Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Medical Oncology 4/2015

01-04-2015 | Original Paper

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

Authors: Jing Zhou, Rongce Zhao, Feng Wen, Pengfei Zhang, Ruilei Tang, Zedong Du, Xiaofeng He, Jian Zhang, Qiu Li

Published in: Medical Oncology | Issue 4/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Vincent A, Herman J, Schulick R, Hruban RH, Goggins M. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet. 2011;378:607–20.CrossRefPubMed Vincent A, Herman J, Schulick R, Hruban RH, Goggins M. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet. 2011;378:607–20.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Stathis A, Moore MJ. Advanced pancreatic carcinoma: current treatment and future challenges. J Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7:163–72.CrossRef Stathis A, Moore MJ. Advanced pancreatic carcinoma: current treatment and future challenges. J Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7:163–72.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Ciliberto D, Botta C, Correale P, Rossi M, Caraglia M, Tassone P, et al. Role of gemcitabine–based combination therapy in the management of advanced pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized trails. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:593–603.CrossRefPubMed Ciliberto D, Botta C, Correale P, Rossi M, Caraglia M, Tassone P, et al. Role of gemcitabine–based combination therapy in the management of advanced pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized trails. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:593–603.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Sun C, Ansari D, Andersson R, Wu DQ. Does gemcitabine-based combination therapy improve the prognosis of unresectable pancreatic cancer? Word J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:4944–58.CrossRef Sun C, Ansari D, Andersson R, Wu DQ. Does gemcitabine-based combination therapy improve the prognosis of unresectable pancreatic cancer? Word J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:4944–58.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Abe S, Kojima M, Tamura H, Kurihara H, Kitago M, Kobayashi T, et al. A clinical results of TS-1 in advanced and recurrent gastric cancer in our hospital. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2003;30:963–70.PubMed Abe S, Kojima M, Tamura H, Kurihara H, Kitago M, Kobayashi T, et al. A clinical results of TS-1 in advanced and recurrent gastric cancer in our hospital. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2003;30:963–70.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Saif MW, Syrigos KN, Katirtzoglou NA. S-1: a promising new oral fluoropyrimidine derivative. Expert Opin Investig Drug. 2009;18:335–48.CrossRef Saif MW, Syrigos KN, Katirtzoglou NA. S-1: a promising new oral fluoropyrimidine derivative. Expert Opin Investig Drug. 2009;18:335–48.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Shirasaka T. Development history and concept of an oral anticancer agent S-1 (TS-1): its clinical usefulness and future vistas. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2009;39:2–15.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Shirasaka T. Development history and concept of an oral anticancer agent S-1 (TS-1): its clinical usefulness and future vistas. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2009;39:2–15.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
8.
go back to reference Ueno H, Ioka T, Ikeda M, Ohkawa S, Yanagimoto H, Boku N, et al. 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. 2013;31:1640–8.CrossRefPubMed Ueno H, Ioka T, Ikeda M, Ohkawa S, Yanagimoto H, Boku N, et al. 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. 2013;31:1640–8.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Lipscomb J, Weinstein MC, Torrance GW. Time preference. In: Siegel J, Russell LB, Gold M, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 214–35. Lipscomb J, Weinstein MC, Torrance GW. Time preference. In: Siegel J, Russell LB, Gold M, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 214–35.
11.
go back to reference 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. 185–206. 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. 185–206.
12.
go back to reference Attard CL, Brown S, Alloul K, Moore MJ. Cost-effectiveness of folfirinox for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol. 2014;21(1):e41–51.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Attard CL, Brown S, Alloul K, Moore MJ. Cost-effectiveness of folfirinox for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol. 2014;21(1):e41–51.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
13.
go back to reference The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.CrossRef The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Romanus D, Kindler HL, Archer L, Basch E, Niedzwiecki D, Weeks J, Schrag D. 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. 2012;43:205–17.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Romanus D, Kindler HL, Archer L, Basch E, Niedzwiecki D, Weeks J, Schrag D. 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. 2012;43:205–17.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
15.
go back to reference Tse VC, Ng WT, Lee V, Lee AW, Chua DT, Chau J, et al. Cost-analysis of XELOX and FOLFOX4 for treatment of colorectal cancer to assist decision-making on reimbursement. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:288.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Tse VC, Ng WT, Lee V, Lee AW, Chua DT, Chau J, et al. Cost-analysis of XELOX and FOLFOX4 for treatment of colorectal cancer to assist decision-making on reimbursement. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:288.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
16.
go back to reference He J, Wen F, Yin X, Zhang P, Du Z, He X, Zhou Y, et al. Cost analysis of S1 and XELOX as adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 2013;24(7):754–8.CrossRefPubMed He J, Wen F, Yin X, Zhang P, Du Z, He X, Zhou Y, et al. Cost analysis of S1 and XELOX as adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 2013;24(7):754–8.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Burris HA 3rd, Moore MJ, Andersen J, Green MR, Rothenberg ML, Modiano MR, et al. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2403–13.PubMed Burris HA 3rd, Moore MJ, Andersen J, Green MR, Rothenberg ML, Modiano MR, et al. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2403–13.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, Bouché O, Guimbaud R, Bécouarn Y, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1817–25.CrossRefPubMed Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, Bouché O, Guimbaud R, Bécouarn Y, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1817–25.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Tam VC, Ko YJ, Mittmann N, Cheung MC, Kumar K, Hassan S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of systemic therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol. 2013;20(2):e90–106.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Tam VC, Ko YJ, Mittmann N, Cheung MC, Kumar K, Hassan S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of systemic therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol. 2013;20(2):e90–106.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
20.
go back to reference Heinemann V, Quietzsch D, Gieseler F, Gonnermann M, Schönekäs H, Rost A, et al. Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3946–52.CrossRefPubMed Heinemann V, Quietzsch D, Gieseler F, Gonnermann M, Schönekäs H, Rost A, et al. Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3946–52.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Moore MJ, Goldstein D, Hamm J, Figer A, Hecht JR, Gallinger S, et al. 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. 2007;25:1960–6.CrossRefPubMed Moore MJ, Goldstein D, Hamm J, Figer A, Hecht JR, Gallinger S, et al. 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. 2007;25:1960–6.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Philip PA, Benedetti J, Corless CL, Wong R, O’Reilly EM, Flynn PJ, et al. 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. 2010;28:3605–10.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Philip PA, Benedetti J, Corless CL, Wong R, O’Reilly EM, Flynn PJ, et al. 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. 2010;28:3605–10.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
23.
go back to reference Kindler HL, Ioka T, Richel DJ, Bennouna J, Létourneau R, Okusaka T, et al. Axitinib plus gemcitabine versus placebo plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a double-blind randomised phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:256–62.CrossRefPubMed Kindler HL, Ioka T, Richel DJ, Bennouna J, Létourneau R, Okusaka T, et al. Axitinib plus gemcitabine versus placebo plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a double-blind randomised phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:256–62.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ. 1992;146:473–81.PubMedCentralPubMed Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ. 1992;146:473–81.PubMedCentralPubMed
25.
go back to reference Kuntz KM, Tsevat J, Goldman L, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness of routine coronary angiogram after acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1996;94:957–65.CrossRefPubMed Kuntz KM, Tsevat J, Goldman L, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness of routine coronary angiogram after acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1996;94:957–65.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
go back to reference Murray CJ, Evans DB, Acharya A, Baltussen RM. Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2000;9(3):235–51.CrossRefPubMed Murray CJ, Evans DB, Acharya A, Baltussen RM. Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2000;9(3):235–51.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine, S-1 and gemcitabine plus S-1 for treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer based on GEST study
Authors
Jing Zhou
Rongce Zhao
Feng Wen
Pengfei Zhang
Ruilei Tang
Zedong Du
Xiaofeng He
Jian Zhang
Qiu Li
Publication date
01-04-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Medical Oncology / Issue 4/2015
Print ISSN: 1357-0560
Electronic ISSN: 1559-131X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-015-0580-4

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

Medical Oncology 4/2015 Go to the issue
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.