TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-Minimisation analysis in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in France
T2 - XELOX versus FOLFOX-6
AU - Perrocheau, G.
AU - Bennouna, J.
AU - Ducreux, M.
AU - Hebbar, M.
AU - Ychou, M.
AU - Lledo, G.
AU - Conroy, T.
AU - Dominguez, S.
AU - Faroux, R.
AU - Florentin, V.
AU - Douillard, J. Y.
PY - 2011/3/1
Y1 - 2011/3/1
N2 - Objective: In a recent randomized study, we demonstrated that XELOX (oxaliplatin + oral capecitabine) was well tolerated and not inferior in terms of efficacy to the infusional FOLFOX-6 regimen in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective of this additional analysis was to compare the cost of XELOX and FOLFOX-6. Methods: This cost-minimisation study took into account costs related to drug acquisition, hospital care for chemotherapy administration and for serious adverse event management. Hospital care costs were based on French 'diagnosis-related group' tariffs. Drug acquisition costs were drawn from French official sources. Analysis was performed from the French health insurance perspective. Results: Baseline characteristics of the 282 patients included (143 XELOX, 139 FOLFOX-6) were well balanced. Patients reported less and shorter hospitalisations (day and overnight hospital care) with XELOX: 6.4 ± 2.2 hospitalisations versus 9.7 ± 3.1 (p < 0.001); 11.4 ± 10.6 days versus 17.7 ± 11.8 (p < 0.001). Mean disease management cost per patient was significantly lower with XELOX (EUR 12,918 ± 5,075 vs. EUR 17,229 ± 8,665, p < 0.001). Conclusion: In the perspective of our analysis, taking into account hospitalisation and drug acquisition costs, the treatment of mCRC patients with XELOX in comparison to FOLFOX-6 significantly decreased the costs, as well as the mean overall hospitalisation length of stay.
AB - Objective: In a recent randomized study, we demonstrated that XELOX (oxaliplatin + oral capecitabine) was well tolerated and not inferior in terms of efficacy to the infusional FOLFOX-6 regimen in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective of this additional analysis was to compare the cost of XELOX and FOLFOX-6. Methods: This cost-minimisation study took into account costs related to drug acquisition, hospital care for chemotherapy administration and for serious adverse event management. Hospital care costs were based on French 'diagnosis-related group' tariffs. Drug acquisition costs were drawn from French official sources. Analysis was performed from the French health insurance perspective. Results: Baseline characteristics of the 282 patients included (143 XELOX, 139 FOLFOX-6) were well balanced. Patients reported less and shorter hospitalisations (day and overnight hospital care) with XELOX: 6.4 ± 2.2 hospitalisations versus 9.7 ± 3.1 (p < 0.001); 11.4 ± 10.6 days versus 17.7 ± 11.8 (p < 0.001). Mean disease management cost per patient was significantly lower with XELOX (EUR 12,918 ± 5,075 vs. EUR 17,229 ± 8,665, p < 0.001). Conclusion: In the perspective of our analysis, taking into account hospitalisation and drug acquisition costs, the treatment of mCRC patients with XELOX in comparison to FOLFOX-6 significantly decreased the costs, as well as the mean overall hospitalisation length of stay.
KW - Capecitabine
KW - Chemotherapy
KW - Colorectal cancer
KW - Cost-minimisation study
KW - France
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952048668&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1159/000325999
DO - 10.1159/000325999
M3 - Article
C2 - 21358204
AN - SCOPUS:79952048668
SN - 0030-2414
VL - 79
SP - 174
EP - 180
JO - Oncology (Switzerland)
JF - Oncology (Switzerland)
IS - 3-4
ER -