Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Oxaliplatin in Stage III Colon Cancer: A Synthesis of Clinical Trial and Daily Practice Evidence
Previous cost-effectiveness analyses of oxaliplatin have been based on randomised trials whereas current Dutch policy requires evidence from daily practice. The objective of this study was to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidines (FL) versus FL-only as adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer.
A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime cost and quality-adjusted life-years from a hospital perspective. The effectiveness of the oxaliplatin arm was modelled by combining published efficacy data from the pivotal clinical registration trial (MOSAIC trial) with real-world (RW) data from a Dutch population-based observational study. RW patients were categorised into “eligible” or “ineligible”, depending on whether the patients fulfilled the MOSAIC trial eligibility criteria. Ineligible RW patients (18 %) had a poorer prognosis than eligible RW patients (82 %) and MOSAIC trial patients. The effectiveness of the comparator was modelled using MOSAIC trial results. All cost inputs were based on RW patients and reported in Euro 2012. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed for four different scenarios: (1) cost-effectiveness analyses based on MOSAIC trial patients; (2) cost-effectiveness analyses using MOSAIC and eligible RW patients; (3) cost-effectiveness analyses using MOSAIC and both eligible and ineligible RW patients, assuming oxaliplatin had an equal effect in ineligible and eligible patients; (4) cost-effectiveness analyses using MOSAIC and both eligible and ineligible RW patients, assuming oxaliplatin had no effect amongst ineligibles. For each scenario, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.
MOSAIC trial patients and eligible RW patients treated with oxaliplatin had comparable 2-year disease-free survivals (79.5 vs. 78.4 %). Oxaliplatin showed an incremental QALY gain of 1.02, 1.13, 1.17 and 0.93 and incremental cost of €9,961, €11,055, €9,814 and €11,854 in scenarios 1–4, respectively. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were €9,766, €9,783, €8,388 and €12,746 in scenarios 1–4, respectively. In all scenarios, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that the ICERs are acceptable and robust under a wide range of model assumptions.
The ICERs of the different scenarios that resulted from combining MOSAIC trial data with data from Dutch daily practice all suggest that FL + oxaliplatin is cost-effective versus FL alone in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer. This article illustrates how one could design and implement a real-world cost-effectiveness study to yield internally valid results that could also be generalisable.
- 1.Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013.Google Scholar
- 10.Dewel G. Guidance for outcomes research [Leidraad voor uitkomstenonderzoek]. Diemen: College voor Zorgverzekeringen; 2008. Report no. 270.Google Scholar
- 11.Kuijpers M, Toenders W. Assessment procedure for inpatient drugs (Procedure beoordeling intramurale geneesmiddelen). Diemen: College voor Zorgverzekeringen; 2006. Report no. 26022597.Google Scholar
- 20.van Gils CWM, Redekop WK, de Groot S, Tan SS, Koopman M, Mol L, et al. Pilot outcomes research: costs and effects of oxaliplatin in stage III and metastatic colorectal cancer. 2010. http://www.cvz.nl/binaries/live/cvzinternet/hst_content/nl/documenten/rubriek+zorgpakket/imta-onderzoek-dure-geneesmiddelen-1207.pdf.
- 22.Pandor A, Eggington S, Paisley S, Tappenden P, Sutcliffe P. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin and capecitabine for the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2006;10(41):iii–iv, xi–xiv, 1–185.Google Scholar
- 23.Rodenburg-van Dieten HEM. Richtlijnen voor farmaco-economisch onderzoek; evaluatie en actualisatie; 2005.Google Scholar
- 24.Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. http://www.cbs.nl.
- 25.Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. New York: Wiley; 2009.Google Scholar
- 30.Nederlandse Zorg autoriteit (The Dutch Healthcare Authority). 2009. http://ctg.bit-ic.nl/Nzatarieven/top.do.
- 31.Pharmacotherapeutical Aid Committee (CFH), Health Care Insurance Board (CVZ). 2009. http://www.fk.cvz.nl.
- 32.Statistics Netherlands. 2009. http://www.cbs.nl.
- 33.Richtlijnen oncologische zorg. http://www.oncoline.nl.
- 35.Tournigand C, Andre T, Bonnetain F, Chibaudel B, Lledo G, Hickish T, et al. Adjuvant therapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin in stage II and elderly patients (between ages 70 and 75 years) with colon cancer: subgroup analyses of the Multicenter International Study of Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(27):3353–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Kuebler JP, Wieand HS, O’Connell MJ, Smith RE, Colangelo LH, Yothers G, et al. Oxaliplatin combined with weekly bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin as surgical adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II and III colon cancer: results from NSABP C-07. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(16):2198–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Haller DG, Cassidy J, Tabernero J, et al. Efficacy findings from a randomized phase III trial of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin versus bolus 5-FU/LV for stage III colon cancer (NO16968): no impact of age on disease-free survival (DFS) (abstract). Presented at the 2010 ASCO gastrointestinal cancers symposium, Orlando, 22 January 2010.Google Scholar
- 41.Petrou S, Campbell N. Stabilisation in colorectal cancer. Int J Palliat Nurs. 1997;3:275–80.Google Scholar