Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Therapy Versus Bevacizumab in KRAS Wild-Type (WT), Pan-RAS WT, and Pan-RAS WT Left-Sided Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We aimed to compare the economic value of chemotherapy plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) monoclonal antibody (mAb) against chemotherapy with bevacizumab (Bev, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor mAb) as first-line treatment in KRAS wild-type (WT), pan-RAS WT and pan-RAS WT left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients from the Hong Kong societal perspective.

Materials and methods

We developed Markov models and 10-year horizon to estimate costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR therapy against chemotherapy plus Bev in KRAS WT, pan-RAS WT, and pan-RAS WT left-sided mCRC. We considered two times of the local gross domestic product per capita (GDPpc) as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (2× GDPpc; US$97,832).

Results

Adding anti-EGFR mAb to chemotherapy provides additional 0.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.29), 0.32 (95% CI 0.27-0.37), and 0.57 (95% CI 0.49-0.63) QALY compared to adding Bev in KRAS WT, pan-RAS WT, and left-sided pan-RAS WT mCRC populations respectively. The corresponding ICER is US$106,847 (95% CI 87,806-134,523), US$88,565 (95% CI 75,678-105,871), US$76,537 (95% CI 67,794-87,917) per QALY gained, respectively.

Conclusions

Anti-EGFR therapy is more cost-effective than Bev as a first-line targeted therapy in left-sided pan-RAS WT and pan-RAS WT, with ICER

SUBMITTER: Lee SF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8127841 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Therapy <i>Versus</i> Bevacizumab in KRAS Wild-Type (WT), Pan-RAS WT, and Pan-RAS WT Left-Sided Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Lee Shing Fung SF Choi Horace C W HCW Chan Sik Kwan SK Lam Ka On KO Lee Victor H F VHF Wong Irene O L IOL Chiang Chi Leung CL

Frontiers in oncology 20210503

<h4>Objectives</h4>We aimed to compare the economic value of chemotherapy plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) monoclonal antibody (mAb) against chemotherapy with bevacizumab (Bev, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor mAb) as first-line treatment in KRAS wild-type (WT), pan-RAS WT and pan-RAS WT left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients from the Hong Kong societal perspective.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We developed Markov models and 10-year horizon to est ...[more]

PMID: 34012917

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDoublets plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFRs) are the preferred upfront option for patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Initial therapy with FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab is superior to doublets plus bevacizumab independently from primary tumor sidedness and RAS/BRAF status. No randomized comparison between FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab versus doublets plus anti-EGFRs is available in left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC.Materials and methodsWe selected patients with left-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with first-line FOLFOX-panitumumab or FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab in five randomized trials: Valentino, TRIBE, TRIBE2, STEAM, and CHARTA. A propensity score-based analysis was performed to compare FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab with FOLFOX-panitumumab.ResultsA total of 185 patients received FOLFOX-panitumumab and 132 received FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were 13.3 and 33.1 months in the FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab group compared with 11.4 and 30.3 months in the FOLFOX-panitumumab group (propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for PFS, 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-1.04; p = .11; propensity score-adjusted HR for OS, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.59-1.08; p = .14). No significant differences in overall response rate and disease control rate were observed. A statistically nonsignificant difference in favor of FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab was observed for OS after secondary resection of metastases. Chemotherapy-related adverse events were more frequent in the FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab group, with specific regard to grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (48% vs. 26%, adjusted p = .001).ConclusionAlthough randomized comparison is lacking, both FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab and FOLFOX-panitumumab are valuable treatment options in left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC.Implications for practiceA propensity score-based analysis of five trials was performed to compare FOLFOX-panitumumab versus FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab in left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). No significant differences were observed, but FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab achieved numerically superior survival outcomes versus FOLFOX-panitumumab. Chemotherapy-related adverse events were more frequent in the FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab group. These observations suggest that although doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFRs remains the preferred treatment in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC, FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab is a valuable option able to provide similar, if not better, outcomes at the price of a moderate increase in toxicity and may be adopted based on patients' preference and potential impact on quality of life.

Project description:ImportanceFor patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, adding anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) monoclonal antibodies to first-line doublet chemotherapy is routine, but the optimal targeted therapy has not been defined.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of adding panitumumab (an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody) vs bevacizumab (an anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody) to standard first-line chemotherapy for treatment of RAS wild-type, left-sided, metastatic colorectal cancer.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, open-label, phase 3 clinical trial at 197 sites in Japan in May 2015-January 2022 among 823 patients with chemotherapy-naive RAS wild-type, unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (final follow-up, January 14, 2022).InterventionsPanitumumab (n = 411) or bevacizumab (n = 412) plus modified fluorouracil, l-leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) every 14 days.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point, overall survival, was tested first in participants with left-sided tumors, then in the overall population. Secondary end points were progression-free survival, response rate, duration of response, and curative (defined as R0 status) resection rate.ResultsIn the as-treated population (n = 802; median age, 66 years; 282 [35.2%] women), 604 (75.3%) had left-sided tumors. Median follow-up was 61 months. Median overall survival was 37.9 months with panitumumab vs 34.3 months with bevacizumab in participants with left-sided tumors (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.82; 95.798% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .03) and 36.2 vs 31.3 months, respectively, in the overall population (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98; P = .03). Median progression-free survival for panitumumab vs bevacizumab was 13.1 vs 11.9 months, respectively, for those with left-sided tumors (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83-1.20) and 12.2 vs 11.4 months overall (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.24). Response rates with panitumumab vs bevacizumab were 80.2% vs 68.6%, respectively, for left-sided tumors (difference, 11.2%; 95% CI, 4.4%-17.9%) and 74.9% vs 67.3% overall (difference, 7.7%; 95% CI, 1.5%-13.8%). Median duration of response with panitumumab vs bevacizumab was 13.1 vs 11.2 months for left-sided tumors (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70-1.10) and 11.9 vs 10.7 months overall (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.06). Curative resection rates with panitumumab vs bevacizumab were 18.3% vs 11.6% for left-sided tumors; (difference, 6.6%; 95% CI, 1.0%-12.3%) and 16.5% vs 10.9% overall (difference, 5.6%; 95% CI, 1.0%-10.3%). Common treatment-emergent adverse events were acneiform rash (panitumumab: 74.8%; bevacizumab: 3.2%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (panitumumab: 70.8%; bevacizumab: 73.7%), and stomatitis (panitumumab: 61.6%; bevacizumab: 40.5%).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, adding panitumumab, compared with bevacizumab, to standard first-line chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in those with left-sided tumors and in the overall population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02394795.

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy combined with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody (mAb) remains controversial in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This meta-analysis aims to estimate the effect of adding panitumumab or cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in RAS wild type mCRC patients for the first-line treatment. The primary tumor location is also considered into this meta-analysis.MethodsRCT studies were identified by a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library to October 2017, supplemented by manually retrieving ASCO, ESMO conference abstracts. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and pooled odds ratios (OR) for the overall response rate (ORR) were calculated by Review Manager 5.3.ResultsThe results indicated that the addition of anti-EGFR mAbs to FOLFOX regimen in RAS wild-type mCRC patients for the first-line treatment resulted in considerable improvements in PFS (HR = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.82; P < .0001), OS (HR = 0.79; 95%CI: 0.67-0.92; P = .003), and ORR (OR = 2.56; 95% CI: 1.77-3.70; P < .00001) compared with chemotherapy alone. However, in RAS/BRAF wild patients, no significant differences were observed when anti-EGFR mAb was added to FLOX or XELOX regimen compared with chemotherapy alone with regard to OS and PFS, whereas FOLFOX+anti-EGFR mAb showed a marked superior OS and PFS (OS, HR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.98; P = .03; PFS, HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.57-0.82; P < .00001). A meta-analysis including TAILOR and PRIME study suggests that primary tumor location (PTL) predicted a survival benefit when adding the EGFR antibody to FOLFOX regimen in RAS-wild mCRC patients (OS, HR for left-sided: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.59-0.85; P = .0002 and HR for right-sided: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.65-1.25; P = .53). However, the HR for PFS and ORR still suggests a benefit from the addition of anti-EGFR mAb in right-sided mCRC patients.ConclusionSo these results suggest anti-EGFR mAb and oxaliplatin are good partners in the FOLFOX regimen. The addition of EGFR antibody to FOLFOX markedly improved efficacy in RAS-wild patients with left-sided mCRC. In RAS/BRAF-wild patients, the efficacy is similar. For patients with right-sided tumor, a benefit showing a trendency in favor of anti-EGFR mAb can still seen. The molecular characteristics behind the tumor location need to be more explored urgently.

Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients frequently develop liver metastases. Different treatment strategies are available according to the timing of appearance, the burden of metastatic disease, and the performance status of the patient. Systemic treatment (ST) represents the cornerstone of metastatic disease management. However, in select cases, combined ST and surgical resection can lead to remarkable survival outcomes. In the present multicentric cohort study, we explored the efficacy of a conversion strategy in a selected population of left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type CRC patients with liver-limited metastatic disease.MethodsThe primary endpoint was to compare survival outcomes of patients undergoing ST not leading to surgery, liver resection after conversion ST, and hepatic resection with perioperative ST. Furthermore, we explored survival outcomes depending on whether the case was discussed within a multidisciplinary team.ResultsBetween 2012 and 2020, data from 690 patients respecting the inclusion criteria were collected. Among these, 272 patients were deemed eligible for the analysis. The conversion rate was 24.1% of cases. Fifty-six (20.6%) patients undergoing surgical resection after induction treatment (i.e., ultimately resectable) had a significant survival advantage compared to those receiving systemic treatment not leading to surgery (176 pts, 64.7%) (5-year OS 60.8% and 11.7%, respectively, Log Rank test p < 0.001; HR = 0.273; 95% CI: 0.16-0.46; p < 0.001; 5-year PFS 22.2% and 6.3%, respectively, Log Rank test p < 0.001; HR = 0.447; 95% CI: 0.32-0.63; p < 0.001). There was no difference in survival between ultimately resectable patients and those who had liver resection with perioperative systemic treatment (potentially resectable-40 pts) (5-year OS 71.1%, Log Rank test p = 0.311. HR = 0.671; 95% CI: 0.31-1.46; p = 0.314; 5-year PFS 25.7%, Log Rank test p = 0.305. HR = 0.782; 95% CI: 0.49-1.25; p = 0.306).ConclusionsIn our selected population of left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type colorectal cancer patients with liver-limited disease, a conversion strategy was confirmed to provide a survival benefit. Patients not deemed surgical candidates at the time of diagnosis and patients judged resectable with perioperative systemic treatment have similar survival outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND: About 10-15% of adult gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) and the vast majority of pediatric GIST do not harbour KIT or platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) mutations (J Clin Oncol 22:3813-3825, 2004; Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 23:15-34, 2009). The molecular biology of these GIST, originally defined as KIT/PDGFRA wild-type (WT), is complex due to the existence of different subgroups with distinct molecular hallmarks, including defects in the succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) complex and mutations of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), BRAF, or KRAS genes (RAS-pathway or RAS-P).In this extremely heterogeneous landscape, the clinical profile and molecular abnormalities of the small subgroup of WT GIST suitably referred to as quadruple wild-type GIST (quadrupleWT or KITWT/PDGFRAWT/SDHWT/RAS-PWT) remains undefined. The aim of this study is to investigate the genomic profile of KITWT/PDGFRAWT/SDHWT/RAS-PWT GIST, by using a massively parallel sequencing and microarray approach, and compare it with the genomic profile of other GIST subtypes. METHODS: We performed a whole genome analysis using a massively parallel sequencing approach on a total of 16 GIST cases (2 KITWT/PDGFRAWT/SDHWT and SDHBIHC+/SDHAIHC+, 2 KITWT/PDGFRAWT/SDHAmut and SDHBIHC-/SDHAIHC- and 12 cases of KITmut or PDGFRAmut GIST). To confirm and extend the results, whole-genome gene expression analysis by microarray was performed on 9 out 16 patients analyzed by RNAseq and an additional 20 GIST patients (1 KITWT/PDGFRAWTSDHAmut GIST and 19 KITmut or PDGFRAmut GIST). The most impressive data were validated by quantitave PCR and Western Blot analysis. RESULTS: We found that both cases of quadrupleWT GIST had a genomic profile profoundly different from both either KIT/PDGFRA mutated or SDHA-mutated GIST. In particular, the quadrupleWT GIST tumors are characterized by the overexpression of molecular markers (CALCRL and COL22A1) and of specific oncogenes including tyrosine and cyclin- dependent kinases (NTRK2 and CDK6) and one member of the ETS-transcription factor family (ERG). CONCLUSION: We report for the first time an integrated genomic picture of KITWT/PDGFRAWT/SDHWT/RAS-PWT GIST, using massively parallel sequencing and gene expression analyses, and found that quadrupleWT GIST have an expression signature that is distinct from SDH-mutant GIST as well as GIST harbouring mutations in KIT or PDGFRA. Our findings suggest that quadrupleWT GIST represent another unique group within the family of gastrointestintal stromal tumors.