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.

The treatment of colorectal cancer is rapidly becoming a significant financial burden to health-care systems within economically developed nations. A current challenge for oncologists and health-care payers is to integrate new, often high-cost, biologic therapies into clinical practice. Inherent to this process is the consideration of cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus irinotecan with an appropriate comparator from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. This economic evaluation is a trial-based study of cetuximab vs active/best supportive care. Effectiveness estimates for the treatment groups were modelled from key clinical trials. Cunningham et al (2004) compared cetuximab/irinotecan with cetuximab monotherapy; Cunningham et al (1998) compared irinotecan monotherapy in a second-line setting with supportive care. Modelling was necessary owing to an absence of head-to-head clinical trial data of cetuximab/irinotecan vs current standard care. Costs were calculated for the study drugs received, associated administration, palliative chemotherapy for patients in the standard care arm and other nonchemotherapy resources. The discounted life-expectancy of patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan was 0.91 life-years, and 0.47 discounted life-years for patients receiving active/best supportive care. Patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan accumulated mean additional costs of 18 901 pounds per patient relative to the comparator arm, with 11 802 pounds attributable to cetuximab. The incremental cost per life-year gained with cetuximab/irinotecan therapy compared with active/best supportive care was 42 975 pounds . The incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year gained was 57 608 pounds . The incremental cost per life-year gained for cetuximab/irinotecan is relatively high compared with other health-care interventions. However, this result should be considered in the context of a number of factors specific to the treated patient population.