Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine monotherapy versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is no single standard chemotherapy regimen for elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). A phase III trial has confirmed that both capecitabine monotherapy and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin are well tolerated for elderly patients with AGC, but their economic influence in China is unknown.

Objective

The purpose of this cost-effectiveness analysis was to estimate the effects of capecitabine monotherapy and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in elderly patients with AGC on health and economic outcomes in China.

Methods

We created a Markov model based on data from a Korean clinical phase III trial to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of elderly patients in the capecitabine monotherapy (X) group and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) group. The costs were obtained from published reports and the local health system. The utilities were assumed on the basis of the published literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (Monte Carlo simulations) were performed.

Results

In the cost-effectiveness analysis, X had a lower total cost ($45,731.68) and cost-effectiveness ratio ($65,918.93/QALY). The one-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the most influential parameter was the risk of requiring second-line chemotherapy in XELOX group. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted that the X regimen was cost-effective 100% of the time, given a willingness-to-pay threshold of $26,598.

Conclusions

Our findings show that the XELOX regimen is less cost-effective compared to the X regimen for elderly patients with AGC in China from a Chinese healthcare perspective.

SUBMITTER: Peng J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6023138 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine monotherapy versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer.

Peng Jingyuan J Tan Chongqing C Zeng Xiaohui X Liu Shikun S

PloS one 20180628 6

<h4>Background</h4>There is no single standard chemotherapy regimen for elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). A phase III trial has confirmed that both capecitabine monotherapy and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin are well tolerated for elderly patients with AGC, but their economic influence in China is unknown.<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this cost-effectiveness analysis was to estimate the effects of capecitabine monotherapy and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in elderly patients ...[more]

PMID: 29953476

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDistant metastasis has been the main failure pattern for locoregionally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients, and intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy has become a popular research topic. The present study aimed to compare the survival outcomes, acute toxicities and surgical complications in LARC patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy with triweekly oxaliplatin and capecitabine (triweekly XELOX) or capecitabine.MethodsBetween 2007 and 2017, patients with clinically staged II-III rectal cancer who were treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy using either triweekly XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 plus capecitabine 825 mg/m2) or capecitabine were included. Variables potentially influencing chemotherapy treatment selection were used to generate propensity scores (PS). The association between chemotherapy regimens and survival endpoints, including distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), were evaluated and adjusted with PS. The acute toxicities and surgical complications were also compared.ResultsA total of 810 patients were included in the analysis; 277 (34.2%) patients received triweekly XELOX, and 533 (65.8%) received capecitabine. The pathological complete response (pCR) rates were 20.2 and 19.9% (P = 0.912) for the groups treated with triweekly XELOX and capecitabine, respectively. The 5-year DMFS, OS and DFS with triweekly XELOX versus capecitabine were 75.6% vs. 77.6% (P = 0.555), 79.2% vs. 83.3% (P = 0.101), and 69.9% vs. 73.7% (P = 0.283), respectively. Triweekly XELOX was not associated with an increased risk of severe toxicity during chemoradiotherapy, but it increased the risk of postoperative complications compared to capecitabine. After PS adjustment, the differences between the two groups remained insignificant in pCR rate, survival outcomes, and acute toxicities, and the difference in surgical complications disappeared.ConclusionsTriweekly XELOX or capecitabine concurrent with neoadjuvant radiotherapy leads to similar long-term survival outcomes, acute toxicities and surgical complications in LARC patients.

Project description:Lessons learnedThe NEO-CLASSIC study provided valuable insight for the clinical efficacy and tolerability profiles of perioperative chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and capecitabine, plus gastrectomy, in patients with localized resectable gastric cancer.The study was designed to explore the potential survival benefits of an eight-cycle, perioperative oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX) schedule in the above-mentioned setting and to explore the feasibility of prolonging the cycles of preoperative chemotherapy. The projected endpoint was not met.BackgroundThis multicenter, open-label study (NEO-CLASSIC) evaluated the efficacy and safety of oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX), plus D2 gastrectomy, in localized resectable gastric cancer.MethodsPatients aged 18-75 years with histologically-confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma (stage T2-4a/N+M0) were given eight cycles of XELOX (four preoperatively, four postoperatively). Each 3-week cycle comprised capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1. Curative D2 gastrectomy was scheduled 2-4 weeks after the last preoperative cycle. The primary objective of the study was to determine the objective response rate (ORR) of XELOX in the preoperative setting. Sample size was calculated by assuming that a minimum of 47 cases would be required to increase the ORR by 15% (from 40% to 55%). With an estimated 10% dropout rate, 55 patients would have to be recruited.ResultsFifty-five patients were enrolled, and one was excluded because of screening failure. R0 resections were achieved in 45 of 54 intent-to-treat patients (83.3%), and four patients received R1 resections (Fig. 1). There were no complete responses, 27 (50.0%) partial responses, 22 cases (40.7%) of stable disease, and 4 (7.4%) of progressive disease. The objective response rate was 50.0%. Median follow-up was 52.97 months; 30 patients (55.6%) had disease progression (Table 1), and median progression-free survival was 20.10 (95% confidence interval: 4.31-35.89) months; median overall survival was 30.77 months (95% confidence interval was not yet available) (Fig. 2). Fifty-four patients completed 209 cycles of preoperative chemotherapy; 42 patients received 133 cycles of postoperative chemotherapy (Table 3). The rate of grade 3-4 adverse events was 8.5% (29/342 cycles); the most frequent events were neutropenia (9/342 cycles) and leukopenia (4/342 cycles).ConclusionThese findings suggest that combination therapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin as perioperative chemotherapy, followed by D2 gastrectomy, is effective and safe in late-stage, locally advanced gastric cancer. Although enrollment exceeded the 47 patients required to identify an increase in the ORR by 15% (from 40% to 55%), results did not meet the primary endpoint.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine monotherapy versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine monotherapy versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets