Oxaliplatin and fluorouracil plus folinic acid cost effective for colorectal cancer

2002 ◽  
Vol 350 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-6
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Folinic Acid ◽  
Cost Effective

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyoaki Sugiura ◽  
Yuki Seo ◽  
Takayuki Takahashi ◽  
Hideyuki Tokura ◽  
Yasuhiro Ito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background TAS-102 plus bevacizumab is an anticipated combination regimen for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer. However, evidence supporting its use for this indication is limited. We compared the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy with TAS-102 monotherapy for patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Method Markov decision modeling using treatment costs, disease-free survival, and overall survival was performed to examine the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy and TAS-102 monotherapy. The Japanese health care payer’s perspective was adopted. The outcomes were modeled on the basis of published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two treatment regimens was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analysis was performed and the effect of uncertainty on the model parameters were investigated. Results TAS-102 plus bevacizumab had an ICER of $21,534 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with TAS-102 monotherapy. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that TAS-102 monotherapy was more cost-effective than TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy at a willingness-to-pay of under $50,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy is a cost-effective option for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer in the Japanese health care system.

Dose-escalation strategy in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: A change in terms of cost-effectiveness

2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522199254
Author(s):  
Jacopo Giuliani ◽  
Francesco Fiorica ◽  
Giovanni Ponturo ◽  
Maurizio Azzurro ◽  
Andrea Ruzzenente ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Lower Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Pivotal Phase ◽  
Randomized Controlled

The analysis was conducted to assess the pharmacological costs of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in the treatment of refractory mCRC were considered. We have also considered the ReDOS trial, in order to verify if the dose-escalation strategy (practice changing for regorafenib) could influences the results. Differences in OS (expressed in months) between the different arms were calculated and compared with the pharmacological costs (at the Pharmacy of our Hospital and expressed in euros (€)) needed to get one month of OS. Trifluridine/tipiracil resulted the less expensive, with 1167.50 €per month OS-gained. The ReDOS trial further reduce costs with 510.41 €per month OS-gained in favour of regorafenib with the escalation-dose strategy. Both regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil can be considered economically sustainable treatments for refractory mCRC, apparently with a lower cost of trifluridine/tipiracil. The adoption of a dose-escalation strategy (ReDOS trial) could reverse the situation making regorafenib more cost-effective than trifluridine/tipiracil.

Cost-effective imaging for resectability of liver lesions in colorectal cancer: an economic decision model

2017 ◽  
Vol 88 (6) ◽  
pp. E507-E511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sopany Saing ◽  
Phil Haywood ◽  
Joanna K. Duncan ◽  
Ning Ma ◽  
Alun L. Cameron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Decision Model ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Liver Lesions ◽  
Economic Decision

scholarly journals Very-low-dose aspirin and surveillance colonoscopy is cost-effective in secondary prevention of colorectal cancer in individuals with advanced adenomas: network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sajesh K. Veettil ◽  
Siang Tong Kew ◽  
Kean Ghee Lim ◽  
Pochamana Phisalprapa ◽  
Suresh Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Surveillance Colonoscopy ◽  
Combination Strategy ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Abstract Background Individuals with advanced colorectal adenomas (ACAs) are at high risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), and it is unclear which chemopreventive agent (CPA) is safe and cost-effective for secondary prevention. We aimed to determine, firstly, the most suitable CPA using network meta-analysis (NMA) and secondly, cost-effectiveness of CPA with or without surveillance colonoscopy (SC). Methods Systematic review and NMA of randomised controlled trials were performed, and the most suitable CPA was chosen based on efficacy and the most favourable risk–benefit profile. The economic benefits of CPA alone, 3 yearly SC alone, and a combination of CPA and SC were determined using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in the Malaysian health-care perspective. Outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2018 US Dollars ($) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and life-years (LYs) gained. Results According to NMA, the risk–benefit profile favours the use of aspirin at very-low-dose (ASAVLD, ≤ 100 mg/day) for secondary prevention in individuals with previous ACAs. Celecoxib is the most effective CPA but the cardiovascular adverse events are of concern. According to CEA, the combination strategy (ASAVLD with 3-yearly SC) was cost-saving and dominates its competitors as the best buy option. The probability of being cost-effective for ASAVLD alone, 3-yearly SC alone, and combination strategy were 22%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Extending the SC interval to five years in combination strategy was more cost-effective when compared to 3-yearly SC alone (ICER of $484/LY gain and $1875/QALY). However, extending to ten years in combination strategy was not cost-effective. Conclusion ASAVLD combined with 3-yearly SC in individuals with ACAs may be a cost-effective strategy for CRC prevention. An extension of SC intervals to five years can be considered in resource-limited countries.

Use of Circulating Cell-Free DNA to Guide Precision Medicine in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 399-413
Author(s):  
Van K. Morris ◽  
John H. Strickler
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Blood Draw ◽  
Cell Free Dna ◽  
Free Dna ◽  
Metastatic Setting ◽  
Diagnostic Technology

Patient-specific biomarkers form the foundation of precision medicine strategies. To realize the promise of precision medicine in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), access to cost-effective, convenient, and safe assays is critical. Improvements in diagnostic technology have enabled ultrasensitive and specific assays to identify cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from a routine blood draw. Clinicians are already employing these minimally invasive assays to identify drivers of therapeutic resistance and measure genomic heterogeneity, particularly when tumor tissue is difficult to access or serial sampling is necessary. As cfDNA diagnostic technology continues to improve, more innovative applications are anticipated. In this review, we focus on four clinical applications for cfDNA analysis in the management of CRC: detecting minimal residual disease, monitoring treatment response in the metastatic setting, identifying drivers of treatment sensitivity and resistance, and guiding therapeutic strategies to overcome resistance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document