METASTATIC COLORECTAL TREATMENT COSTS OF USING TARGETED DRUGS IN SECOND AND FURTHER LINES THERAPY
https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2016.9.2.038-044
Abstract
Targeted drugs are recommended for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Second and further lines therapy options include anti-EGFR therapy, eligible for patients with wild-type KRAS (cetuximab and panitumumab), and relatively new drug — regorafenib, which could be used for all patients.
The aim of this study is to compare costs associated with these options in Russia.
Materials and methods. We calculated cost of medication for treating one patient during one month with cetuximab, panitumumab and regorafenib. We also employed cost-effectiveness analysis, but its results should be treated with caution due to non-comparable patients in regorafenib and anti-EGRF drugs studies.
Results. We found that monthly per patient medication costs of using regorafenib are 255,000 rubles, which is 104,000 rubles less when using cetuximab or 184,000 rubles less when using panitumumab. Cost-effectiveness ratio for regorafenib was estimated at 111,500 rubles per month and is the lowest among the alternatives: 136,000 rubles per month for cetuximab and 310,000 rubles per month for panitumumab.
Conclusions. Regorafenib is cost-saving alternative for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in second and further lines therapy compared to cetuximab and panitumumab in Russia.
About the Authors
N. A. Avxentyev
Research Institute of Finance, Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation;
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
adviser;
research fellow of Institute of social analysis and forecasting,
Nastasyinsky per., 3-2, Moscow, 127006
E. V. Derkach
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration;
The National Centre for Health Technology Assessment
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD (candidate of medical sciences);
leading research fellow of Laboratory for health technology assessment of Applied economic research,
Vernadskogo prospect, 82-1, Moscow, Russia, 119571,
RANEPA IPEI, Laboratory for health technology assessment
E. A. Pyadushkina
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration;
The National Centre for Health Technology Assessment
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
research fellow of Laboratory for health technology assessment of Applied economic research Institute;
research fellow,
Vernadskogo prospect, 82-1, Moscow, 119571,
RANEPA IPEI, Laboratory for health technology assessment
M. D. Ter-Ovanesov
Peoples’ Friendship University Of Russia, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Head of the Department of Oncology and Haematology Faculty of increase continuing medical education,
Mikluho-Maclay Street, 6, Moscow, 117198
References
1. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2014 (morbidity and mortality). Ed. AD. Caprino, VV Starinskaya, GV Petrova [Zlokachestvennye novoobrazovaniya v Rossii v 2014 godu (zabolevaemost' i smertnost'). Pod red. A. D. Kaprina, V. V. Starinskogo, G. V. Petrovoi (in Russian)]. Moscow. 2016; 250 s.
2. Mitrofanov A. A. Surgical and complex treatment of cerebral metastases of colorectal cancer. PhD diss. [Khirurgicheskoe i kompleksnoe lechenie tserebral'nykh metastazov kolorektal'nogo raka: Dis. ... kand. med. nauk (in Russian)] 14.01.12, 14.01.18. Moscow. 2015; 142 s.
3. Practical guidelines for drug treatment of malignant tumors (RUSSCO) [Prakticheskie rekomendatsii po lekarstvennomu lecheniyu zlokachestvennykh opukholei (RUSSCO). Pod red. V. M. Moiseenko (in Russian)]. Moscow. 2015; 456 s.
4. Russian Federation Government Decree № 2724-r dated December 26, 2015 «On approval of the list of vital and essential drugs for 2016, as well as lists of drugs for medical use and minimal assortment of drugs needed for medical care.» Access from the «Consultant» [Rasporyazhenie Pravitel'stva RF № 2724-r ot 26 dekabrya 2015 g. «Ob utverzhdenii perechnya zhiznenno neobkhodimykh i vazhneishikh lekarstvennykh preparatov na 2016 god, a takzhe perechnei lekarstvennykh preparatov dlya meditsinskogo primeneniya i minimal'nogo assortimenta lekarstvennykh preparatov, neobkhodimykh dlya okazaniya meditsinskoi pomoshchi». Dostup iz «Konsul'tantPlyus» (in Russian)] URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_192036/. Accessed: 11.01.2016.
5. Amado R. G. et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2008; 26 (10): 1626-1634.
6. Cunningham D. et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. New England journal of medicine. 2004; 351 (4): 337-345.
7. Dattatreya S. et al. Metastatic colorectal cancer-prolonging overall survival with targeted therapies. South Asian journal of cancer. 2013; 2 (3): 179.
8. Goldstein D. A. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of regorafenib for metastatic colorectal cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015; S. JCO. 2015.61. 9569.
9. Grothey A. et al. Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CORRECT): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. The Lancet. 2013; 381 (9863): 303-312.
10. Hellman S., Rosenberg S. A., DeVita V. T. (ed.). Cancer: principles & practice of oncology. Lippincott-Raven. 1997; T. 2.
11. Hoff P. Capecitabine as first-line treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC): Integrated results of 1207 patients (pts) from 2 randomized, phase III studies. On behalf of the Capecitabine CRC Study Group. Annals of Oncology. 2000; 11: 60-60.
12. Hoyle M. 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 in Health. 2013; 16 (2): 288-296.
13. Jonker D. J. et al. Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007; 357 (20): 2040-2048.
14. Karapetis C. S. et al. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008; 359 (17): 1757-1765.
15. Li J. et al. Regorafenib plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care in Asian patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CONCUR): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2015; 16 (6): 619-629.
16. Marino A. et al. Panitumumab after progression on cetuximab in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients: a single institution experience. Tumori. 2015; 101 (5): 524-528.
17. Peeters M. 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. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2010; S. JCO. 2009.27. 6055.
18. Price T. J. et al. Panitumumab versus cetuximab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (ASPECCT): a randomised, multicentre, openlabel, non-inferiority phase 3 study. The Lancet Oncology. 2014; 15 (6): 569-579.
19. Saif M. W. et al. Safety and efficacy of panitumumab therapy after progression with cetuximab: experience at two institutions. Clinical colorectal cancer. 2010; 9 (5): 315-318.
20. Van Cutsem E. et al. Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of oncology. 2014.
21. Van Cutsem E. 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. Journal of clinical oncology. 2007; 25 (13): 1658-1664.
22. Wadlow R. C. et al. Panitumumab in patients with KRAS wildtype colorectal cancer after progression on cetuximab. The oncolog ist. 2012; 17 (1): 14-e34.
Review
For citations:
Avxentyev N.A., Derkach E.V., Pyadushkina E.A., Ter-Ovanesov M.D. METASTATIC COLORECTAL TREATMENT COSTS OF USING TARGETED DRUGS IN SECOND AND FURTHER LINES THERAPY. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2016;9(2):38-44. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2016.9.2.038-044
Views:
1113
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Email this article 