Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

IF 1.8 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2025-05-29 DOI:10.1080/14737167.2025.2509706

Tong Liu, Yao Yao, Bingjie Liu, Xue Teng, Mei Dong, Xin Zhang

{"title":"Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.","authors":"Tong Liu, Yao Yao, Bingjie Liu, Xue Teng, Mei Dong, Xin Zhang","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2025.2509706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: We first evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab as the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer from healthcare system perspective.Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the costs and effects of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The evaluation of the Chinese healthcare payer perspective was performed across a lifetime horizon, encompassing direct medical expenses.Results: The estimated cost for FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab treatment was 9306.364USD, which was higher than 8218.436 USD estimated for mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab, leading to an ICER of 1961.857 USD per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested the body surface area (BSA), the cost of irinotecan, and the cost of fluorouracil had the largest impact on the ICER. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed the probability of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab being cost-effective was100% at a threshold of 12 300 USD per QALY.Conclusion: FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab had an economic advantage compared to mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab as the first-line treatment of metastatic CRC in China.","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2509706","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: We first evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab as the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer from healthcare system perspective.

Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the costs and effects of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The evaluation of the Chinese healthcare payer perspective was performed across a lifetime horizon, encompassing direct medical expenses.

Results: The estimated cost for FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab treatment was 9306.364USD, which was higher than 8218.436 USD estimated for mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab, leading to an ICER of 1961.857 USD per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested the body surface area (BSA), the cost of irinotecan, and the cost of fluorouracil had the largest impact on the ICER. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed the probability of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab being cost-effective was100% at a threshold of 12 300 USD per QALY.

Conclusion: FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab had an economic advantage compared to mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab as the first-line treatment of metastatic CRC in China.

查看原文本刊更多论文

FOLFOXIRI +贝伐单抗与mFOLFOX6 +贝伐单抗作为转移性结直肠癌一线治疗的成本-效果分析

目的：我们首先从医疗保健系统的角度评估了FOLFOXIRI +贝伐单抗与mFOLFOX6 +贝伐单抗作为转移性结直肠癌一线治疗的成本-效果。方法：建立了一个分区生存模型来评估FOLFOXIRI +贝伐单抗与mFOLFOX6 +贝伐单抗的成本和效果。健康结果以质量调整生命年（QALYs）和增量成本-有效性比（ICERs）来衡量。对中国医疗保健提供者观点的评估是在整个生命周期内进行的，包括直接医疗费用。结果：FOLFOXIRI +贝伐单抗治疗的估计成本为9306.364美元，高于mFOLFOX6 +贝伐单抗治疗的估计成本8218.436美元，导致ICER为1961.857美元/ QALY。单向敏感性分析显示，体表面积（BSA）、伊立替康的成本和氟尿嘧啶的成本对ICER的影响最大。成本-效果可接受度曲线显示FOLFOXIRI +贝伐单抗的成本效益概率为100%，阈值为12300美元/ QALY。结论：在中国，与mFOLFOX6 +贝伐单抗相比，FOLFOXIRI +贝伐单抗作为转移性结直肠癌的一线治疗具有更大的经济优势。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

4.30%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.