Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine, S-1 and gemcitabine plus S-1 for treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer based on GEST study

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Jing Zhou (1)
  Rongce Zhao (2)
  Feng Wen (1)
  Pengfei Zhang (1)
  Ruilei Tang (1)
  Zedong Du (3)
  Xiaofeng He (4)
  Jian Zhang (1)
  Qiu Li (1)
  
  1. Department of Medical Oncology ; Cancer Center ; State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy ; West China Hospital ; Sichuan University ; Chengdu ; People鈥檚 Republic of China
  2. Division of Liver Transplantation ; Department of Liver Surgery ; West China Hospital ; Sichuan University ; Chengdu ; People鈥檚 Republic of China
  3. Department of Oncology ; 363 Hospital ; Chengdu ; People鈥檚 Republic of China
  4. Department of Medical Oncology ; First People鈥檚 Hospital ; Chengdu ; People鈥檚 Republic of China
  
• 关键词：Cost ; effectiveness ; Pancreatic cancer ; Gemcitabine ; S ; 1 ; Gemcitabine plus S ; 1
• 刊名：Medical Oncology
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：April 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：32
• 期：4
• 全文大小：417 KB
• 参考文献：1. Vincent, A, Herman, J, Schulick, R, Hruban, RH, Goggins, M (2011) Pancreatic cancer. Lancet 378: pp. 607-620 CrossRef
  2. Stathis, A, Moore, MJ (2010) Advanced pancreatic carcinoma: current treatment and future challenges. J Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7: pp. 163-172 CrossRef
  3. Ciliberto, D, Botta, C, Correale, P, Rossi, M, Caraglia, M, Tassone, P (2013) Role of gemcitabine鈥揵ased combination therapy in the management of advanced pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized trails. Eur J Cancer 49: pp. 593-603 CrossRef
  4. Sun, C, Ansari, D, Andersson, R, Wu, DQ (2012) Does gemcitabine-based combination therapy improve the prognosis of unresectable pancreatic cancer?. Word J Gastroenterol 18: pp. 4944-4958 CrossRef
  5. Abe, S, Kojima, M, Tamura, H, Kurihara, H, Kitago, M, Kobayashi, T (2003) A clinical results of TS-1 in advanced and recurrent gastric cancer in our hospital. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 30: pp. 963-970
  6. Saif, MW, Syrigos, KN, Katirtzoglou, NA (2009) S-1: a promising new oral fluoropyrimidine derivative. Expert Opin Investig Drug 18: pp. 335-348 CrossRef
  7. Shirasaka, T (2009) Development history and concept of an oral anticancer agent S-1 (TS-1): its clinical usefulness and future vistas. Jpn J Clin Oncol 39: pp. 2-15 CrossRef
  8. Ueno, H, Ioka, T, Ikeda, M, Ohkawa, S, Yanagimoto, H, Boku, N (2013) Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus S-1, S-1alone, or gemcitabine alone in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan and Taiwan: GEST study. J Clin Oncol 31: pp. 1640-1648 CrossRef
  9. Ohashi Y, Tanaka M, Boku N, Ueno H, Okusaka T. Quality of life (QOL) evaluation within a randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) versus S-1 versus gemcitabine (GEM) in unresectable, advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) in Japan and Taiwan: GEST study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;15(suppl; abstr 9070). http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/15_suppl/9070. Accessed 7 Jan 2015.
  10. Lipscomb, J, Weinstein, MC, Torrance, GW Time preference. In: Siegel, J, Russell, LB, Gold, M eds. (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 214-235
  11. Keeler E. Decision tree and Markov models in cost-effectiveness research. In: Sloan F, editor. Valuing health care: costs, benefits, and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals and other medical technologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995. p. 185鈥?06.
  12. Attard, CL, Brown, S, Alloul, K, Moore, MJ (2014) Cost-effectiveness of folfirinox for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol 21: pp. e41-e51 CrossRef
  EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16: pp. 199-208 CrossRef
  13. Romanus, D, Kindler, HL, Archer, L, Basch, E, Niedzwiecki, D, Weeks, J, Schrag, D (2012) Does health-related quality of life improve for advanced pancreatic cancer patients who respond to gemcitabine? Analysis of a randomized phase iii trial of the cancer and leukemia group B (CALGB 80303). J Pain Symptom Manage 43: pp. 205-217 CrossRef
  14. Tse, VC, Ng, WT, Lee, V, Lee, AW, Chua, DT, Chau, J (2011) Cost-analysis of XELOX and FOLFOX4 for treatment of colorectal cancer to assist decision-making on reimbursement. BMC Cancer 11: pp. 288 CrossRef
  15. He, J, Wen, F, Yin, X, Zhang, P, Du, Z, He, X, Zhou, Y (2013) Cost analysis of S1 and XELOX as adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer. Anticancer Drugs 24: pp. 754-758 CrossRef
  16. Burris, HA, Moore, MJ, Andersen, J, Green, MR, Rothenberg, ML, Modiano, MR (1997) Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 15: pp. 2403-2413
  17. Conroy, T, Desseigne, F, Ychou, M, Bouch茅, O, Guimbaud, R, B茅couarn, Y (2011) FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 364: pp. 1817-1825 CrossRef
  18. Tam, VC, Ko, YJ, Mittmann, N, Cheung, MC, Kumar, K, Hassan, S (2013) Cost-effectiveness of systemic therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol 20: pp. e90-e106 CrossRef
  19. Heinemann, V, Quietzsch, D, Gieseler, F, Gonnermann, M, Sch枚nek盲s, H, Rost, A (2006) Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 24: pp. 3946-3952 CrossRef
  20. Moore, MJ, Goldstein, D, Hamm, J, Figer, A, Hecht, JR, Gallinger, S (2007) Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 25: pp. 1960-1966 CrossRef
  21. Philip, PA, Benedetti, J, Corless, CL, Wong, R, O鈥橰eilly, EM, Flynn, PJ (2010) Phase III study comparing gemcitabine plus cetuximab versus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Southwest Oncology Group-directed intergroup trial S0205. J Clin Oncol 28: pp. 3605-3610 CrossRef
  22. Kindler, HL, Ioka, T, Richel, DJ, Bennouna, J, L茅tourneau, R, Okusaka, T (2011) Axitinib plus gemcitabine versus placebo plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a double-blind randomised phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 12: pp. 256-262 CrossRef
  23. Laupacis, A, Feeny, D, Detsky, AS, Tugwell, PX (1992) How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 146: pp. 473-481
  24. Kuntz, KM, Tsevat, J, Goldman, L, Weinstein, MC (1996) Cost-effectiveness of routine coronary angiogram after acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 94: pp. 957-965 CrossRef
  25. Owens, DK (1998) Interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses. J Gen Intern Med 13: pp. 716-717 CrossRef
  26. Murray, CJ, Evans, DB, Acharya, A, Baltussen, RM (2000) Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 9: pp. 235-251 CrossRef
  
• 刊物主题：Oncology; Hematology; Pathology; Internal Medicine;
• 出版者：Springer US
• ISSN：1559-131X

文摘

Gemcitabine (GEM) alone, S-1 alone and gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) have shown a marginal clinical benefit for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. However, there is no clearly defined optimal cost-effectiveness treatment. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of GEM alone, S-1 alone and GS for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer based on GEST study for public payers. A decision model compared GEM alone, S-1 alone and GS. Primary base case data were identified using the GEST study and the literatures. Costs were estimated from West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Survival benefits were reported in quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs). Sensitive analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters of the model. The base case analysis showed that the GEM cost $21,912 and yielded survival of 6.93 QALMs, S-1 cost $19,371 and yielded survival of 7.90 QALMs and GS cost $22,943 and yielded survival of 7.46 QALMs in the entire treatment. The one-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER of S-1 was driven mostly by the S-1 group utility score of stable state compared with GEM, and the GEM group utility score of progressed state played a key role on the ICER of GS compared with GEM. S-1 represents an attractive cost-effective treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, given the favorable cost per QALM and improvement in clinical efficacy, especially the limited available treatment options.