Groot, Carin A. Uyl-de
[Author];
van Rooijen, Elisabeth M.
[Author];
Punt, Cornelis J. A.
[Author];
Pescott, Chris P.
[Author]
Real-world cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer based on patient chart review in the Netherlands
You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
Media type:
E-Article
Title:
Real-world cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer based on patient chart review in the Netherlands
Contributor:
Groot, Carin A. Uyl-de
[Author];
van Rooijen, Elisabeth M.
[Author];
Punt, Cornelis J. A.
[Author];
Pescott, Chris P.
[Author]
Footnote:
Diese Datenquelle enthält auch Bestandsnachweise, die nicht zu einem Volltext führen.
Description:
Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of cetuximab in third-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in routine clinical practice compared with best supportive care (BSC). Methods: Patients (n = 287) with KRAS wt mCRC treated with cetuximab or BSC in eight hospitals in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2012 were included in our real-world study. Outcome measures were costs per life-year (LY) and costs per quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. A Markov model was developed, and a time horizon of four years was applied. Outcomes were calculated from Kaplan-Meier survival curves from patient-level data and literature. Direct medical costs were estimated in all centers (2013 values), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Results were discounted, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. Results: Administration of cetuximab in third-line treatment of mCRC resulted in a gain of 0.29 LYs and 0.25 QALYs compared with BSC. In the four-year study period, average discounted healthcare costs were €36,637 in the cetuximab group vs. €3648 in the BSC group. The discounted ICERs of cetuximab vs. BSC in the real-world setting were €114,907and €133,527 per LY and QALY gained, respectively. Conclusions: Results of this cost-effectiveness analysis showed that third-line treatment with cetuximab for patients with KRAS (exon 2) wt mCRC offered clinical benefits at additional cost. The real-world ICERs were in line with those of previously published cetuximab and panitumumab cost-utility models.