Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advances in Cancer Therapeutics and Patient Access to New Drugs

  • Review Article
  • Patient Access to New Cancer Drugs
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Globally, there are approximately 7.4 million cancer deaths annually, approximately 13% of deaths from all causes. Cancer is a disease of older people and, as the population ages over the next 10–20 years, we can expect an increase in the cancer incidence. Encouragingly, cancer mortality has stabilized in many countries. Part of this success may be attributed to the development of new cancer agents, collectively called ‘targeted therapies’, that are more specific to key components of tumour growth. Worldwide, however, one of the main factors that limit patient access to these important new drugs is their cost, which is higher than traditional chemotherapy. In this review, the clinical and pharmacoeconomic data of selected targeted agents are discussed. In the second part of this article, the challenges faced by healthcare systems in making such drugs available to patients is reviewed. Current strategies used by many countries around the world to manage cancer drug budgets are presented, along with a proposed approach using pharmacoeconomic methodology that may increase patient access.

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

Table I

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WHO. Cancers: the problem [NMH fact sheet]. Geneva: WHO, 2008 Jan [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/fact_sheet_cancers_en.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jan 18]

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kinsella K, Phillips DR. Global aging: the challenge of success. Popul Bull 2005; 60 (1) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.prb.org/Publications/PopulationBulletins/2005/GlobalAgingTheChallengeofSuccessPDF575KB.aspx [Accessed 2009 Dec 22]

    Google Scholar 

  3. National Cancer Institute. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER). Washington, DC: National Cancer Institute, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://seer.cancer.gov/ [Accessed 2010 Jan 2]

    Google Scholar 

  4. Canadian Cancer Society. Canadian cancer statistics 2009. Toronto (ON): Canadian Cancer Society, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancer.ca [Accessed 2010 Jan 21]

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, et al., Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 92–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Köhne CH, Lenz HJ. Chemotherapy with targeted agents for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologist 2009; 14: 478–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mahalingam D, Mita A, Mita MM, et al. Targeted therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancers: historical perspective, current practices and future development. Curr Probl Cancer 2009; 33: 73–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 947–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. O’Dowd A. Watchdog set to reject four drugs for kidney cancer on the NHS [abstract]. BMJ 2008; 337: a1262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cvetković RS, Perry CM. Rituximab: a review of its use in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Drugs 2006; 66: 791–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Marcus R, Hagenbeek A. The therapeutic use of rituximab in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eur J Haematol Suppl. 2007 Jan; (67): 5–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J, et al. CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 235–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Feugier P, Van Hoof A, Sebban C, et al. Long-term results of the R-CHOP study in the treatment of elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4117–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Best JH, Hornberger J, Proctor SJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of rituximab combined with chop for treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Value Health 2005; 8: 462–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferrara F, Ravasio R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of rituximab to CHOP in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. Clin Drug Investig 2008; 28 (1): 55–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Deconinck E, Miadi-Fargier H, Pen CL, et al. Cost effectiveness of rituximab maintenance therapy in follicular lymphoma: long-term economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (1): 35–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Moen MD, McKeage K, Plosker GL, et al. Imatinib: a review of its use in chronic myeloid leukaemia. Drugs 2007; 67 (2): 299–320

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Siddiqui MA, Scott LJ. Imatinib: a review of its use in the management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Drugs 2007; 67 (5): 805–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Blanke CD, Rankin C, Demetri GD, et al. Phase III randomized, intergroup trial assessing imatinib mesylate at two dose levels in patients with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors expressing the kit receptor tyrosine kinase: S0033. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 626–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen MH, Dagher R, Griebel DJ, et al. US Food and Drug Administration drug approval summaries: imatinib mesylate, mesna tablets, and zoledronic acid. Oncologist 2002; 7: 393–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of imatinib for first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia in chronic phase: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8: 1–120

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mabasa VH, Taylor SC, Chu CC, et al. Verification of imatinib cost-effectiveness in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor in British Columbia (VINCE-BC study). J Oncol Pharm Pract 2008; 14: 105–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Huse DM, von Mehren M, Lenhart G, et al. Cost effectiveness of imatinib mesylate in the treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Clin Drug Investig 2007; 27: 85–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Vogel CL, Cobleigh MA, Tripathy D, et al. Efficacy and safety of trastuzumab as a single agent in first-line treatment of HER-2 overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 719–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 783–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005 Oct 20; 353 (16): 1673–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1659–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith I, Procter M, Gelber RD, et al. 2-year follow-up of trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 369: 29–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Skedgel C, Rayson D, Younis T. The cost-utility of sequential adjuvant trastuzumab in women with Her2/Neu-positive breast cancer: an analysis based on updated results from the HERA trial. Value Health. Epub 2009 Mar 10

    Google Scholar 

  31. Chan AL, Leung HW, Lu CL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer: a systematic review. Ann Pharmacother 2009; 43: 296–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McKeage K, Lyseng-Williamson KA. Trastuzumab: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in early breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (8): 699–719

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Press MF, Lenz HJ. EGFR, HER2 and VEGF pathways: validated targets for cancer treatment. Drugs 2007; 67: 2045–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Chase JL. Clinical use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer. Pharmacotherapy 2008; 28: 23S–30S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Miller K, Wang M, Gralow J, et al. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2666–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Rini BI, Halabi S, Rosenberg JE, et al. Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa compared with interferon alfa monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 5422–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sandler AS, Gray R, Perry MC, et al. Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non small cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2542–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Friedman HS, Prados MD, Wen PY, et al. Bevacizumab alone and in combination with irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4733–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Dedes KJ, Matter-Walstra K, Schwenkglenks M, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel for HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer: an economic evaluation. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 1397–406

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Tappenden P, Jones R, Paisley S, et al. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Modjtahedi H, Essapen S. Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in cancer treatment: advances, challenges and opportunities. Anticancer Drugs 2009; 20: 851–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Ortega J, Vigil CE, Chodkiewicz C. Current progress in targeted therapy for colorectal cancer. Cancer Control 2010; 17: 7–15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Vincent MD. Optimizing the management of advanced non small cell lung cancer: a personal view. Current Oncol 2009: 219–31

  47. Van Cutsem E, Köhne CH, Hitre E, et al. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1408–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Siena S, Sartore-Bianchi A, Di Nicolantonio F, et al. Biomarkers predicting clinical outcome of epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 1308–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Tappenden P, Jones R, Paisley S, et al. Systematic review and economic evaluation of bevacizumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11: 1–128

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Brown B, Diamantopoulos A, Bernier J, et al. An economic evaluation of cetuximab combined with radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Value Health 2008; 11: 791–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wilking B, Jonsson N. A global comparison regarding patient access to cancer drugs. Ann Oncol 2007; 18 Suppl. 3: 1–77

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kabbinavar FF, Hurwitz HI, Yi J, et al. Addition of bevacizumab to fluorouracil-based first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: pooled analysis of cohorts of older patients from two randomized clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 199–205

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Drummond MF, Mason AR. European perspective on the cost and cost effectiveness of cancer therapies. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 191–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Wilking B, Jonsson N. A pan European comparison regarding patient access to cancer drugs. Stockholm: Karolinska Institute and Stockholm School of Economics, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  57. National Cancer Institute. Cancer trends progress report: 2007 update. Washington, DC: National Cancer Institute, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://progressreport.cancer.gov [Accessed 2010 Jan 18]

    Google Scholar 

  58. Bach PB. Limits on Medicare’s ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 626–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Faden RR, Chalkidou K, Appleby J, et al. Expensive cancer drugs: a comparison between the United States and the United Kingdom. Milbank Q 2009; 87: 789–819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Church S. UK’s NICE backs Pfizer’s Sutent and Celgene’s Revlimid. 2009 Feb 4 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pharmastrategyblog.com/2009/02 [Accessed 2010 Jan 18]

    Google Scholar 

  61. Dranitsaris G, Leung PP. Using decision analysis modelling to determine pricing of new pharmaceuticals: the case of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist antiemetics for cancer chemotherapy. Int J Tech Assessment Health Care 2004; 20: 289–95

    Google Scholar 

  62. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992; 146: 473–81

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Hillner BE, Smith TJ. Efficacy does not necessarily translate to cost effectiveness: a case study in the challenges associated with 21st century cancer drug pricing. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2111–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Murray CJ, Evans DB, Acharya A, et al. Development of WHO guidelines in generalized cost effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2000; 9: 235–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Sarin R. Criteria for deciding cost effectiveness for expensive new anticancer agents. J Cancer Ther 2008; 4: 1–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Central Intelligence Agency. The world fact book 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html [Accessed 2009 Nov 18]

    Google Scholar 

  67. Stark CG. The burden of cancer in Europe and the availability of cancer drugs. EJHP Practice 2009; 15: 20–3

    Google Scholar 

  68. Stovall S. Greece’s drug price cuts may spread, hitting pharma co profits. 2010 May 14 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/company-news-story.aspx?storyid=201005060849dowjonesdjonline000550 [Accessed 2010 Sep 2]

    Google Scholar 

  69. Spain announces big drug-price cuts, aiming for $1.6 billion savings. 2010 May 17 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.thepharmaletter.com/file/95032/spain-announces-bigdrug-price-cuts-aiming-for-16-billion-savings.html [Accessed 2010 May 17]

  70. Germany cuts drug industry’s pricing power: the VFA Association of Research-based Pharmaceutical Makers criticize plan. 2010 May 25 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.chemanager-online.com/en/news-opinions/headlines/germany-cuts-drug-industrys-pricing-power [Accessed 2010 May 24]

  71. Anand G. Prescribing caution: from Wall Street, a warning about cancer-drug prices: Morgan Stanley analyst creates stir in industry as he sees a backlash. 2010 Mar 15 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=16076 [Accessed 2010 Jan 18]

    Google Scholar 

  72. Hirschler B. NICE backs Iressa after Astra sets fixed cost. 2010 May 27 [online]. Available from URL: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE64P70K20100527?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a54:g12:r5:c0.236844:b34316212:z3 [Accessed 2010 May 17]

    Google Scholar 

  73. de Pouvourville G. Risk-sharing agreements for innovative drugs: a new solution to old problems? Eur J Health Econ 2006; 7: 155–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Towse A, Garrison Jr LP. Can’t get no satisfaction? Will pay for performance help? Toward an economic framework for understanding performance-based risk-sharing agreements for innovative medical products. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (2): 93–102

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Kristine Dorward for her review and many helpful comments during the creation of this paper, and to the anonymous reviewers.

No sources of funding were used to prepare this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa

    George Dranitsaris & Ilse Truter

  2. School of Pharmacy, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

    Martie S. Lubbe

  3. Department of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Eitan Amir

  4. Department of Medical Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    William Evans

Authors
  1. George Dranitsaris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ilse Truter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martie S. Lubbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eitan Amir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. William Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dranitsaris, G., Truter, I., Lubbe, M.S. et al. Advances in Cancer Therapeutics and Patient Access to New Drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 29, 213–224 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11584210-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11584210-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation