Cost-analysis of XELOX and FOLFOX4 for treatment of colorectal cancer to assist decision-making on reimbursement

BMC Cancer

Volumn 11, Issue , 2011, Pages

  Tse, Vicki C ^a   Ng, Wai T ^b   Lee, Victor ^a   Lee, Anne W M ^b   Chua, Daniel T T ^a   Chau, June ^a   McGhee, Sarah M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b PAMELA YOUDE NETHERSOLE EASTERN HOSPITAL   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAPECITABINE; FLUOROURACIL; FOLINIC ACID; OXALIPLATIN; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; DEOXYCYTIDINE; DRUG DERIVATIVE; PLATINUM COMPLEX;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COLORECTAL CANCER; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DIARRHEA; DRUG COST; FEMALE; HAND FOOT SYNDROME; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HONG KONG; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; NAUSEA; NEUTROPENIA; OUTPATIENT CARE; PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY; REIMBURSEMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; THROMBOCYTOPENIA; ADENOCARCINOMA; AGED; AMBULATORY CARE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLORECTAL TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HOSPITALIZATION; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; STATISTICS; TRAVEL;

ADENOCARCINOMA; AGED; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DEOXYCYTIDINE; DRUG COSTS; FEMALE; FLUOROURACIL; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HONG KONG; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH, REIMBURSEMENT; LENGTH OF STAY; LEUCOVORIN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OFFICE VISITS; ORGANOPLATINUM COMPOUNDS; TRAVEL;

EID: 79959944866     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712407     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-288     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Health expenditure Australia, 2007-2008 2009, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
2. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services National Health Expenditure Accounts 2008 2010, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Editor. Baltimore, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
3. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health CADTH Presentation on the Common Drug Review to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health 2007, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health: Otawa, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.
4. Canadian Institute for Health Information Drug Expenditure in Canada, 1985 to 2006 2007, ON: Canadian Insititute for Health Information: Ottawa, Canadian Institute for Health Information.
5. Duerden M, et al. yCurrent national initiatives and policies to control drug costs in Europe: UK perspective. J Ambul Care Manage 2004, 27(2):132-8.
6. Poisal JA. Medicaid drugs. Health Care Financ Rev 2004, 25(3):1-4.
7. Sales MM, et al. Pharmacy benefits management in the Veterans Health Administration: 1995 to 2003. Am J Manag Care 2005, 11(2):104-12.
8. Meropol NJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27(23):3868-74. 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.1183, 19581533.
9. Low E. Many new cancer drugs in the United Kingdom are facing negative NICE rulings. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25(18):2635-6. author reply 2637-8, 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.4272, 17577049.
10. Malik NN. Controlling the cost of innovative cancer therapeutics. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2009, 6(9):550-2. 10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.113, 19707244.
11. Congressional BudgetOffice The budget and economic outlook: fiscal years 2009-2019. Congressional Budget Office 2009, Congressional BudgetOffice.
12. Collier J. Parliamentary review asks NICE to do better still. BMJ 2008, 336(7635):56-7. 10.1136/bmj.39454.496748.80, 2190240, 18187699.
13. Miners AH, et al. Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ 2005, 330(7482):65. 10.1136/bmj.38285.482350.82, 543863, 15601681.
14. Morgan SG, et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United kingdom. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006, 25(2):337-47.
15. Harris AH, et al. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Med Decis Making 2008, 28(5):713-22. 10.1177/0272989X08315247, 18378939.
16. Steinbrook R. Saying no isn't NICE - the travails of Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. N Engl J Med 2008, 359(19):1977-81. 10.1056/NEJMp0806862, 18987366.
17. Drummond MF. The use of health economic information by reimbursement authorities. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003, 42(Suppl 3):iii60-3.
18. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004, 329(7459):224-7. 10.1136/bmj.329.7459.224, 487742, 15271836.
19. National Health Act Australia 1953,
20. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Common Drug Review Overview 2010, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.
21. Hong Kong Asoociation of the Pharmaceutical Industry HKAPI Feedback on Hospital Authority Drug Formulary Policy 2006, Hong Kong Asoociation of the Pharmaceutical Industry.
22. Doherty J, et al. What is next for pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Asia?. Value Health 2004, 7(2):118-32. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.72330.x, 15164802.
23. Yang BM, Lee K. Growing Application of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research in Health-Care Decision-Making in the Asia-Pacific Region. Value in Health 2009, 12(s3):S1-S2.
24. Sculpher MJ, Drummond MF. Analysis sans frontieres: can we ever make economic evaluations generalisable across jurisdictions?. PharmacoEconomics 2006, 24(11):1087-99. 10.2165/00019053-200624110-00006, 17067194.
25. Manca A, Willan AR. 'Lost in translation': accounting for between-country differences in the analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data. PharmacoEconomics 2006, 24(11):1101-19. 10.2165/00019053-200624110-00007, 2231842, 17067195.
26. Cassidy J, et al. Randomized Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil/Folinic Acid Plus Oxaliplatin As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26(12):2006-2012. 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.9898, 18421053.
27. Twelves C. Capecitabine as first-line treatment in colorectal cancer. Pooled data from two large, phase III trials. Eur J Cancer 2002, 38(Suppl 2):15-20.
28. Rothenberg ML, et al. Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as second-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III noninferiority study. Ann Oncol 2008, 19(10):1720-6. 10.1093/annonc/mdn370, 18550577.
29. Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Tsutani K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of XELOX for metastatic colorectal cancer based on the NO16966 and NO16967 trials. Br J Cancer 2009, 101(1):12-8. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605114, 2713700, 19491895.
30. Garrison L, et al. Cost comparison of XELOX compared to FOLFOX4 with or without bevacizumab (bev) in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2007, 25(18_suppl):4074.
31. Hospital Authority Hospital Authority Drug Formulary (v6.2 - w.e.f.9 Oct 2010) 2010, Hospital Authority.
32. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Special Supplement No. 4 to The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Gazette. Supplement to Gazette No 13 2003, 7. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
33. Personal communication with the Pathology Department, P.Y.N.E.H Private itemised costs for blood tests and procedures 2009, Personal communication with the Pathology Department, P.Y.N.E.H.
34. Pharmacy Management System/Express Dispensing System SFI Drug Price Enquiry 2009, Accessed at Queen Mary Hospital on 28th September, 2009, Pharmacy Management System/Express Dispensing System.
35. Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department Women and Men in Hong Kong Key Statistics 2009, Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department.
36. Quality Taxi Services Steering Committee The website of Quality Taxi Services Steering Committee: taxi fares information 2009, Quality Taxi Services Steering Committee., http://www.qtssc.org.hk/chi/info/fee.html
37. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3.
38. Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis?. Health Econ 2001, 10(2):179-84. 10.1002/hec.584, 11252048.
39. Scheithauer W, et al. A comparison of medical resource use for 4 chemotherapy regimens as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC): XELOX vs. FOLFOX4 {+/-} bevacizumab (A). J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2007, 25(18_suppl):4098.
40. Perrocheau G, et al. Cost-minimization analysis of a phase III study of capecitabine + oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs. infusional 5-FU/LV + oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) in the French setting. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2007, 25(18_suppl):4083.
41. Jonsson B. Changing health environment: the challenge to demonstrate cost-effectiveness of new compounds. PharmacoEconomics 2004, 22(Suppl 4):5-10.
42. Keech M. Using health outcomes data to inform decision-making: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. PharmacoEconomics 2001, 19(Suppl 2):27-31.
43. Sculpher MJ, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8(49):iii-iv. 1-192.