Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2011

Open Access 01-12-2011 | Research article

Cost-analysis of XELOX and FOLFOX4 for treatment of colorectal cancer to assist decision-making on reimbursement

Authors: Vicki C Tse, Wai Tong Ng, Victor Lee, Anne WM Lee, Daniel TT Chua, June Chau, Sarah M McGhee

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

XELOX (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX 4 (5-FU + folinic acid + oxaliplatin) have shown similar improvements in survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). A US cost-minimization study found that the two regimens had similar costs from a healthcare provider perspective but XELOX had lower costs than FOLFOX4 from a societal perspective, while a Japanese cost-effectiveness study found XELOX had superior cost-effectiveness. This study compared the costs of XELOX and FOLFOX4 in patients with MCRC recently treated in two oncology departments in Hong Kong.

Methods

Cost data were collected from the medical records of 60 consecutive patients (30 received XELOX and 30 FOLFOX4) from two hospitals. Drug costs, outpatient visits, hospital days and investigations were recorded and expressed as cost per patient from the healthcare provider perspective. Estimated travel and time costs were included in a societal perspective analysis. All costs were classed as either scheduled (associated with planned chemotherapy and follow-up) or unscheduled (unplanned visits or admissions and associated tests and medicines). Costs were based on government and hospital sources and expressed in US dollars (US$).

Results

XELOX patients received an average of 7.3 chemotherapy cycles (of the 8 planned cycles) and FOLFOX4 patients received 9.2 cycles (of the 12 planned cycles). The scheduled cost per patient per cycle was $2,046 for XELOX and $2,152 for FOLFOX4, while the unscheduled cost was $240 and $421, respectively. Total treatment cost per patient was $16,609 for XELOX and $23,672 for FOLFOX4; the total cost for FOLFOX4 was 37% greater than that of XELOX. The addition of the societal costs increased the total treatment cost per patient to $17,836 for XELOX and $27,455 for FOLFOX4. Sensitivity analyses showed XELOX was still less costly than FOLFOX4 when using full drug regimen costs, incorporating data from a US model with costs and adverse event data from their clinical trial and with the removal of oxaliplatin from both treatment arms. Capecitabine would have to cost around four times its present price in Hong Kong for the total resource cost of treatment with XELOX to equal that of FOLFOX4.

Conclusion

XELOX costs less than FOLFOX4 for this patient group with MCRC from both the healthcare provider and societal perspectives.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Health expenditure Australia, 2007-2008. 2009, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Health expenditure Australia, 2007-2008. 2009, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra
2.
go back to reference Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: National Health Expenditure Accounts 2008. 2010, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Editor. Baltimore Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: National Health Expenditure Accounts 2008. 2010, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Editor. Baltimore
3.
go back to reference Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health: CADTH Presentation on the Common Drug Review to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. 2007, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health: Otawa Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health: CADTH Presentation on the Common Drug Review to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. 2007, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health: Otawa
4.
go back to reference Canadian Institute for Health Information: Drug Expenditure in Canada, 1985 to 2006. 2007, ON: Canadian Insititute for Health Information: Ottawa Canadian Institute for Health Information: Drug Expenditure in Canada, 1985 to 2006. 2007, ON: Canadian Insititute for Health Information: Ottawa
5.
go back to reference Duerden M, et al: yCurrent national initiatives and policies to control drug costs in Europe: UK perspective. J Ambul Care Manage. 2004, 27 (2): 132-8.CrossRefPubMed Duerden M, et al: yCurrent national initiatives and policies to control drug costs in Europe: UK perspective. J Ambul Care Manage. 2004, 27 (2): 132-8.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Sales MM, et al: Pharmacy benefits management in the Veterans Health Administration: 1995 to 2003. Am J Manag Care. 2005, 11 (2): 104-12.PubMed Sales MM, et al: Pharmacy benefits management in the Veterans Health Administration: 1995 to 2003. Am J Manag Care. 2005, 11 (2): 104-12.PubMed
8.
go back to reference Meropol NJ, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27 (23): 3868-74. 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.1183.CrossRefPubMed Meropol NJ, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27 (23): 3868-74. 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.1183.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Low E: Many new cancer drugs in the United Kingdom are facing negative NICE rulings. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25 (18): 2635-6. 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.4272. author reply 2637-8CrossRefPubMed Low E: Many new cancer drugs in the United Kingdom are facing negative NICE rulings. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25 (18): 2635-6. 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.4272. author reply 2637-8CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Malik NN: Controlling the cost of innovative cancer therapeutics. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009, 6 (9): 550-2. 10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.113.CrossRefPubMed Malik NN: Controlling the cost of innovative cancer therapeutics. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009, 6 (9): 550-2. 10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.113.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Congressional BudgetOffice: The budget and economic outlook: fiscal years 2009-2019. Congressional Budget Office. 2009 Congressional BudgetOffice: The budget and economic outlook: fiscal years 2009-2019. Congressional Budget Office. 2009
13.
go back to reference Miners AH, et al: Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ. 2005, 330 (7482): 65-10.1136/bmj.38285.482350.82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Miners AH, et al: Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ. 2005, 330 (7482): 65-10.1136/bmj.38285.482350.82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Morgan SG, et al: Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United kingdom. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006, 25 (2): 337-47. 10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.337.CrossRef Morgan SG, et al: Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United kingdom. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006, 25 (2): 337-47. 10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.337.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Harris AH, et al: The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Med Decis Making. 2008, 28 (5): 713-22. 10.1177/0272989X08315247.CrossRefPubMed Harris AH, et al: The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Med Decis Making. 2008, 28 (5): 713-22. 10.1177/0272989X08315247.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Steinbrook R: Saying no isn't NICE - the travails of Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. N Engl J Med. 2008, 359 (19): 1977-81. 10.1056/NEJMp0806862.CrossRefPubMed Steinbrook R: Saying no isn't NICE - the travails of Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. N Engl J Med. 2008, 359 (19): 1977-81. 10.1056/NEJMp0806862.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Drummond MF: The use of health economic information by reimbursement authorities. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003, 42 (Suppl 3): iii60-3. Drummond MF: The use of health economic information by reimbursement authorities. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003, 42 (Suppl 3): iii60-3.
18.
19.
20.
go back to reference Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health: Common Drug Review Overview. 2010 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health: Common Drug Review Overview. 2010
21.
go back to reference Hong Kong Asoociation of the Pharmaceutical Industry: HKAPI Feedback on Hospital Authority Drug Formulary Policy. 2006 Hong Kong Asoociation of the Pharmaceutical Industry: HKAPI Feedback on Hospital Authority Drug Formulary Policy. 2006
22.
go back to reference Doherty J, et al: What is next for pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Asia?. Value Health. 2004, 7 (2): 118-32. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.72330.x.CrossRefPubMed Doherty J, et al: What is next for pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Asia?. Value Health. 2004, 7 (2): 118-32. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.72330.x.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Yang BM, Lee K: Growing Application of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research in Health-Care Decision-Making in the Asia-Pacific Region. Value in Health. 2009, 12 (s3): S1-S2.CrossRefPubMed Yang BM, Lee K: Growing Application of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research in Health-Care Decision-Making in the Asia-Pacific Region. Value in Health. 2009, 12 (s3): S1-S2.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Sculpher MJ, Drummond MF: Analysis sans frontieres: can we ever make economic evaluations generalisable across jurisdictions?. PharmacoEconomics. 2006, 24 (11): 1087-99. 10.2165/00019053-200624110-00006.CrossRefPubMed Sculpher MJ, Drummond MF: Analysis sans frontieres: can we ever make economic evaluations generalisable across jurisdictions?. PharmacoEconomics. 2006, 24 (11): 1087-99. 10.2165/00019053-200624110-00006.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Manca A, Willan AR: 'Lost in translation': accounting for between-country differences in the analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data. PharmacoEconomics. 2006, 24 (11): 1101-19. 10.2165/00019053-200624110-00007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Manca A, Willan AR: 'Lost in translation': accounting for between-country differences in the analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data. PharmacoEconomics. 2006, 24 (11): 1101-19. 10.2165/00019053-200624110-00007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Cassidy J, et al: Randomized Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil/Folinic Acid Plus Oxaliplatin As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26 (12): 2006-2012. 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.9898.CrossRefPubMed Cassidy J, et al: Randomized Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil/Folinic Acid Plus Oxaliplatin As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26 (12): 2006-2012. 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.9898.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Twelves C: Capecitabine as first-line treatment in colorectal cancer. Pooled data from two large, phase III trials. Eur J Cancer. 2002, 38 (Suppl 2): 15-20.CrossRefPubMed Twelves C: Capecitabine as first-line treatment in colorectal cancer. Pooled data from two large, phase III trials. Eur J Cancer. 2002, 38 (Suppl 2): 15-20.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Rothenberg ML, et al: Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as second-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III noninferiority study. Ann Oncol. 2008, 19 (10): 1720-6. 10.1093/annonc/mdn370.CrossRefPubMed Rothenberg ML, et al: Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as second-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III noninferiority study. Ann Oncol. 2008, 19 (10): 1720-6. 10.1093/annonc/mdn370.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Tsutani K: Cost-effectiveness analysis of XELOX for metastatic colorectal cancer based on the NO16966 and NO16967 trials. Br J Cancer. 2009, 101 (1): 12-8. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605114.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Tsutani K: Cost-effectiveness analysis of XELOX for metastatic colorectal cancer based on the NO16966 and NO16967 trials. Br J Cancer. 2009, 101 (1): 12-8. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605114.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Garrison L, et al: Cost comparison of XELOX compared to FOLFOX4 with or without bevacizumab (bev) in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts). 2007, 25 (18_suppl): 4074- Garrison L, et al: Cost comparison of XELOX compared to FOLFOX4 with or without bevacizumab (bev) in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts). 2007, 25 (18_suppl): 4074-
31.
go back to reference Hospital Authority: Hospital Authority Drug Formulary (v6.2 - w.e.f.9 Oct 2010). 2010 Hospital Authority: Hospital Authority Drug Formulary (v6.2 - w.e.f.9 Oct 2010). 2010
32.
go back to reference The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: Special Supplement No. 4 to The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Gazette. Supplement to Gazette No 13. 2003, 7: The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: Special Supplement No. 4 to The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Gazette. Supplement to Gazette No 13. 2003, 7:
33.
go back to reference Personal communication with the Pathology Department, P.Y.N.E.H: Private itemised costs for blood tests and procedures. 2009 Personal communication with the Pathology Department, P.Y.N.E.H: Private itemised costs for blood tests and procedures. 2009
34.
go back to reference Pharmacy Management System/Express Dispensing System: SFI Drug Price Enquiry. 2009, Accessed at Queen Mary Hospital on 28th September, 2009 Pharmacy Management System/Express Dispensing System: SFI Drug Price Enquiry. 2009, Accessed at Queen Mary Hospital on 28th September, 2009
35.
go back to reference Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department: Women and Men in Hong Kong Key Statistics. 2009 Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department: Women and Men in Hong Kong Key Statistics. 2009
37.
go back to reference Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3 Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3
38.
go back to reference Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ: The death of cost-minimization analysis?. Health Econ. 2001, 10 (2): 179-84. 10.1002/hec.584.CrossRefPubMed Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ: The death of cost-minimization analysis?. Health Econ. 2001, 10 (2): 179-84. 10.1002/hec.584.CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Scheithauer W, et al: A comparison of medical resource use for 4 chemotherapy regimens as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC): XELOX vs. FOLFOX4 {+/-} bevacizumab (A). J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts). 2007, 25 (18_suppl): 4098- Scheithauer W, et al: A comparison of medical resource use for 4 chemotherapy regimens as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC): XELOX vs. FOLFOX4 {+/-} bevacizumab (A). J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts). 2007, 25 (18_suppl): 4098-
40.
go back to reference Perrocheau G, et al: Cost-minimization analysis of a phase III study of capecitabine + oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs. infusional 5-FU/LV + oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) in the French setting. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts). 2007, 25 (18_suppl): 4083- Perrocheau G, et al: Cost-minimization analysis of a phase III study of capecitabine + oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs. infusional 5-FU/LV + oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) in the French setting. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts). 2007, 25 (18_suppl): 4083-
41.
go back to reference Jonsson B: Changing health environment: the challenge to demonstrate cost-effectiveness of new compounds. PharmacoEconomics. 2004, 22 (Suppl 4): 5-10.CrossRefPubMed Jonsson B: Changing health environment: the challenge to demonstrate cost-effectiveness of new compounds. PharmacoEconomics. 2004, 22 (Suppl 4): 5-10.CrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Keech M: Using health outcomes data to inform decision-making: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. PharmacoEconomics. 2001, 19 (Suppl 2): 27-31.CrossRefPubMed Keech M: Using health outcomes data to inform decision-making: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. PharmacoEconomics. 2001, 19 (Suppl 2): 27-31.CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Sculpher MJ, et al: Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004, 8 (49): iii-iv. 1-192CrossRef Sculpher MJ, et al: Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004, 8 (49): iii-iv. 1-192CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cost-analysis of XELOX and FOLFOX4 for treatment of colorectal cancer to assist decision-making on reimbursement
Authors
Vicki C Tse
Wai Tong Ng
Victor Lee
Anne WM Lee
Daniel TT Chua
June Chau
Sarah M McGhee
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2011
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-11-288

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

BMC Cancer 1/2011 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine