About this item:

214 Views | 223 Downloads

Author Notes:

Correspondence: Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, Mailing address: Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, 1365C Clifton Rd NE, Suite C5010, Atlanta, GA, 30322, dgolds8@emory.edu, Fax: 404-778-3366, Telephone: 646-522-9582

Conflicts of interest: G, SZ, CB, EN declare no conflicts of interest

Subjects:

Research Funding:

Funding: NIH T32 Grant - T32CA160040-02

Keywords:

  • Science & Technology
  • Life Sciences & Biomedicine
  • Oncology
  • Chemotherapy
  • Colorectal cancer
  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Incremental cost effectiveness ratio
  • Value
  • FLUOROURACIL DOSE ADJUSTMENT
  • COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
  • RANDOMIZED-TRIAL
  • UNITED-STATES
  • GLUCURONOSYLTRANSFERASE 1A1
  • 2-STAGE HEPATECTOMY
  • BOLUS FLUOROURACIL
  • LIVER METASTASES
  • 1ST-LINE THERAPY
  • PHASE-III

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Value of Current Therapies

Tools:

Journal Title:

Clinical Colorectal Cancer

Volume:

Volume 15, Number 1

Publisher:

, Pages 1-6

Type of Work:

Article | Post-print: After Peer Review

Abstract:

To evaluate, from a US payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), we performed a systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses. We identified 14 papers that fulfilled our search criteria and revealed varying levels of value among current treatment strategies. Older agents such as 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin provide high-value treatments. More modern agents targeting the EGFR or VEGF pathways, such as bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab, do not appear to be cost-effective treatments at their current costs. The analytical methods used within the papers varied widely, and this variation likely plays a significant role in the heterogeneity in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The cost-effectiveness of current treatment strategies for mCRC is highly variable. Drugs recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for mCRC are not cost-effective, and this is primarily driven by high drug costs.

Copyright information:

© 2016 Elsevier Inc.

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Creative Commons License

Export to EndNote