Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Economics of Personalized Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

  • Personalized Medicine in Colorectal Cancer (D Cunningham and EC Smyth, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

Abstract

Though the prognosis for patients with advanced colorectal cancer has improved significantly over the past two decades due to the development of new chemotherapeutics and biologic agents, this progress has come at an increased cost to patients and to the healthcare system. The cost of cancer care in the USA is rising at an alarming rate and far in excess of spending in other developed countries. The identification of predictive biomarkers that can help clinicians target existing and future therapies to patients who are most likely to benefit (and away from patients who would not benefit) has the potential to improve the value of cancer therapy and direct healthcare resources more efficiently. Here, we review established and emerging predictive biomarkers in colorectal cancer treatment and the cost implications of utilizing these markers in 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

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Venook A, Niedzwiecki D, Lenz HJ et al. CALGB/SWOG 80405: Phase III trial of irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) or oxaliplatin/5-FU/leucovorin (mFOLFOX6) with bevacizumab (BV) or cetuximab (CET) for patients (pts) with KRAS wild-type (wt) untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum (MCRC). J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:5s (suppl; abstr LBA3). This recent study showed comparable efficacy with either bevacizumab or cetuximab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line setting in KRAS wild-type mCRC. This is in contrast to recent findings from the FIRE-3 study that suggests a survival benefit with cetuximab. Given comparabe efficacy, various considerations (including economic) could motivate the choice of monoclonal antibody

  2. Schrag D. The price tag on progress—chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:317–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shankaran V. Cost considerations in the evaluation and treatment of colorectal cancer. Curr Treat Options in Oncol. 2015;16:41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yabroff KR, Mariotto AB, Feuer E, Brown ML. Projections of the costs associated with colorectal cancer care in the United States, 2000–2020. Health Econ. 2008;17:947–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis. NCI-Sponsored Trials in Precision Medicine. 2016 [cited; Available from: Accessed January 2016 at following URL: http://dctd.cancer.gov/MajorInitiatives/NCI-sponsored_trials_in_precision_medicine.htm

  6. Earle CC, Coyle D, Evans WK. Cost-effectiveness analysis in oncology. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:475–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, et al. Methods for estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19:1–542.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:796–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shankaran V, Obel J, Benson 3rd AB. Predicting response to EGFR inhibitors in metastatic colorectal cancer: current practice and future directions. Oncologist. 2010;15:157–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1626–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. De Roock W, Piessevaux H, De Schutter J, et al. KRAS wild-type state predicts survival and is associated to early radiological response in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:508–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ, et al. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1757–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lievre A, Bachet JB, Boige V, et al. KRAS mutations as an independent prognostic factor in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:374–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Allegra CJ, Jessup JM, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2091–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shankaran V, Bentrem DJ, Mulcahy MF et al. Economic implications of Kras testing in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). J Clin Oncol. 2009. GI Cancer Symposium (Abstract number 298).

  16. Van Cutsem E, Kohne CH, Lang I, et al. Cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: updated analysis of overall survival according to tumor KRAS and BRAF mutation status. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2011–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Konigsberg R, Hulla W, Klimpfinger M, et al. Clinical and economic aspects of KRAS mutational status as predictor for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Oncol. 2011;81:359–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Health Quality Ontario. KRAS Testing for Anti-EGFR Therapy in Advanced Colorectal Cancer: An Evidence-Based and Economic Analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10:1-49. This Canadian study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a universal KRAS testing srategy in the third-line treatment of mCRC. Upfront KRAS testing in this population proved to be cost-effective from a societal standpoint across three different third-line treatment approach.

  19. Douillard JY, Oliner KS, Siena S, et al. Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1023–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Colorectal Cancer. 2016 [cited; Available from: Accessed January 2016 at the following URL: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf

  21. Kircher SM, Mohindra N, Nimeiri H. Cost estimates and economic implications of expanded RAS testing in metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologist. 2015;20:14–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoyle M, Peters J, Crathorne L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab, cetuximab plus irinotecan, and panitumumab for third and further lines of treatment for KRAS wild-type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Value Health. 2013;16:288–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mittmann N, Au HJ, Tu D, et al. Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: evaluation of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group CO.17 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1182–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2335–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hurwitz HI, Tebbutt NC, Kabbinavar F, et al. Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: pooled analysis from seven randomized controlled trials. Oncologist. 2013;18:1004–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Giantonio BJ, Catalano PJ, Meropol NJ, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E3200. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1539–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bennouna J, Sastre J, Arnold D, et al. Continuation of bevacizumab after first progression in metastatic colorectal cancer (ML18147): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:29–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lawrence D, Maschio M, Leahy KJ, et al. Economic analysis of bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). J Med Econ. 2013;16:1387–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Saltz LB, Clarke S, Diaz-Rubio E, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2013–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Tsutani K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan. Clin Ther. 2007;29:2256–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tappenden P, Jones R, Paisley S, Carroll C. The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in England and Wales. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:2487–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Whyte S, Pandor A, Stevenson M. Bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;30:1119–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Goldstein DA, Chen Q, Ayer T et al. First- and Second-Line Bevacizumab in Addition to Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2015. This study uses a Markov model to project cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in mCRC. ICERs for bevacizumab in both the first and second line settings are unfavorable, suggesting the need for a biomarker to identify patients who would derive the greatest benefit from bevacizumab

  34. Shankaran V, Mummy D, Koepl L, et al. Survival and lifetime costs associated with first-line bevacizumab use in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologist. 2014;19:892–9. In this study, administrative claims data from SEER-Medicare is used to determine cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of mCRC in real-world clinical settings. ICER is generall unfavorable relative to accepted standards.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Lambrechts D, Lenz HJ, de Haas S, et al. Markers of response for the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1219–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sunakawa Y, Stintzing S, Cao S, et al. Variations in genes regulating tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) to predict outcomes of bevacizumab-based treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results from TRIBE and FIRE3 trials. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:2450–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Weickhardt AJ, Williams DS, Lee CK, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor D expression is a potential biomarker of bevacizumab benefit in colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2015;113:37–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Van Cutsem E, Tabernero J, Lakomy R, et al. Addition of aflibercept to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan improves survival in a phase III randomized trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3499–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tabernero J, Yoshino T, Cohn AL, et al. Ramucirumab versus placebo in combination with second-line FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma that progressed during or after first-line therapy with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine (RAISE): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:499–508.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bach P, Saltz L, Wittes R. In cancer care, cost matters. New York Times. 2012;14:2012.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pollack A. Sanofi halves price of cancer drug Zaltrap after Sloan-Kettering Rejection. New York Times. 2012;8:2012.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Goldstein DA, El-Rayes BF. Considering efficacy and cost, where does ramucirumab fit in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer? Oncologist. 2015;20:981–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Wade R, Duarte A, Simmonds M, et al. The Clinical and cost effectiveness of Aflibercept in combination with Irinotecan and Fluorouracil-Based Therapy (FOLFIRI) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer which has progressed following prior oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy: a critique of the evidence. PharmacoEconomics. 2015.

  44. Echave M, Oyaguez I, Lamas MJ, et al. Aflibercept in combination with Folfiri in patients with, metastatic colorectal cancer: cost-effectiveness based on velour best efficacy subgroup post-hoc analysis. Value Health. 2015;18:A454.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Goldstein DA, Ahmad BB, Chen Q, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of regorafenib for metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3727–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Grothey A, Van Cutsem E, Sobrero A, et al. Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CORRECT): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381:303–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T, et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1065–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Schrag D, Dueck A, Naughton M, et al. Cost of chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer with either bevacizumab or cetuximab: Economic analysis of CALGB/SWOG 80405. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33.

  49. Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2509–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Caudle KE, Thorn CF, Klein TE, et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase genotype and fluoropyrimidine dosing. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;94:640–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Lee AM, Shi Q, Pavey E, et al. DPYD variants as predictors of 5-fluorouracil toxicity in adjuvant colon cancer treatment (NCCTG N0147). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106.

  52. Toffoli G, Cecchin E, Corona G, et al. The role of UGT1A1*28 polymorphism in the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3061–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Gold HT, Hall MJ, Blinder V, Schackman BR. Cost effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing for uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 before irinotecan administration for metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer. 2009;115:3858–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Pichereau S, Le Louarn A, Lecomte T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1*28 genotyping in preventing severe neutropenia following FOLFIRI therapy in colorectal cancer. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2010;13:615–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. de Jong MC, Pulitano C, Ribero D, et al. Rates and patterns of recurrence following curative intent surgery for colorectal liver metastasis: an international multi-institutional analysis of 1669 patients. Ann Surg. 2009;250:440–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Morris EJ, Forman D, Thomas JD, et al. Surgical management and outcomes of colorectal cancer liver metastases. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1110–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Gazelle GS, Hunink MG, Kuntz KM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of hepatic metastasectomy in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a state-transition Monte Carlo decision analysis. Ann Surg. 2003;237:544–55.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Loveman E, Jones J, Clegg AJ, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies in the management of liver metastases: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:vii–viii. 1-283.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, 825 Eastlake Ave. E, MS G4-830, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA

    Veena Shankaran

  2. Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Veena Shankaran

  3. Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    Shweta Jain & Veena Shankaran

Authors
  1. Shweta Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Veena Shankaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veena Shankaran.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Shweta Jain declares that she has no conflict of interest. Veena Shankaran has received funding for research through grants from Merck and Amgen (funds paid to institution).

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Personalized Medicine in Colorectal Cancer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jain, S., Shankaran, V. The Economics of Personalized Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 12, 123–129 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-016-0318-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-016-0318-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation