Free access

Research Article

11 May 2022

Cost–effectiveness of concurrent radiation with cetuximab or chemotherapy in older patients with oropharyngeal cancer

Authors: Husam Albarmawi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8870-0842, Kevin J Cullen, Ranee Mehra, Eberechukwu Onukwugha https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8547-1810 [email protected], and Olga GoloubevaAuthor Info & Affiliations

Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volume 11, Number 8

https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2021-0209

PDF OtherFormats

Abstract

Aim: To assess the cost–effectiveness of definitive therapies for nonmetastatic oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). Materials & methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare dataset, patients diagnosed between 2000 and 2011 were identified. The cost–effectiveness of chemoradiation (CRT) versus radiotherapy (RT), cetuximab plus RT (cetuximab-RT) versus RT and cetuximab-RT versus CRT were estimated. Results: The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio for CRT compared with RT from 2000 to 2005 was US$56,650 (95% CI: US$4,522–$288,688) per additional year of survival. CRT was dominated by RT from 2006 to 2011. Cetuximab-RT was dominated by RT and CRT. Conclusion: CRT had a favorable value from 2000 to 2005 but was dominated by RT from 2006 to 2011. The value of cetuximab-RT compared with RT/CRT was not favorable with similar/inferior survival and substantial incremental costs.

Supplementary Material

File (appendix.docx)

Download
50.44 KB

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

1.

Tota JE, Best AF, Zumsteg ZS, Gillison ML, Rosenberg PS, Chaturvedi AK. Evolution of the oropharynx cancer epidemic in the United States: moderation of increasing incidence in younger individuals and shift in the burden to older individuals. J. Clin. Oncol. 37(18), 1538–1546 (2019).

2.

Zumsteg ZS, Cook-Wiens G, Yoshida E et al. Incidence of oropharyngeal cancer among elderly patients in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2(12), 1617–1623 (2016).

• This study highlights the increased incidence of oropharyngeal cancer among older patients in the USA, which could be attributed to human papillomavirus infection.

3.

Chaturvedi AK, Anderson WF, Lortet-Tieulent J et al. Worldwide trends in incidence rates for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. J. Clin. Oncol. 31(36), 4550–4559 (2013).

4.

SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics [Internet]. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute. (Accessed 27 September 2021). https://seer.cancer.gov/explorer/

5.

Quon H, O'malley B Jr, Weinstein G. Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for the head and neck: current and future indications. Int. J. Head Neck Surg. 1(3), 133–140 (2010).

6.

Calais G, Alfonsi M, Bardet E et al. Randomized trial of radiation therapy versus concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy for advanced-stage oropharynx carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 91(24), 2081–2086 (1999).

7.

Adelstein DJ, Li Y, Adams GL et al. An intergroup Phase III comparison of standard radiation therapy and two schedules of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable squamous cell head and neck cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 21(1), 92–98 (2003).

8.

Cooper JS, Pajak TF, Forastiere AA et al. Postoperative concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy for high-risk squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N. Engl. J. Med. 350(19), 1937–1944 (2004).

9.

Bernier J, Domenge C, Ozsahin M et al. Postoperative irradiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 350(19), 1945–1952 (2004).

10.

Bonner JA, Harari PM, Giralt J et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N. Engl. J. Med. 354(6), 567–578 (2006).

11.

Koutcher L, Sherman E, Fury M et al. Concurrent cisplatin and radiation versus cetuximab and radiation for locally advanced head-and-neck cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Bio. Phys. 81(4), 915–922 (2011).

•• In this retrospective cohort study of patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer, patients who received concurrent cisplatin and radiation had better outcomes compared with patients who received cetuximab plus radiation.

12.

Magrini SM, Buglione M, Corvò R et al. Cetuximab and radiotherapy versus cisplatin and radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer: a randomized Phase II trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(5), 427–435 (2016).

13.

Gillison ML, Trotti AM, Harris J et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab or cisplatin in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (NRG Oncology RTOG 1016): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 393(10166), 40–50 (2019).

•• In this clinical trial among patients with human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer, cisplatin plus radiation outperformed cetuximab plus radiation.

14.

Mehanna H, Robinson M, Hartley A et al. Radiotherapy plus cisplatin or cetuximab in low-risk human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (De-ESCALaTE HPV): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 393(10166), 51–60 (2019).

•• In this clinical trial among patients with low-risk human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer, cisplatin plus radiation and cetuximab plus radiation had similar toxicity outcomes, but cisplatin outperformed cetuximab in tumor control.

15.

Saraswathula A, Chen MM, Colevas AD, Divi V. Assessing care value for older patients receiving radiotherapy with or without cisplatin or cetuximab for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 145(12), 1160–1167 (2019).

• This study showed that treatment with cetuximab was associated with higher costs compared to treatment with radiation therapy or cytotoxic chemotherapy.

16.

Van Der Linden N, Van Gils CW, Pescott CP, Buter J, Vergeer MR, Groot CA. Real-world cost–effectiveness of cetuximab in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 272(8), 2007–2016 (2015).

17.

Brown B, Diamantopoulos A, Bernier J et al. An economic evaluation of cetuximab combined with radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Value Health 11(5), 791–799 (2008).

18.

Chan AL, Leung HW, Huang S-F. Cost effectiveness of cetuximab concurrent with radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in Taiwan. Clin. Drug Investig. 31(10), 717–726 (2011).

19.

Division of Cancer Control & Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute. SEER-Medicare: brief description of the SEER-Medicare Database. (May 16, 2019). https://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/seermedicare/overview/

20.

Parsons L. Reducing bias in a propensity score matched-pair sample using greedy matching techniques. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference.214–226 (2001).

21.

Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat. Sci. 25(1), 1–21 (2010).

22.

Uno H, Claggett B, Tian L et al. Moving beyond the hazard ratio in quantifying the between-group difference in survival analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 32(22), 2380–2385 (2014).

23.

Bang H, Tsiatis A. Estimating medical costs with censored data. Biometrika 87(2), 329–343 (2000).

24.

Wijeysundera HC, Wang X, Tomlinson G, Ko DT, Krahn MD. Techniques for estimating health care costs with censored data: an overview for the health services researcher. Clinicoecon. Outcomes Res. 4, 145–155 (2012).

25.

Blanchard P, Baujat B, Holostenco V et al. Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): a comprehensive analysis by tumour site. Radiother. Oncol. 100(1), 33–40 (2011).

26.

Mehanna H, Beech T, Nicholson T et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus in oropharyngeal and nonoropharyngeal head and neck cancer—systematic review and meta-analysis of trends by time and region. Head Neck 35(5), 747–755 (2013).

• This study highlights the increase in the prevalence of human papillomavirus among patients with oropharyngeal cancer from 2000 to 2009.

27.

Ang KK, Harris J, Wheeler R et al. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 363(1), 24–35 (2010).

•• This study highlights the improved prognosis of human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer compared to human papillomavirus-negative oropharyngeal cancer.

28.

Rosenberg AJ, Vokes EE. Optimizing treatment de-escalation in head and neck cancer: current and future perspectives. Oncologist 26(1), 40–48 (2021).

• This study summarizes trials aimed at de-escalating the treatment of human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer given the concerns over morbidity and mortality related to chemotherapy as well as the improved prognosis of human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer.

29.

Pignon J, Bourhis J, Domenge CO, Designé LL, Group M-NC. Chemotherapy added to locoregional treatment for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma: three meta-analyses of updated individual data. Lancet 355(9208), 949–955 (2000).

30.

Bonner JA, Harari PM, Giralt J et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer: 5-year survival data from a phase 3 randomised trial, and relation between cetuximab-induced rash and survival. Lancet Oncol. 11(1), 21–28 (2010).

31.

Xiang M, Holsinger FC, Colevas AD, Chen MM, Le Q-T, Beadle BM. Survival of patients with head and neck cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy and concurrent cisplatin or concurrent cetuximab: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare analysis. Cancer 124(23), 4486–4494 (2018).

|