Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, et al. Cancer statistics in China. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:115–32.
Van Cutsem E, Nordlinger B, Cervantes A, et al. Advanced colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for treatment. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(Suppl 5):v93–7.
Brenner H, Bouvier AM, Foschi R, et al. Progress in colorectal cancer survival in Europe from the late 1980s to the early 21st century: the EUROCARE study. Int J Cancer. 2012;131:1649–58.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Colon Cancer. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
Tournigand C, André T, Achille E, et al. FOLFIRI followed by FOLFOX6 or the reverse sequence in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomized GERCOR study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:229–37.
Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S, et al. Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1658–64.
Peeters M, Price TJ, Cervantes A, et al. Randomized phase III study of panitumumab with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4706–13.
Peeters M, Oliner KS, Price TJ, et al. Analysis of KRAS/NRAS mutations in a phase III study of panitumumab with FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:5469–79.
Wan XM, Peng LB, Ma JA, et al. Economic evaluation of nivolumab as a second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma from US and Chinese perspectives. Cancer. 2017;123(14):2634–41.
Hoyle M, Rogers G, Moxham T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of dasatinib and nilotinib for imatinib-resistant or -intolerant chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia. Value Health. 2011;14:1057–67.
China Guidelines for Pharmcoeconomic Evaluation research group. China Guidelines for Pharmcoeconomic Evaluation. 1st ed. Beijing: China Center for Health Economic Research; 2011. p. 23–4.
Hoyle MW, Henley W. Improved curve fits to summary survival data: application to economic evaluation of health technologies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:139.
Wan X, Peng L, Li Y. A review and comparison of methods for recreating individual patient data from published Kaplan–Meier survival curves for economic evaluations: a simulation study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0121353.
Freeman K, Connock M, Cummins E, et al. Fluorouracil plasma monitoring: the My5-FU assay for guiding dose adjustment in patients receiving fluorouracil chemotherapy by continuous infusion. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19:1–321 (v–vi).
Tikhonova IA, Huxley N, Snowsill T, et al. Economic analysis of first-line treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in England. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:837–51.
Wu B, Dong B, Xu Y, et al. Economic evaluation of first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a healthresource-limited setting. PLoS One. 2012;7:e32530.
Li-xia L, Shu-hone B, Lan J, et al. Analysis on ADR treatment cost of the four chemotherapy regimens for colorectal cancer [Article in Chinese]. Zhongguo Yiyuan Yaoxue Zazhi. 2013;33:1795–8.
Xiao-hui W, Jun Z, Dong Z. Pharmacoeconomic research on adverse drug reactions of chemotherapy for lung cancer [Article in Chinese]. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. 2012;32:657–60.
Yu-ming J, Jun P, Ziping L, et al. Pharmacoeconomic research on adverse drug reactions of chemotherapy for lung cancer [Article in Chinese]. China Pharm. 2001;12:91–2.
Bennett L, Zhao Z, Barber B, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with panitumumab in first- or second-line treatment. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:1495–502.
Wang J, Zhao Z, Barber B, et al. A Q-twist analysis comparing panitumumab plus best supportive care (BSC) with BSC alone in patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:1848–53.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. Health care and personal articles of consumer price indices. http://data.stats.gov.cn/search.htm?s=CPI. Accessed 20 July 2019.
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;33:1112–8.
Briggs A, Claxton C, Sculpher M. Decision Modeling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2006.
Ocana A, Amir E, Tannock IF. Toward value-based pricing to boost cancer research and innovation. Cancer Res. 2016;76:3127–9.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cetuximab (review of TA176) and panitumumab (partial review of TA240) for the first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer [ID794]. https://www.nice.org.theUK/guidance/ta439/evidence. Accessed 14 May 2018.
World Health Organization. Choosing Interventions that are Cost Effective (WHO-CHOICE), Tables of costs and prices used in WHO-CHOICE analysis. https://www.who.int/entity/choice/costs/en/. Accessed 04 Sep 2019.
Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health. 2004;7:518–28.
Murray CJ, Evans DB, Acharya A, et al. Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2000;9:235–51 (8.38).
Messori A, De Rosa M, Pani L. Alternative pricing strategies for cancer drugs. JAMA. 2015;313:857.
The Economist Intelligence Unit. Valuebased healthcare in France: a slow adoption of cost-effectiveness criteria. http://www.economistinsights.com/sites/default/files/ValuebasedhealthcareFrance.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2019.
Gerber A, Stock S, Dintsios CM. Reflections on the changing face of German pharmaceutical policy: How far is Germany from value-based pricing? Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:549–53.
Goldstein DA, Sarfaty M. Cancer drug pricing and reimbursement: lessons for the United States from around the world. Oncologist. 2016;21(8):907–9.
Dos Santos RF, Coutinho MB, Haas L. Panitumumab + Mfolfox6 versus bevacizumab + Mfolfox6 as first-line treatment of wild-type Ras metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from the Brazilian Private Healthcare System Perspective. Value Health. 2015;18:A821.
Graham CN, Hechmati G, Hjelmgren J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:2791–801.
Fínek J, Skoupá J, Jandová P. Cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared to bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer-Czech Republic model adaptation. Klin Onkol. 2015;28:265–72.
Ewara EM, Zaric GS, Welch S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Curr Oncol. 2014;21:e541–50.
Suarez J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab and panitumumab for first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (Mcrc) in Wt Ras patients in Spain. Value Health. 2015;18:A460.
Vargas-Valencia J, Garcia Perlaza J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Panitumumab + Folfox compared to Cetuximab + Folfiri as first-line treatment for patients with wild-type (Wt) Ras (Exons 2, 3, And 4 Of Kras And Nras) metastatic colorectal cancer (Mcrc) in Colombia. Value Health. 2015;18:A460.
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.
Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12:409–18.
National Development and Reform Commission. Abolishment of government (guided) pricing for the majority of drugs and push to the drug pricing reform [in Chinese]. http://www.sdpc.gov.cn/xwzx/xwfb/201505/t20150505_690687.html. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
State Council of the People’s Republic of China. China to cut prices of expensive patent drugs [in Chinese]. http://english.gov.cn/news/top_news/2016/05/20/content_281475353689066.html. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
State Council of the People’s Republic of China. Notice of the State Council on issuing the 13th five-year plan on deepening the medical and health care system reform [in Chinese]. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-01/09/content_5158053.html. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
Hawkins N, Scott DA. Reimbursement and value-based pricing: stratified cost-effectiveness analysis may not be the last word. Health Econ. 2011;20:688–98.
Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China. Notice of the policy of added-value tax on anti-cancer drugs [in Chinese]. http://szs.mof.gov.cn/zhengwuxinxi/zhengcefabu/201804/t20180427_2880407.html. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
Lee SG, Jee YG, Chung HC, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant therapy for node positive breast cancer in Korea: docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) versus fluororacil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114:589–95.
Liubao P, Xiaomin W, Chongqing T, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer from a Chinese perspective: Doxorubicin plus Cyclophosphamide versus Docetaxel plus Cyclophosphamide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:873–86.
Goldstein DA, Chen Q, Ayer T, et al. Necitumumab in metastatic squamous cell lung cancer: establishing a value-based cost. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:1293–300.