Фармакоэкономические особенности выбора системной терапии больных метастатическим раком толстой кишки

Обложка

Цитировать

Полный текст

Аннотация

Добавление моноклональных антител к режимам химиотерапии в лечении больных метастатическим раком толстой кишки значимо увеличивает не только продолжительность жизни пациентов, но и стоимость лечения. Соответственно, это ставит вопрос о необходимости экономической оценки применения данных агентов. В настоящем обзоре будет проведен анализ результатов исследований, посвященных фармакоэкономической целесообразности применения различных схем химиотерапии и таргетных препаратов в лечении больных метастатическим раком толстой кишки.

 

 

Об авторах

М. Ю. Федянин

ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр онкологии им. Н.Н. Блохина» Минздрава России

Автор, ответственный за переписку.
Email: edianinmu@mail.ru
Россия

А. А. Трякин

ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр онкологии им. Н.Н. Блохина» Минздрава России

Email: edianinmu@mail.ru
Россия

В. А. Рогов

ФГБОУ ВО «Волгоградский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России

Email: edianinmu@mail.ru
Россия

Л. М. Ганичева

ФГБОУ ВО «Волгоградский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России

Email: edianinmu@mail.ru
Россия

М. Ю. Фролов

ФГБОУ ВО «Волгоградский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России

Email: edianinmu@mail.ru
Россия

С. А. Тюляндин

ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр онкологии им. Н.Н. Блохина» Минздрава России

Email: edianinmu@mail.ru
Россия

Список литературы

  1. Drummond M.F., Sculpher M.J., Torran -ce G.W. et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
  2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2008.
  3. Murray C.J., Evans D.B., Acharya A., Baltussen R.M. Development
  4. of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2000;9(3):235–51. PMID: 10790702.
  5. Wen F., Yao K., Du Z.D. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of colon cancer treatments from MOSIAC and No. 16968 trials. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20(47):17976–84.doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i47.17976.
  6. Choosing interventions that are cost-effective. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2014. Available at: http://www.who.int/choice/en/.
  7. http://statisticstimes.com/economy/ countries-by-projected-gdp-capita.php.
  8. Ягудина Р.И., Куликов А.Ю., Метелкин И.А. Методология анализа «Затраты–эффективность» при проведении фармакоэкономических исследований. Фармакоэкономика. Современная фармакоэкономика и фармакоэпиде-миология 2012;(4):3–8. [Yagudina R.I., Kulikov A.Yu., Metelkin I.A. Methodology of the analysis “Cost–effectiveness” in conducting pharmacoeconomic studies. Farmakoekonomika. Sovremennaya far-makoekonomika i farmakoepidemiologiya = Pharmacoeconomics. Modern Pharmaco-economics and Pharmacoepidemiology 2012;(4):3–8. (In Russ.)].
  9. Vaiani M., Trippoli S., Messori A. Irinote-can plus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2001;344(4):305–6; author reply 306–7. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200101253440413. PMID: 11191660.
  10. Hillner B.E., Schrag D., Sargent D.J. et al. Cost effectiveness projections of oxaliplatin and infusional fluorouracil versus irinotecan and bolus fluorouracil in first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 2005;104(9):1871–84. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21411.
  11. Colucci G., Gebbia V., Paoletti G. et al. Phase III randomized trial of FOLFIRI versus FOLFOX4 in the treatment
  12. of advanced colorectal cancer: A multi-center study of the Gruppo Oncologico Dell’Italia Meridionale. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(22):4866–75. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.07.113. PMID: 15939922.
  13. Tumeh J.W., Shenoy P.J., Moore S.G. et al. A Markov model assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FOLFOX compared with FOLFIRI for the initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 2009;32(1):49–55. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e31817c6a4d.
  14. Goldstein D.A., Chen Q., Ayer T. et al. First- and second-line bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol 2015;33(10):1112–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.4904.
  15. Tappenden P., Jones R., Paisley S., Carroll C. The cost-effectiveness
  16. of bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in England and Wales. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:2487–94. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.08.017. PMID: 17910914.
  17. Lawrence D., Maschio M., Leahy K.J. et al. Economic analysis of bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). J Med Econ 2013;16(12):1387–98. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2013.852097.
  18. Shiroiwa T., Fukuda T., Tsutani K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan. Clin Ther 2007;29(10):2256–67. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2007.10.013. PMID: 18042483.
  19. Shankaran V., Mummy D., Koepl L. et al. Survival and lifetime costs associated with first-line bevacizumab use in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologist 2014;19(8):892–9. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0209.
  20. Lee E., Revil C., Ngoh C.A. et al. Clinical and cost effectiveness of bevacizumab + FOLFIRI combination versus FOLFIRI alone as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in South Korea. Clin Ther 2012;34(6):1408–19. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.05.001.
  21. Ruiz-Millo O., Albert-Mari A., Sendra-Garcia A., Jimenez-Torres N.V. Comparative cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab-irinotecan-fluorouracil versus irinotecan-fluorouracil in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2014;20(5):341–50. doi: 10.1177/1078155213508437.
  22. VanCutsem E., Tabernero J., Lakomy R., Prenen H. et al. Addition of aflibercept to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan improves survival in a phase III randomized trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen. J Clin Oncol 2012;30(28):3499–506. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.8201. PMID: 22949147.
  23. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the single technology appraisal (STA) process. London: NICE, 2006.
  24. Wade R., Duarte A., Simmonds M., Rodriguez-Lopez R. et al. Aflibercept in combination with irinotecan and fluorouracil-based therapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer which has progressed following prior oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy: a single technology appraisal. York: CRD and CHE Technology Assessment Group, 2013.
  25. Wade R., Duarte A., Simmonds M. et al. The clinical and cost effectiveness of aflibercept in combination with irinotecan and fluorouracil-based therapy (FOLFIRI) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer which has progressed following prior oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy: a critique of the evidence. Pharmacoeconomics 2015;33(5):457–66. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0257-z.
  26. Annemans L., van Cutsem E., Humblet Y. et al. Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in combination with irinotecan compared with current care in metastatic colorectal cancer after failure on irinotecan –
  27. a Belgian analysis. Acta Clin Belg 2007;62(6):419–25. doi: 10.1179/acb.2007.061. PMID: 18351186.
  28. Norum J. Cetuximab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. J Chemother 2006;18(5):532–7. doi: 10.1179/joc.2006.18.5.532. PMID: 17127231.
  29. Starling N., Tilden D., White J., Cunning-ham D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab/irinotecan vs active/best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have failed previous chemotherapy treatment. Br J Cancer 2007;96(2):206–12. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603561. PMID: 17242694.
  30. Shiroiwa T., Motoo Y., Tsutani K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of KRAS testing and cetuximab as last-line therapy for colorectal cancer. Mol Diagn Ther 2010;14(6):375–84. doi: 10.2165/11587610-000000000-00000.
  31. Mittmann N., Au H., Tu D. et al. Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: evaluation of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group CO.17 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101(17):1182–92. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp232.
  32. Vijayaraghavan A., Efrusy M.B., Goke B. et al. Cost-effectiveness of KRAS testing in metastatic colorectal cancer patients in the United States and Germany. Int J Cancer 2012;131(2):438–45. doi: 10.1002/ijc.26400.
  33. Medical Advisory Secretariat. KRAS testing for anti-EGFR therapy in advanced colorectal cancer: an evidence-based and economic analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 2010;10:1–49. PMID: 23074403.
  34. Hoyle M., Peters J., Crathorne L. et al. Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab, cetuximab plus irinotecan, and panitumumab for third and further lines of treatment for KRAS wild-type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Value Health 2013;16(2):288–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.11.001.
  35. Blank P.R., Moch H., Szucs T.D., Schwenkglenks M. KRAS and BRAF mutation analysis in metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from a Swiss perspective. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17(19):6338–46. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2267.
  36. Behl A.S., Goddard K.A., Flottemesch T.J. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for KRAS and BRAF mutations
  37. in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104(23):1785–95. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs433.
  38. Suarez J. Cost-effectiveness analysis
  39. of cetuximab and panitumumab for first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (Mcrc) in Wt Ras patients in Spain. Value Health 2015;18(7):A460. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.1187.
  40. Asseburg C., Frank M., Kohne C. et al. Cost-effectiveness of targeted therapy with cetuximab in patients with K-ras wild-type colorectal cancer presenting with initially unresectable metastases limited to the liver in a German setting. Clin Ther 2011;33(4):482–97. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.04.010.
  41. Wen F., Yang Y., Zhang P. et al. Cost- effectiveness of RAS screening before monoclonal antibodies therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer based on FIRE3 Study. Cancer Biol Ther 2015;16(11):1577–84. doi: 10.1080/15384047.2015.1095398.
  42. Schrag D., Dueck A.C., Naughton M.J. et al. Cost of chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer with either bevacizumab or cetuximab: Economic analysis of CALGB/SWOG 80405. J Clin Oncol 2015;33(suppl; abstr 6504).
  43. Rivera F., Valladares M., Gea S., López-Martínez N. Cost-effectiveness analysis in the Spanish setting of the peak trial
  44. of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer. J Med Econ 2017;20(6):574–84. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1285780.
  45. Wong Y., Meropol N.J., Speier W. et al. Cost implications of new treatments for advanced colorectal cancer. Cancer 2009;115(10):2081–91. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24246.
  46. Riesco Martinez M.C., Berry S.R., Ko Y.J. et al. Cost-effective analysis of the use of EGFR inhibitors (E) for wild-type (WT) KRAS unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). J Clin Oncol 2013;31(suppl; abstr 6552).
  47. Grothey A., VanCutsem E., Sobrero A. et al. Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (correct): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2013;381(9863):303–12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61900-X.
  48. Goldstein D.A., Ahmad B.B., Chen Q. et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33(32):3727–32. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.9569.
  49. Kimura M., Usami E., Iwai M. et al. Comparison of cost-effectiveness of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet for treating advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer. Mol Clin Oncol 2016;5(5):635–40. doi: 10.3892/mco.2016.1020. PMID: 27900102.
  50. Roberts K.J., Sutton A.J., Prasad K.R. et al. Cost-utilityanalysis of operative versus non-operative treatment for colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 2015;102(4):388–98. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9761.
  51. Drummond M., Barbieri M., Cook J. et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2009;12(4):409–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00489.x.
  52. Yabroff K.R., Borowski L., Lipscomb J. Economic studies in colorectal cancer: challenges in measuring and comparing costs. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2013;2013(46):62–78. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgt001.

Дополнительные файлы

Доп. файлы
Действие
1. JATS XML
Скачать

© ,


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 85909 от  25.08.2023.