KRAS protein ('KRAS wt') and no detectable mutations in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and exons 2, 3 and 4 of NRAS ('RAS wt'). Survival analysis was conducted using RStudio, and a cost-utility model was modified to allow comparison of the three cohorts. Results The deterministic base-case ICER (cost per QALY gained) was A 130,929 pound in the ITT, A 72,053 pound in the KRAS wt and A 44,185 pound in the RAS wt cohorts for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI alone. At a A 50,000 pound willingness-to-pay threshold, cetuximab plus FOLFIRI has a 2.8, 20 and 63% probability of being cost-effective for the ITT, KRAS wt and RAS wt cohorts, respectively, versus FOLFIRI alone. Conclusion Screening for mutations in both KRAS and NRAS may provide the most cost-effective approach to patient selection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据