Cost‐effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab‐paclitaxel in borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients

Abstract Background The 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus nab‐paclitaxel (G‐nP) for borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC). Aim The purpose of our study was to compare t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cancer Reports
Main Authors: Myles A. Ingram, Brianna N. Lauren, Yoanna Pumpalova, Jiheum Park, Francesca Lim, Susan E. Bates, Fay Kastrinos, Gulam A. Manji, Chung Yin Kong, Chin Hur
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2022-09-01
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1565
_version_ 1856976312766300160
author Myles A. Ingram
Brianna N. Lauren
Yoanna Pumpalova
Jiheum Park
Francesca Lim
Susan E. Bates
Fay Kastrinos
Gulam A. Manji
Chung Yin Kong
Chin Hur
author_facet Myles A. Ingram
Brianna N. Lauren
Yoanna Pumpalova
Jiheum Park
Francesca Lim
Susan E. Bates
Fay Kastrinos
Gulam A. Manji
Chung Yin Kong
Chin Hur
author_sort Myles A. Ingram
collection DOAJ
container_title Cancer Reports
description Abstract Background The 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus nab‐paclitaxel (G‐nP) for borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC). Aim The purpose of our study was to compare treatment outcomes, toxicity profiles, costs, and quality‐of‐life measures between these two treatments to further inform clinical decision‐making. Methods and Results We developed a decision‐analytic mathematical model to compare the total cost and health outcomes of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX against G‐nP over 12 years. The model inputs were estimated using clinical trial data and published literature. The primary endpoint was incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $100 000 per quality‐adjusted‐life‐year (QALY). Secondary endpoints included overall (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS), total cost of care, QALYs, PDAC resection rate, and monthly treatment‐related adverse events (TRAE) costs (USD). FOLFIRINOX was the cost‐effective strategy, with an ICER of $60856.47 per QALY when compared to G‐nP. G‐nP had an ICER of $44639.71 per QALY when compared to natural history. For clinical outcomes, more patients underwent an “R0” resection with FOLFIRINOX compared to G‐nP (84.9 vs. 81.0%), but FOLFIRINOX had higher TRAE costs than G‐nP ($10905.19 vs. $4894.11). A one‐way sensitivity analysis found that the ICER of FOLFIRINOX exceeded the threshold when TRAE costs were higher or PDAC recurrence rates were lower. Conclusion Our modeling analysis suggests that FOLFIRNOX is the cost‐effective treatment compared to G‐nP for BR/LA PDAC despite having a higher cost of total care due to TRAE costs. Trial data with sufficient follow‐up are needed to confirm our findings.
format Article
id doaj-art-e421dd6448d6472fab80e7690d3e02c8
institution Directory of Open Access Journals
issn 2573-8348
language English
publishDate 2022-09-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
spelling doaj-art-e421dd6448d6472fab80e7690d3e02c82025-08-19T19:58:24ZengWileyCancer Reports2573-83482022-09-0159n/an/a10.1002/cnr2.1565Cost‐effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab‐paclitaxel in borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic cancer patientsMyles A. Ingram0Brianna N. Lauren1Yoanna Pumpalova2Jiheum Park3Francesca Lim4Susan E. Bates5Fay Kastrinos6Gulam A. Manji7Chung Yin Kong8Chin Hur9Division of General Medicine Columbia University Irving Medical Cancer and the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons New York New York USADivision of General Medicine Columbia University Irving Medical Cancer and the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons New York New York USADepartment of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons Columbia University New York New York USADivision of General Medicine Columbia University Irving Medical Cancer and the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons New York New York USADivision of General Medicine Columbia University Irving Medical Cancer and the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons New York New York USAHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center Columbia University Irving Medical Center New York New York USAHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center Columbia University Irving Medical Center New York New York USAHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center Columbia University Irving Medical Center New York New York USADivision of General Medicine Mount Sinai School of Medicine New York New York USADivision of General Medicine Columbia University Irving Medical Cancer and the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons New York New York USAAbstract Background The 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus nab‐paclitaxel (G‐nP) for borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC). Aim The purpose of our study was to compare treatment outcomes, toxicity profiles, costs, and quality‐of‐life measures between these two treatments to further inform clinical decision‐making. Methods and Results We developed a decision‐analytic mathematical model to compare the total cost and health outcomes of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX against G‐nP over 12 years. The model inputs were estimated using clinical trial data and published literature. The primary endpoint was incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $100 000 per quality‐adjusted‐life‐year (QALY). Secondary endpoints included overall (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS), total cost of care, QALYs, PDAC resection rate, and monthly treatment‐related adverse events (TRAE) costs (USD). FOLFIRINOX was the cost‐effective strategy, with an ICER of $60856.47 per QALY when compared to G‐nP. G‐nP had an ICER of $44639.71 per QALY when compared to natural history. For clinical outcomes, more patients underwent an “R0” resection with FOLFIRINOX compared to G‐nP (84.9 vs. 81.0%), but FOLFIRINOX had higher TRAE costs than G‐nP ($10905.19 vs. $4894.11). A one‐way sensitivity analysis found that the ICER of FOLFIRINOX exceeded the threshold when TRAE costs were higher or PDAC recurrence rates were lower. Conclusion Our modeling analysis suggests that FOLFIRNOX is the cost‐effective treatment compared to G‐nP for BR/LA PDAC despite having a higher cost of total care due to TRAE costs. Trial data with sufficient follow‐up are needed to confirm our findings.https://doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1565chemotherapyclinical cancer researchpancreatic cancer
spellingShingle Myles A. Ingram
Brianna N. Lauren
Yoanna Pumpalova
Jiheum Park
Francesca Lim
Susan E. Bates
Fay Kastrinos
Gulam A. Manji
Chung Yin Kong
Chin Hur
Cost‐effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab‐paclitaxel in borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients
chemotherapy
clinical cancer research
pancreatic cancer
title Cost‐effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab‐paclitaxel in borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients
title_full Cost‐effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab‐paclitaxel in borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients
title_fullStr Cost‐effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab‐paclitaxel in borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients
title_full_unstemmed Cost‐effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab‐paclitaxel in borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients
title_short Cost‐effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab‐paclitaxel in borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients
title_sort cost effectiveness of neoadjuvant folfirinox versus gemcitabine plus nab paclitaxel in borderline resectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients
topic chemotherapy
clinical cancer research
pancreatic cancer
url https://doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1565
work_keys_str_mv AT mylesaingram costeffectivenessofneoadjuvantfolfirinoxversusgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelinborderlineresectablelocallyadvancedpancreaticcancerpatients
AT briannanlauren costeffectivenessofneoadjuvantfolfirinoxversusgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelinborderlineresectablelocallyadvancedpancreaticcancerpatients
AT yoannapumpalova costeffectivenessofneoadjuvantfolfirinoxversusgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelinborderlineresectablelocallyadvancedpancreaticcancerpatients
AT jiheumpark costeffectivenessofneoadjuvantfolfirinoxversusgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelinborderlineresectablelocallyadvancedpancreaticcancerpatients
AT francescalim costeffectivenessofneoadjuvantfolfirinoxversusgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelinborderlineresectablelocallyadvancedpancreaticcancerpatients
AT susanebates costeffectivenessofneoadjuvantfolfirinoxversusgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelinborderlineresectablelocallyadvancedpancreaticcancerpatients
AT faykastrinos costeffectivenessofneoadjuvantfolfirinoxversusgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelinborderlineresectablelocallyadvancedpancreaticcancerpatients
AT gulamamanji costeffectivenessofneoadjuvantfolfirinoxversusgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelinborderlineresectablelocallyadvancedpancreaticcancerpatients
AT chungyinkong costeffectivenessofneoadjuvantfolfirinoxversusgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelinborderlineresectablelocallyadvancedpancreaticcancerpatients
AT chinhur costeffectivenessofneoadjuvantfolfirinoxversusgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelinborderlineresectablelocallyadvancedpancreaticcancerpatients