Health economics: Can we afford an unrestricted use of new biological agents in gastrointestinal oncology?

Current Opinion in Oncology

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 392-396

  Uyl De Groot, Carin A ^a   Giaccone, Giuseppe ^b  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Chemotherapy; Colon cancer; Cost; Cost effectiveness; Economic evaluation; Gastrointestinal oncology; Gastrointestinal stromal tumors; Rectal cancer

Indexed keywords

5 FLUOROURACIL PLUS LEUCOVORIN; 5 FLUOROURACIL PLUS LEUCOVORIN PLUS IRINOTECAN; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; BEVACIZUMAB; CAPECITABINE; CETUXIMAB; FLUOROURACIL; FOLINIC ACID; IMATINIB; IRINOTECAN; IRINOTECAN PLUS CETUXIMAB; OXALIPLATIN; RALTITREXED; UFT; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VASCULOTROPIN;

CHEMOTHERAPY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG APPROVAL; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GASTROINTESTINAL TUMOR; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; ONCOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS, MEDICAL; GASTROINTESTINAL NEOPLASMS; HUMANS;

EID: 21344471432     PISSN: 10408746     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.cco.0000168535.25330.6a     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures, 2004.
2. Ries LA, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, et al. eds. SEER cancer statistics review 1973-1995. Bethesda, MD; National Cancer Institute: 1998.
3. Cohen AM, Minsky BD, Schilsky RL. Cancer of the colon. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors. Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997: 1144-1197.
4. Staib L, Link KH, Beger HG. Toxicity and effects of adjuvant therapy in colon cancer: results of the German prospective controlled randomized multicenter trial FOGT-1. J Gastrointest Surg 2001; 5:275-281.
5. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Technology Appraisal 33. March 2002.
6. Andre T, Boni C, Moundij-Boudiaf L, et al. Oxaliplatin, fluoracic, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:2343-2351.
7. Salz LB, Cox JV, Blanke C, et al. Irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:905-914.
8. Schrag D. The price tag on progress - chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:317-319. This paper deals with the problem of the cost of five new drugs for metastatic colorectal cancer in light of significant improvement in clinical outcome parameters and their availability for unrestricted use.
9. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacuzimab plus irinotecan, fluoracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:2335-2342. In this study, 813 patients were randomly assigned to receive irinotecan, bolus fluorouracil, and leucovorin (IFL) plus bevacizumab and to receive IFL plus placebo. Adding bevacizumab to IFL results in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
10. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 35:337-345. In this study 329 patients were randomly assigned either to combination treatment with cetuximab and irinotecan or to cetuximab monotherapy. Cetuximab has clinically significant activity when given alone or in combination with irinotecan in patients with irinotecan-refractory colorectal cancer.
11. Iqbal S, Lenz HJ. Integration of novel agents in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2004; 54:332-339.
12. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of capecitabine and tegafur with uracil for metastatic colorectal cancer. Technology Appraisal 61. May 2003.
13. Earle CC, Kwok A, Gazelle GS, Fuchs CS. Two schedules of second-line irinotecan for metastatic colon carcinoma. Economic evaluation of a randomized trial. Cancer 2004; 101:2533-2539.
14. Verweij J, Casali PG, Zalcberg J, et al. Progression-free survival in gastrointestinal stromal tumour with high-dose imatinib: randomised trial. Lancet 2004; 363:1127-1134. Nine hundred fortv-six patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) were randomly allocated to imatinib 400 mg either once or twice a day. The addition of imatinib results in better outcome rates compared to doxorubicin-based regimen. The administration of 800 mg results in a significantly longer progression-free survival.
15. Demetri GD, von Mehren M, Blanke CE, et al. Efficacy and safety of imatinib mesylate in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:473-480.
16. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Imatinib for the treatment of unresectable and/or metastatic gastro-intestinal stromal tumors. Technology Appraisal 86. October 2004.
17. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1997.
18. Uyl-de Groot CA, Vermorken JB, Hanna MG, et al. Immunotherapy with autologous tumor cell-BCG vaccine in patients with colon cancer: a prospective study of medical and economic benefits. Vaccine 2005; 23:2379-2387.
19. Poley MJ, Stolk EA, Brouwer WB, van Busschbach JJ. 'Necessity' determined on the basis of disease severity when prioritizing health care interventions [in Dutch]. Nad Tijdschr Geneeskd 2003; 146:2312-2315.
20. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004; 13:437-452. The decisions made by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) are partly based on judgments about 'value for money' of health technologies. This paper deals with these judgments and other factors that affect the decision-making.