Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel vs FOLFIRINOX in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2022 Jul 1;6(4):pkac047. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkac047.

Abstract

Background: There are no randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) and fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Although it is well known that RCT-based efficacy often does not translate to real-world effectiveness, there is limited literature investigating comparative cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC. We aimed to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario, Canada.

Methods: This study compared patients treated with first-line Gem-Nab or FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario from April 2015 to March 2019. Patients were linked to administrative databases. Using propensity scores and a stabilizing weights method, an inverse probability of treatment weighted cohort was developed. Mean survival and total costs were calculated over a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted at 1.5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit were computed to estimate cost-effectiveness from the public health-care payer's perspective. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the propensity score matching method.

Results: A total of 1988 patients were identified (Gem-Nab: n = 928; FOLFIRINOX: n = 1060). Mean survival was lower for patients in the Gem-Nab than the FOLFIRINOX group (0.98 vs 1.26 life-years; incremental effectiveness = -0.28 life-years [95% confidence interval = -0.47 to -0.13]). Patients in the Gem-Nab group incurred greater mean 5-year total costs (Gem-Nab: $103 884; FOLFIRINOX: $101 518). Key cost contributors include ambulatory cancer care, acute inpatient hospitalization, and systemic therapy drug acquisition. Gem-Nab was dominated by FOLFIRINOX, as it was less effective and more costly. Results from the sensitivity analysis were similar.

Conclusions: Gem-Nab is likely more costly and less effective than FOLFIRINOX and therefore not considered cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Albumins
  • Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Deoxycytidine / analogs & derivatives
  • Fluorouracil* / therapeutic use
  • Gemcitabine
  • Humans
  • Irinotecan / therapeutic use
  • Leucovorin / therapeutic use
  • Ontario / epidemiology
  • Oxaliplatin / therapeutic use
  • Paclitaxel
  • Pancreatic Neoplasms* / drug therapy

Substances

  • 130-nm albumin-bound paclitaxel
  • Albumins
  • folfirinox
  • Oxaliplatin
  • Deoxycytidine
  • Irinotecan
  • Paclitaxel
  • Leucovorin
  • Fluorouracil
  • Gemcitabine

Grants and funding