IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v16y2018i4d10.1007_s40258-018-0395-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consequences of Biomarker Analysis on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab in Combination with FOLFIRI as a First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Personalised Medicine at Work

Author

Listed:
  • Gerard Harty

    (Merck Serono Ltd)

  • James Jarrett

    (Mapi Group, Ltd)

  • Mireia Jofre-Bonet

    (City University London)

Abstract

Background Therapies may be more efficacious when targeting a patient subpopulation with specific attributes, thereby enhancing the cost-effectiveness of treatment. In the CRYSTAL study, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were treated with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFIRI alone until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects or withdrawal of consent. Objective To determine if stratified use of cetuximab based on genetic biomarker detection improves cost-effectiveness. Methods We used individual patient data from CRYSTAL to compare the cost-effectiveness, cost per life-year (LY) and cost per quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained of cetuximab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI alone in three cohorts of patients with mCRC: all randomised patients (intent-to-treat; ITT), tumours with no detectable mutations in codons 12 and 13 of exon 2 of the KRAS protein (‘KRAS wt’) and no detectable mutations in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and exons 2, 3 and 4 of NRAS (‘RAS wt’). Survival analysis was conducted using RStudio, and a cost-utility model was modified to allow comparison of the three cohorts. Results The deterministic base-case ICER (cost per QALY gained) was £130,929 in the ITT, £72,053 in the KRAS wt and £44,185 in the RAS wt cohorts for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI alone. At a £50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, cetuximab plus FOLFIRI has a 2.8, 20 and 63% probability of being cost-effective for the ITT, KRAS wt and RAS wt cohorts, respectively, versus FOLFIRI alone. Conclusion Screening for mutations in both KRAS and NRAS may provide the most cost-effective approach to patient selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerard Harty & James Jarrett & Mireia Jofre-Bonet, 2018. "Consequences of Biomarker Analysis on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab in Combination with FOLFIRI as a First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Personalised Medicine at Work," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 515-525, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0395-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0395-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0395-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-018-0395-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Denicolai, Stefano & Previtali, Pietro, 2020. "Precision Medicine: Implications for value chains and business models in life sciences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Daniel Gallacher & Nigel Stallard & Peter Kimani & Elvan Gökalp & Juergen Branke, 2022. "Development of a model to demonstrate the impact of National Institute of Health and Care Excellence cost‐effectiveness assessment on health utility for targeted medicines," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 417-430, February.
    3. Koen Degeling & Martin Vu & Hendrik Koffijberg & Hui-Li Wong & Miriam Koopman & Peter Gibbs & Maarten IJzerman, 2020. "Health Economic Models for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Methodological Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 683-713, July.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0395-5. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.