Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Economic Evaluations of First-Line Chemotherapy Regimens for Pancreatic Cancer: A Critical Review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Effect sizes of efficacy of first-line treatments for (metastatic) pancreas cancer are constrained, underscoring the need for evaluations of the efficacy-to-cost relationship. We critically review economic evaluations of first-line chemotherapy regimens for pancreatic cancer since the 1997 introduction of gemcitabine. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE (1997–2015), and the websites of health technology assessment agencies. Two authors independently reviewed economic studies for eligibility in this review; evaluated peer-reviewed, journal-published studies in terms of the Drummond Checklist; and critiqued the technical and scientific merit of all studies. Sixteen pharmacoeconomic evaluations were included: ten published in nine peer-reviewed journals and six on three websites. Six were on single-agent therapies and ten on combination therapies. Analyses conducted included cost-effectiveness (three studies), cost-utility (one study), or combined cost-effectiveness and cost-utility (12 studies). Studies diverged in results, mainly because of different assumptions, methods, inputs, and country-specific guidelines. The two most recent regimens, nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P + GEM) and the combination of fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX), were evaluated in an indirect comparison, yielding a statistically similar benefit in overall survival but superior progression-free survival for FOLFIRINOX. NAB-P + GEM showed greater economic benefit over FOLFIRINOX. In conclusion, the divergence in results observed across studies is attributable to economic drivers that are specific to countries and their healthcare (financing) systems. No recommendations regarding the relative economic benefit of treatment regimens, general or country-specific, are made as the purpose of pharmacoeconomic analysis is to inform policy decision-making and clinical practice, not set policy or define clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:7–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Malvezzi M, Bertuccio P, Rosso T, Rota M, Levi F, La Vecchia C, Negri E. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2015: does lung cancer have the highest death rate in EU women? Ann Oncol. 2015;26:779–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carrato A, Falcone A, Ducreux M, Valle JW, Parnaby A, Djazouli K, Alnwick-Allu K, Hutchings A, Palaska C, Parthenaki I. A systematic review of the burden of pancreatic cancer in Europe: real-world impact on survival, quality of life and costs. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2015;46:201–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Burris HA, Moore MJ, Andersen J, Green MR, Rothenberg M, Modiano MR, Cripps MC, Portenoy RK, Storniolo AM, Tarassoff P, Nelson R, Dorr FA, Stephens CD, Von Hoff DD. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J ClinOncol. 1997;15:2403–13.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hu J, Zhao G, Wang HX, Tang L, Xu YC, Ma Y, Zhang FC. A meta-analysis of gemcitabine containing chemotherapy for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J HematolOncol. 2011;4:11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Moore MJ, Goldstein D, Hamm J, Figer A, Hecht JR, Gallinger S, Au HJ, Murawa P, Walde D, Wolff RA, Campos D, Lim R, Ding K, Clark G, Voskoglou-Nomikos T, Ptasynski M, Parulekar W; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J ClinOncol 2007;25:1960–6.

  7. Herrmann R, Bodoky G, Ruhstaller T, Glimelius B, Bajetta E, Schüller J, Saletti P, Bauer J, Figer A, Pestalozzi B, Köhne CH, Mingrone W, Stemmer SM, Tàmas K, Kornek GV, Koeberle D, Cina S, Bernhard J, Dietrich D, Scheithauer W; Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research; Central European Cooperative Oncology Group. Gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group. J ClinOncol 2007;25:2212–17.

  8. Cunningham D, Chau I, Stocken DD, Valle JW, Smith D, Steward W, Harper PG, Dunn J, Tudur-Smith C, West J, Falk S, Crellin A, Adab F, Thompson J, Leonard P, Ostrowski J, Eatock M, Scheithauer W, Herrmann R, Neoptolemos JP. Phase III randomized comparison of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus capecitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. J ClinOncol. 2009;27:5513–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ueno H, Ioka T, Ikeda M, Ohkawa S, Yanagimoto H, Boku N, Fukutomi A, Sugimori K, Baba H, Yamao K, Shimamura T, Sho M, Kitano M, Cheng AL, Mizumoto K, Chen JS, Furuse J, Funakoshi A, Hatori T, Yamaguchi T, Egawa S, Sato A, Ohashi Y, Okusaka T, Tanaka M. Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus S-1, S-1alone, or gemcitabine alone in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan and Taiwan: GEST study. J ClinOncol. 2013;31:1640–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, Chiorean EG, Infante J, Moore M, Seay T, Tjulandin SA, Ma WW, Saleh MN, Harris M, Reni M, Dowden S, Laheru D, Bahary N, Ramanathan RK, Tabernero J, Hidalgo M, Goldstein D, Van Cutsem E, Wei X, Iglesias J, Renschler MF. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1691–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, Bouche O, Guimbaud R, Becouarn Y, Adenis A, Raoul JL, Gourgou-Bourgade S, de la Fouchardiere C, Bennouna J, Bachet JB, Khemissa-Akouz F, Pere-Verge D, Delbaldo C, Assenat E, Chauffert B, Michel P, Montoto-Grillot C, Ducreux M. FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1817–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Abraham I, Harrington AR, Bootman JL. The QALY controversy in the United States. Invited presentation at the EU Special Conference “Health Outcomes in Europe: the QALY controversy. New European Guidelines in Cost-Effectiveness Assessment.” 2013 http://www.echoutcome.eu/images/stories/Abraham_QALY_Controversy_in_US.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2016.

  13. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Wilking N. Treatment of locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma in Sweden. A health economic comparison of palliative treatment with best supportive care versus palliative treatment with gemcitabine in combination with best supportive care. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15:377–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ward S, Morris E, Bansback N, Calvert N, Crellin A, Forman D, Larvin M, Radstone D. A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moore MJ, Hamm J, Dancey J, Eisenberg PD, Dagenais M, Fields A, Hagan K, Greenberg B, Colwell B, Zee B, Tu D, Ottaway J, Humphrey R, Seymour L; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Comparison of gemcitabine versus the matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor BAY 12-9566 in patients with advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J ClinOncol. 2003;21:3296–302.

  17. Messori A, Cecchi M, Becagli P, Trippoli S. Pharmaco-economic profile of paclitaxel as a firstline treatment for patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma [letter]. Cancer. 1997;79:2264–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Aristides M, Lees M, Botwood N, McKendrick J, Stephenson DA, Maniadakis N. Economic evaluation of gemcitabine in the treatment of pancreatic cancer in the UK. Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4:216–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bansback N, Ward S, Karnon J. Economic evaluation of gemcitabine in the treatment of pancreatic cancer in the UK. How important is quality of life? Eur J Health Econ. 2004;5:188–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Arguedas MR, Heudebert GH, Stinnett AA, Wilcox CM. Biliary stents in malignant obstructive jaundice due to pancreatic carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:898–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhou J, Zhao R, Wen F, Zhang P, Tang R, Du Z, He X, Zhang J, Li Q. Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine, S-1 and gemcitabine plus S-1 for treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer based on GEST study. Med Oncol. 2015;32:121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Attard CL, Brown S, Alloul K, Moore MJ. Cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol. 2014;21:e41–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Romanus D, Kindler HL, Archer L, Basch E, Niedzwiecki D, Weeks J, Schrag D. Cancer and Leukemia Group B. Does health-related quality of life improve for advanced pancreatic cancer patients who respond to gemcitabine? Analysis of a randomized phase III trial of the cancer and leukemia group B (CALGB 80303). J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012;43:205–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tam VC, Ko YJ, Mittmann N, Cheung MC, Kumar K, Hassan S, Chan KK. Cost-effectiveness of systemic therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol. 2013;20:e90–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Gharaibeh M, McBride A, Bootman JL, Abraham I. Economic evaluation for the UK of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:1301–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Carrato A, García P, López R, Macarulla T, Rivera F, Sastre J, Gostkorzewicz J, Benedit P, Pérez-Alcántara F. Cost-utility analysis of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in combination with gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic cancer in Spain: results of the PANCOSTABRAX study. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15:579–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Towse A, Barnsley P. Clarifying meanings of absolute and proportional shortfall with examples. Office of Health Economics. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisals/OHE-Note-on-proportional-versus-absolute-shortfall.pdf. Accessed 8 Aug 2016.

  28. Stolk EA, van Donselaar G, Brouwer WB, Busschbach JJ. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:1097–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rahma OE, Duffy A, Liewehr DJ, Steinberg SM, Greten TF. Second-line treatment in advanced pancreatic cancer: a comprehensive analysis of published clinical trials. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:1972–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Nafees B, Stafford M, Gavriel S, et al. Health state utilities for non-small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Swinburn P, Lloyd A, Nathan P, Choueiri TK, Cella D, Neary MP. Elicitation of health state utilities in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26:1091–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sullivan PW, Slejko JF, Sculpher MJ, Ghushchyan V. Catalogue of EQ-5D scores for the United Kingdom. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:800–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tolley K, Goad C, Yi Y, Maroudas P, Haiderali A, Thompson G. Utility elicitation study in the UK general public for late-stage chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14:749–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Doyle S, Lloyd A, Walker M. Health state utility scores in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2008;62:374–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lloyd A, Nafees B, Narewska J, Dewilde S, Watkins J. Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:683–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/GID-TAG453/Documents. Accessed 12 Aug 2016.

  37. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. 2014. https://www.cadth.ca/abraxane-metastatic-pancreatic-cancer-details. Accessed 12 Aug 2016.

  38. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. 2014. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2014-03/paclitaxel-nanoparticle-albumin-bound-psd-03-2014. Accessed 12 Aug 2016.

  39. Gharaibeh M, McBride A, Bootman JL, Patel H, Abraham I. Optimized economic evaluation for the United States of nabpaclitaxel plus gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX, and gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015 (under review).

  40. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J ClinEpidemiol. 1997;50:683–91.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Mills EJ, Ghement I, O’Regan C, Thorlund K. Estimating the power of indirect comparisons: a simulation study. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e16237.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Bekaii-Saab T, Goldberg R. Therapeutic advances in pancreatic cancer: miles to go before we sleep. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(2). pii: dju439.

  43. Lien K, Cheung MC, Chan KK. Adjusting for drug wastage in economic evaluations of new therapies for hematologic malignancies: a systematic review. J Oncol Pract. 2015;12:e369-79. doi:10.1200/JOP.2015.005876.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Drachman Hall B-306, 1295 N. Martin Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Mahdi Gharaibeh, J. Lyle Bootman, Ali McBride & Ivo Abraham

  2. Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Mahdi Gharaibeh, Ali McBride & Ivo Abraham

  3. Arizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Jennifer Martin

Authors
  1. Mahdi Gharaibeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Lyle Bootman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali McBride
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jennifer Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ivo Abraham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivo Abraham.

Ethics declarations

The work reported here was prepared independently without external support.

Conflicts of interest

Mahdi Gharaibeh declares no conflicts. J. Lyle Bootman declares no conflicts. Ali McBride declares no conflicts. Jennifer Martin declares no conflicts. Ivo Abraham declares no conflicts.

Author contributions

Concept and overall approach: M.G., J.L.B., A.M, and I.A. Search strategy: M.G., J.M., and I.A. Search: J.M. Review of search results and selection of studies: M.G., A.M., and I.A. Review and analysis of studies: M.G., A.M., and I.A. Interpretation of results: M.G., J.L.B., A.M., and I.A. Drafting of the manuscript: M.G. and I.A. Critical review of the manuscript: J.L.B, A.M., and J.M.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gharaibeh, M., Bootman, J.L., McBride, A. et al. Economic Evaluations of First-Line Chemotherapy Regimens for Pancreatic Cancer: A Critical Review. PharmacoEconomics 35, 83–95 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0452-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0452-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation