Cost implications of new treatments for advanced colorectal cancer

Abstract

A new tricyanate ester monomer of a tris(4‐hydroxyphenyl)benzene derivative was synthesized in 6‐steps with a 63% overall yield. The geminal substitution of phenyl rings on ethane, in addition to the creation of a racemic/diastereomeric mixture, resulted in a liquid monomer whereas compounds with similar structure and symmetry have melting points typically over 100 °C. Key properties of the polycyanurate, such as the glass transition temperature and moisture resistance, were positively influenced by the higher crosslink density provided by the monomer. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem, 2010

Colorectal Cancer Screening with Blood-Based Biomarkers: Cost-Effectiveness of Methylated Septin 9 DNA versus Current Strategies

“…As the cost of colorectal cancer treatment continues to rise (40,41), certain strategies may actually be cost-saving (42)(43)(44). In recent years in the United States, the costs of colorectal cancer care have been increasing (40,41,45), whereas Medicare reimbursement rates for screening tests including colonoscopy have been decreasing (46). These opposing trends in colorectal cancer care costs and screening costs are the principal factors behind our and other recent study results that FIT, FOBT, and sigmoidoscopy may be cost-saving in the United States.…”

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (review of technology appraisal no. 176) and panitumumab (partial review of technology appraisal no. 240) for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

“…Furthermore, the full text of one study could not be retrieved and assessed at a full-text level. 106 However, given the clear inclusion/exclusion criteria we do not believe that any relevant studies were missed at the title and abstract screening stage and comparison with similar reviews, such as that provided in the Merck Serono submission, do not indicate that any studies were missed, nor that the irretrievable study would have been included at the full-text stage.…”

“…After screening by title and abstract, 1955 studies were excluded and 24 studies were identified for full-text screening; five of these were conference abstracts and one full-text article could not be retrieved. 106 In total, therefore, 19 full texts were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of the five conference abstracts, one was a duplicate and one was a duplicate of a full paper.…”

Do current approaches to assessing therapy related adverse events align with the needs of long-term cancer patients and survivors?

“…For cost estimation studies utilizing clinical trials, the vast majority incorporated only those AEs that were reported as severe (grade 3 or grade 4). Note: Consensus Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTC-AE), includes a standardized list of outcomes and symptoms in oncology trials and includes a severity grading scale associated with these effects [93]. Grade 1 is the least severe and can include outcomes like fatigue.…”