Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHuxley, N
dc.contributor.authorCrathorne, L
dc.contributor.authorVarley-Campbell, J
dc.contributor.authorTikhonova, I
dc.contributor.authorSnowsill, T
dc.contributor.authorBriscoe, S
dc.contributor.authorPeters, J
dc.contributor.authorBond, M
dc.contributor.authorNapier, M
dc.contributor.authorHoyle, M
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-09T11:39:16Z
dc.date.issued2017-07
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast, lung and prostate cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually treated with active chemotherapy as first- or second-line therapy. Targeted agents are available, including the antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents cetuximab (Erbitux®, Merck Serono UK Ltd, Feltham, UK) and panitumumab (Vecitibix®, Amgen UK Ltd, Cambridge, UK). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy and cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy for rat sarcoma (RAS) wild-type (WT) patients for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. DATA SOURCES: The assessment included a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, a review and critique of manufacturer submissions, and a de novo cohort-based economic analysis. For the assessment of effectiveness, a literature search was conducted up to 27 April 2015 in a range of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of RCTs of cetuximab or panitumumab in participants with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer withRASWT status. All steps in the review were performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Narrative synthesis and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted for outcomes of interest. An economic model was developed focusing on first-line treatment and using a 30-year time horizon to capture costs and benefits. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses and probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The searches identified 2811 titles and abstracts, of which five clinical trials were included. Additional data from these trials were provided by the manufacturers. No data were available for panitumumab plus irinotecan-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + irinotecan) (FOLFIRI) in previously untreated patients. Studies reported results forRASWT subgroups. First-line treatment with anti-EGFR therapies in combination with chemotherapy appeared to have statistically significant benefits for patients who areRASWT. For the independent economic evaluation, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) forRASWT patients for cetuximab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin) (FOLFOX) compared with FOLFOX was £104,205 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained; for panitumumab plus FOLFOX compared with FOLFOX was £204,103 per QALY gained; and for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI was £122,554 per QALY gained. The ICERs were sensitive to treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival (resected patients only) and resection rates. LIMITATIONS: The trials includedRASWT populations only as subgroups. No evidence was available for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI. Two networks were used for the NMA and model, based on the different chemotherapies (FOLFOX and FOLFIRI), as insufficient evidence was available to the assessment group to connect these networks. CONCLUSIONS: Although cetuximab and panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy appear to be clinically beneficial forRASWT patients compared with chemotherapy alone, they are likely to represent poor value for money when judged by cost-effectiveness criteria currently used in the UK. It would be useful to conduct a RCT in patients withRASWT. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016111. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 21 (38), pp. 1 - 294en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.3310/hta21380
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/32390
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherNIHR Health Technology Assessment Programmeen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28682222en_GB
dc.rights© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2017. This work was produced by Huxley et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.en_GB
dc.titleThe clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (review of technology appraisal no. 176) and panitumumab (partial review of technology appraisal no. 240) for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2018-04-09T11:39:16Z
dc.identifier.issn1366-5278
exeter.place-of-publicationEnglanden_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the final version of the article. Available from NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalHealth Technology Assessmenten_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record