Li Xianglian, Bao Jianan, Ma Jingjing
The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
BMJ Open. 2025 Mar 24;15(3):e086372. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086372.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI compared with mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI in first-line and second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) from the perspectives of the USA and China, respectively, and provide a decision-making basis for clinical selection of these two regimens.
The study used a decision-analytic Markov model to simulate the process of mCRC, including three distinct health states: progression-free survival, progressive disease and death. Clinical data were derived from the TRIBE2 trial.Costs and utilities were obtained from local public databases and literature. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed to explore the parameters' uncertainty in this study.
The main included patients were histologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma.
First-line and second-line treatment with either FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI or mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI.
Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a lifetime horizon as primary outcomes.
Patients treated with the FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI regimen produced 0.08 QALYs in the USA while 0.04 QALYs in China compared with the mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI regimen. The final ICERs for FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI were US$5127.70 per QALY and US$30 478.33 per QALY in the USA and China, which are below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. In the USA, when the WTP was US$100 000 for each QALY gained, the probability was nearly 99.6% that the FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI treatment was cost-effective. In China, when the WTP was US$36 053.01 (3 × GDP) for each QALY gained, the probability was nearly 54.7% that FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI treatment was cost-effective.
Patients with mCRC treated with FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI as first-line and second-line chemotherapy may improve health outcomes and expend financial resources more efficiently than mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI whether in China or the USA, which benefits not only individual survival but also the health care system from a value perspective.
本研究旨在分别从美国和中国的角度评估FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI方案与mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI方案用于转移性结直肠癌(mCRC)一线和二线化疗的成本效益,并为这两种方案的临床选择提供决策依据。
本研究采用决策分析马尔可夫模型模拟mCRC的病程,包括三种不同的健康状态:无进展生存期、疾病进展和死亡。临床数据来源于TRIBE2试验。成本和效用值来自当地公共数据库及文献。还进行了单因素敏感性分析和概率敏感性分析,以探讨本研究中参数的不确定性。
主要纳入经组织学确诊的结直肠腺癌患者。
采用FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI或mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI进行一线和二线治疗。
计算终身成本、质量调整生命年(QALY)和增量成本效益比(ICER)作为主要结局。
与mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI方案相比,接受FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI方案治疗的患者在美国产生0.08个QALY,在中国产生0.04个QALY。FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI方案在美国和中国的最终ICER分别为每QALY 5127.70美元和每QALY 30478.33美元,均低于支付意愿(WTP)阈值。在美国,当每获得一个QALY的WTP为100000美元时,FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI治疗具有成本效益的概率接近99.6%。在中国,当每获得一个QALY的WTP为36053.01美元(3倍GDP)时,FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI治疗具有成本效益的概率接近54.7%。
无论在中国还是美国,mCRC患者采用FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI作为一线和二线化疗方案,与mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI相比,可能改善健康结局并更有效地利用财政资源,这不仅有利于个体生存,从价值角度看也有利于医疗保健系统。