IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0153943.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Author

Listed:
  • Vincent T Janmaat
  • Marco J Bruno
  • Suzanne Polinder
  • Sylvie Lorenzen
  • Florian Lordick
  • Maikel P Peppelenbosch
  • Manon C W Spaander

Abstract

Background: Costly biologicals in palliative oncology are emerging at a rapid pace. For example, in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma addition of cetuximab to a palliative chemotherapy regimen appears to improve survival. However, it simultaneously results in higher costs. We aimed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of adding cetuximab to first-line chemotherapeutic treatment of patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, based on data from a randomized controlled phase II trial. Methods: A cost effectiveness analysis model was applied based on individual patient data. It included only direct medical costs from the health-care perspective. Quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Sensitivity analysis was performed by a Monte Carlo analysis. Results: Adding cetuximab to a cisplatin-5-fluorouracil first-line regimen for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma resulted in an the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €252,203 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analysis shows that there is a chance of less than 0.001 that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be less than a maximum willingness to pay threshold of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which is representative for the threshold used in The Netherlands and other developed countries. Conclusions: Addition of cetuximab to a cisplatin-5-fluorouracil first-line regimen for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is not cost-effective when appraised according to currently accepted criteria. Cost-effectiveness analyses using outcome data from early clinical trials (i.c. a phase II trial) enable pharmaceutical companies and policy makers to gain early insight into whether a new drug meets the current eligibility standards for reimbursement and thereby potential admittance for use in regular clinical practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Vincent T Janmaat & Marco J Bruno & Suzanne Polinder & Sylvie Lorenzen & Florian Lordick & Maikel P Peppelenbosch & Manon C W Spaander, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-10, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0153943
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153943
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153943
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153943&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0153943?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malek B Hannouf & Chander Sehgal & Jeffrey Q Cao & Joseph D Mocanu & Eric Winquist & Gregory S Zaric, 2012. "Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Cetuximab to Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-9, June.
    2. Appleby, John & Devlin, Nancy & Parkin, David & Buxton, Martin & Chalkidou, Kalipso, 2009. "Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 239-245, August.
    3. Stephen Martin & Nigel Rice & Peter C. Smith, 2012. "Comparing costs and outcomes across programmes of health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 316-337, March.
    4. Takeru Shiroiwa & Yoon‐Kyoung Sung & Takashi Fukuda & Hui‐Chu Lang & Sang‐Cheol Bae & Kiichiro Tsutani, 2010. "International survey on willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 422-437, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Siverskog, Jonathan & Henriksson, Martin, 2022. "The health cost of reducing hospital bed capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    2. Kristian Bolin & Lars Forsgren, 2012. "The Cost Effectiveness of Newer Epilepsy Treatments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(10), pages 903-923, October.
    3. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter & von Wyl, Viktor & Beck, Konstantin & Weber, Andreas, 2023. "The value of a QALY towards the end of life and its determinants: Experimental evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    4. Maria Rubio-Valera & María Teresa Peñarrubia-María & Maria Iglesias-González & Martin Knapp & Paul McCrone & Marta Roig & Ramón Sabes-Figuera & Juan V. Luciano & Juan M. Mendive & Ana Gabriela Murruga, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of antidepressants versus active monitoring for mild-to-moderate major depressive disorder: a multisite non-randomized-controlled trial in primary care (INFAP study)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(5), pages 703-713, July.
    5. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    6. Aidan Hollis, 2016. "Sustainable Financing of Innovative Therapies: A Review of Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 971-980, October.
    7. Laura Levaggi & Rosella Levaggi, 2017. "Rationing in health care provision: a welfare approach," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 235-249, June.
    8. Ryen, Linda & Svensson, Mikael, 2014. "The Willingness to Pay for a QALY: a Review of the Empirical Literature," Karlstad University Working Papers in Economics 12, Karlstad University, Department of Economics.
    9. Chris Sampson & Bernarda Zamora & Sam Watson & John Cairns & Kalipso Chalkidou & Patricia Cubi-Molla & Nancy Devlin & Borja García-Lorenzo & Dyfrig A. Hughes & Ashley A. Leech & Adrian Towse, 2022. "Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 651-667, September.
    10. Claudia Schulz & Gisela Büchele & Raphael S. Peter & Dietrich Rothenbacher & Christian Brettschneider & Ulrich C. Liener & Clemens Becker & Kilian Rapp & Hans-Helmut König, 2021. "Health-economic evaluation of collaborative orthogeriatric care for patients with a hip fracture in Germany: a retrospective cohort study using health and long-term care insurance claims data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(6), pages 873-885, August.
    11. Jorge Barros-Garcia-Imhof & Andrés Jiménez-Alfonso & Inés Gómez-Acebo & María Fernández-Ortiz & Jéssica Alonso-Molero & Javier Llorca & Alejandro Gonzalez-Castro & Trinidad Dierssen-Sotos, 2022. "Perception of Medical Students on the Need for End-of-Life Care: A Q-Methodology Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Levaggi, Rosella, 2014. "Pricing schemes for new drugs: A welfare analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 69-73.
    13. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    14. Hoa‐Thi‐Minh Nguyen & Tom Kompas & Roslyn I. Hickson, 2014. "Aid and the Control of Tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea: Is Australia's Assistance Cost‐Effective?," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(2), pages 364-378, May.
    15. Andrew Gallagher & Violetta Shersher & Duncan Mortimer & Helen Truby & Terry Haines, 2023. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Adjunctive Lifestyle Interventions for the Management of Cancer: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 225-242, March.
    16. Najme Moradi & Arash Rashidian & Shirin Nosratnejad & Alireza Olyaeemanesh & Marzieh Zanganeh & Leila Zarei, 2019. "The Worth of a Quality-Adjusted Life-Year in Patients with Diabetes: An Investigation Study using a Willingness-to-Pay Method," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 311-319, September.
    17. Samuel Herzog & Marian Shanahan & Peter Grimison & Anh Tran & Nicole Wong & Nicholas Lintzeris & John Simes & Martin Stockler & Rachael L. Morton, 2018. "Systematic Review of the Costs and Benefits of Prescribed Cannabis-Based Medicines for the Management of Chronic Illness: Lessons from Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 67-78, January.
    18. Evgeni Dvortsin & Judith Gout-Zwart & Ernst-Lodewijk Marie Eijssen & Jan van Brussel & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Drugs in Early versus Late Stages of Cancer; Review of the Literature and a Case Study in Breast Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
    19. Dastan Bamwesigye, 2023. "Willingness to Pay for Alternative Energies in Uganda: Energy Needs and Policy Instruments towards Zero Deforestation 2030 and Climate Change," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, January.
    20. Susan Geertshuis & Otto Krickl, 2013. "Value Judgements and Continuing Education," International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, International School for Social and Business Studies, Celje, Slovenia, vol. 2(1), pages 123-141.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0153943. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.