Preview

Онкологическая колопроктология

Расширенный поиск

Фармакоэкономические особенности выбора системной терапии больных метастатическим раком толстой кишки

https://doi.org/10.17650/2220-3478-2017-7-2-36-42

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
Россия


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


В. А. Рогов
ФГБОУ ВО «Волгоградский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России
Россия


Л. М. Ганичева
ФГБОУ ВО «Волгоградский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России
Россия


М. Ю. Фролов
ФГБОУ ВО «Волгоградский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России
Россия


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


Для цитирования:


Федянин М.Ю., Трякин А.А., Рогов В.А., Ганичева Л.М., Фролов М.Ю., Тюляндин С.А. Фармакоэкономические особенности выбора системной терапии больных метастатическим раком толстой кишки. Онкологическая колопроктология. 2017;7(2):36-42. https://doi.org/10.17650/2220-3478-2017-7-2-36-42

For citation:


Fedyanin M.Y., Tryakin A.A., Rogov V.A., Ganicheva L.M., Frolov M.Y., Tyulyandin S.A. Pharmacoeconomic-guided choice of systemic chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Colorectal Oncology. 2017;7(2):36-42. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/2220-3478-2017-7-2-36-42

Просмотров: 133


Creative Commons License
Контент доступен под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2220-3478 (Print)
ISSN 2413-0583 (Online)