PCN64 The Cost Effectiveness of Cetuximab Plus Best Supportive Care (BSC) Versus BSC Alone in Last Line for KRAS Wild Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patient Population

Abstract

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common renal tumor and accounts for 2 to 3% of all adult malignancies. Up to 30% of patients with renal-cell carcinoma present with metastatic disease. The aim of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line medications for patients with metastatic RCC from the payer's perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed using 6-week cycles for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of four mRCC first-line therapies: Interferon-␣ (3 million units (MU)/day 3 times-per-week for first week; 6MU/day 3 timesper-week for second week, 9MU/day 3 times per-week third week onward), sunitinib (50mg/day 4 weeks ON ϩ 2 weeks OFF), sorafenib (400mg/twice-a-day) and bevacizumab plus Interferon ␣ (10mg/kg/bi-weekly ϩ 9MU 3 times-per-week every 3 weeks). The model had a 10-year time horizon. The four model stages were: No progression, progression, best supportive care and death. Effectiveness data were obtained through a systematic review, resource utilization were collected from a Colombian Delphi Panel, and costs included were retrieved from Colombian tariff manual (SOAT). Effectiveness was measured by progression-free life years (PFLY) and life-years gained (LYG). Costs and outcomes were discounted with a 3% annual rate. Univariate sensitivity analysis was developed.

Do cancer biomarkers make targeted therapies cost-effective? A systematic review in metastatic colorectal cancer

“…We found that most studies used a third-party payer perspective such as health care systems or national health insurances, often taking account of only direct costs in their evaluations. Three studies included both direct and indirect costs from a societal perspective [ 36 , 69 , 71 ]. Zhou et al [ 36 ] stated that they evaluated from a perspective of Chinese health care system, however, we categorised their study as having a societal perspective since they considered indirect costs as well i.e., travel fees and absenteeism fees.…”