Background Metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) is a rare and aggressive skin cancer. Until recently, there were no licensed treatment options for patients with mMCC, and prognosis was poor. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted for avelumab, a newly available treatment option for mMCC, versus standard care (SC), from a UK National Health Service perspective. Methods A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab versus SC. Data from the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (NCT02155647) were used to inform estimates of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Unit costs and associated frequencies of use were informed by published literature and clinical expert opinion. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, i.e. the cost per QALY gained) for treatment-experienced (TE) and treatment-naïve (TN) patients. Uncertainty was explored through a range of sensitivity analyses. Results Discounting costs and QALYs at 3.5% per annum, avelumab was associated with ICERs of £35,274 (TE)/£39,178 (TN) per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results demonstrated that avelumab was associated with an 88.3% (TE)/69.3% (TN) probability of being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold for end-of-life treatments of £50,000 per QALY gained. Results were most sensitive to alternative survival extrapolations and dosing assumptions. Conclusions The analysis results suggest that avelumab is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option for UK mMCC patients. The results for TN patients are subject to some uncertainty, and a confirmatory analysis will be conducted with more mature data.

For patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN), chemotherapy can prolong life and alleviate symptoms. However, expected gains may be small, not necessarily outweighing considerable toxicity and high costs. Treatment choice is to a large extent dependent on preferences of doctors and patients and data on these choices are scarce. The purpose of this study is to obtain real-world information on palliative systemic treatment and costs of R/M SCCHN in the Netherlands. In six Dutch head and neck treatment centers, data were collected on patient and tumor characteristics, treatment patterns, disease progression, survival, adverse events, and resource use for R/M SCCHN, between 2006 and 2013. 125 (14 %) out of 893 R/M SCCHN patients received palliative, non-trial first-line systemic treatment, mainly platinum + 5FU + cetuximab (32 %), other platinum-based combination therapy (13 %), methotrexate monotherapy (27 %) and capecitabine monotherapy (14 %). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.4 and 6.0 months, respectively. 34 (27 %) patients experienced severe adverse events. Mean total hospital costs ranged from €10,075 (±€9,891) (methotrexate monotherapy) to €39,459 (±€21,149) (platinum + 5FU + cetuximab). Primary cost drivers were hospital stays and anticancer drug treatments. Major health care utilization and costs are involved in systemically treating R/M SCCHN patients with a limited survival.

23 Background: Cetuximab (CET) administered weekly (q1w) at 250 mg/m², after an initial dose of 400 mg/m², is approved in combination with chemotherapy (CT) for the treatment of (K) RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The use of CET 500 mg/m2 administered with CT every 2 weeks (q2w) is according to US clinical practice guidelines and observed routinely. In this study, we compared q2w vs q1w regimens on overall survival (OS) in a presumed first-line (1L) treatment subcohort and present updated data on the noninferiority of q2w vs q1w in line-agnostic (1L+) treatment using US real-world data. Methods: Using IBM MarketScan, a large US insurance claims database, we classified a cohort of mCRC patients treated between 07/2010 and 12/2016 with CET+CT as q1w or q2w based on observed infusion patterns. Absence of mCRC-related treatment claims preceding CET initiation date (defined as the index date) qualified as CET treated in 1L. A validated algorithm was used to determine patient death. Confounding was accounted for using high-dimensional propensity scoring (hdPS) with inverse probability of treatment weights. OS was compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. Imbalanced confounders after hdPS were added to the Cox model. In 1L+, noninferiority of the q2w regimen was tested with a margin hazard ratio (HR) of 1.25. However, noninferiority could not be tested in 1L due to the small sample size; a test for difference was used instead. Results: Of 2,730 CET-exposed mCRC patients (updated), 1,779 (65.2%) and 951 (34.8%) were classified in q1w and q2w groups, respectively, among which 557 (31.3%) and 316 (33.2%) received CET in 1L. The HR (95% CI) for OS of q2w vs q1w in 1L was 1.10 (0.92-1.31; crude), and 1.05 (0.86-1.29; adjusted; p for difference: 0.625). In 1L+, crude and adjusted HRs were 1.05 (0.94-1.18) and 0.94 (0.85-1.03), respectively, rejecting the inferiority hypothesis at p < 0.001. Conclusions: Only a third of patients received CET in 1L in this study. OS was statistically noninferior in q2w vs q1w in 1L+, and adjusted results in 1L suggest no differences between both treatment schedules. However, more data would be needed to formally test the noninferiority hypothesis in 1L.

Clinical trial EMR 62202-006 demonstrates prolonged median locoregional control (24.4 vs. 14.9 months), progression-free survival (17.1 vs. 12.4 months) and overall survival (49.0 vs. 29.3 months) for patients who receive cetuximab added to the comparator radiotherapy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN). In the Netherlands, hospitals receive reimbursement for cetuximab conditional on cost-effectiveness in daily practice. To estimate the real-world incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for radiotherapy + cetuximab over radiotherapy alone in first line treatment of LA SCCHN, a Markov model is constructed with health states "alive without progression", "alive following progression" and "death". Transition probabilities per month are estimated from clinical trial data and retrospectively collected real-world data from two Dutch head and neck cancer treatment centres (2007-2010, n = 141). 5-year, 10-year and lifetime horizons are used, without and with discounting (4 % costs, 1.5 % effects) to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Two scenarios explore different assumptions on prognosis of real-world versus trial patients. Adding cetuximab to radiotherapy results in increased costs and health gains in both scenarios and across each of the time horizons. Incremental costs per QALY gained range between 14,624 and 38,543 in the base-case. For a willingness to pay of 80,000 per QALY, the acceptability curves for the different scenarios show probabilities between 0.76 and 0.87 of radiotherapy + cetuximab being cost-effective compared to radiotherapy alone. Current results show the combined treatment of radiotherapy + cetuximab to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with LA SCCHN.

In a randomized controlled trial in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN), treatment with RT plus cetuximab resulted in improved survival compared to treatment with RT alone. Uncertainty exists about the generalizability of the trial results for the Dutch healthcare setting due to possible discrepancies in treatment allocation. Retrospective patient chart review was performed for 141 patients treated with first line RT plus cetuximab or RT alone, diagnosed in 2007-2010 in two head and neck treatment centers. Combined with aggregated population-based data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and patient level clinical trial data, use of cetuximab in Dutch daily practice was assessed through comparison of patient characteristics, treatment characteristics and treatment outcomes between trial and daily practice. 61 daily practice patients fulfilled the selection criteria. In line with Dutch guidelines, RT plus cetuximab is prescribed in patients requiring combined therapy unfit to receive traditional platinum-based chemotherapeutics. These patients have unfavorable baseline characteristics, due to selection on--amongst others--high age of the patients. Beyond 1 year after treatment start, patients treated with RT plus cetuximab in daily practice died earlier than patients treated with RT plus cetuximab in the trial. Selective treatment allocation in daily practice limits generalizability of EMR 062202-006 trial results. Evidence is needed about the effectiveness of RT plus cetuximab compared to other treatments for patients with unfavorable clinical baseline characteristics.

Aims: This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with FOLFIRI þ cetuximab vs FOLFIRI þ bevacizumab for patients with RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Germany based on the randomized phase 3 FIRE-3 trial. For patients with RAS wt mCRC, FOLFIRI þ cetuximab yielded statistically significant median overall survival gains over FOLFIRI þ bevacizumab. Materials and methods: A standard 3-state partitioned survival cost-utility model was developed to compare the health benefits and costs of treatment from a German social health insurance perspective using individual patient-level trial data. Health outcomes were reported in life-years (LYs) and qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Survival was estimated based on Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves supplemented with best-fitting parametric survival model extrapolations. Subgroup analyses of patients with a left-sided primary tumor location or patients with metastases confined to the liver were performed. Results: In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, FOLFIRI þ cetuximab, providing 0.68 additional LYs (0.53 QALYs), yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of e36,360/LY and e47,250/QALY. In subgroup analyses, patients experienced improved survival gains without a corresponding increase in costs, resulting in lower ICERs. Our model was most sensitive to changes in treatment duration across all lines of therapy, utility of progressive disease, as well as patients' weight and body surface area. Limitations: This cost-effectiveness analysis was based on patient-level data from the FIRE-3 trial. Trial outcomes may not adequately reflect those in the real-world setting. Additionally, resource use and costs were obtained from tariff lists, which do not account for differences in treatment practice. These considerations limit generalizability of outcomes to other countries, or within the German healthcare setting. Conclusions: Based on our analyses, FOLFIRI þ cetuximab is cost-effective compared with FOLFIRI þ bevacizumab in patients with RAS wt mCRC, with ICERs well below willingness-to-pay thresholds for diseases with a high burden.

ObjectiveTo assess the cost effectiveness of cetuximab in third-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in routine clinical practice compared with best supportive care (BSC).MethodsPatients (n = 287) with KRAS wt mCRC treated with cetuximab or BSC in eight hospitals in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2012 were included in our real-world study. Outcome measures were costs per life-year (LY) and costs per quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. A Markov model was developed, and a time horizon of four years was applied. Outcomes were calculated from Kaplan-Meier survival curves from patient-level data and literature. Direct medical costs were estimated in all centers (2013 values), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Results were discounted, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.ResultsAdministration of cetuximab in third-line treatment of mCRC resulted in a gain of 0.29 LYs and 0.25 QALYs compared with BSC. In the four-year study period, average discounted healthcare costs were €36,637 in the cetuximab group vs. €3648 in the BSC group. The discounted ICERs of cetuximab vs. BSC in the real-world setting were €114,907and €133,527 per LY and QALY gained, respectively.ConclusionsResults of this cost-effectiveness analysis showed that third-line treatment with cetuximab for patients with KRAS (exon 2) wt mCRC offered clinical benefits at additional cost. The real-world ICERs were in line with those of previously published cetuximab and panitumumab cost-utility models.

Aim: To test the noninferiority of cetuximab administered every 2 weeks (Q2W) versus once weekly (Q1W) in treating metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with regard to overall survival (OS). Patients: Patients receiving cetuximab plus chemotherapy for mCRC in a line-agnostic setting. Methods: This cohort study in IBM MarketScan followed patients from initiation of cetuximab for mCRC until the end of the data availability period, proxy-based death or loss of insurance coverage for >30 days. Results: The hazard ratio for OS was 0.94 (0.85–1.03), and the inferiority hypothesis was rejected at p < 0.001. No significant differences were noted in rates of safety events between Q2W and Q1W. Conclusion: Our real-world study confirmed the noninferiority of cetuximab administered Q2W versus Q1W for OS.