Cost comparison of XELOX compared to FOLFOX4 with or without bevacizumab (bev) in metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

4074 Background: A recent randomized 2x2 phase III trial compared oral capecitabine + IV oxaliplatin (XELOX); IV 5FU/LV/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4), XELOX+bev, and FOLFOX4+bev. FOLFOX4 was the regulatory control. XELOX was non-inferior to FOLFOX4 for progression-free survival, and bev-containing regimens were superior to comparison arms. This economic analysis compared expected costs in XELOX vs. FOLFOX4 arms in a US setting from a payer and societal perspective. Methods: Direct medical and indirect cost estimates (for patient time and travel) were compared. Resource use and patient time were estimated based on trial data and protocols. Data collected during the trial and used in the analysis were as follows: no. of visits / duration of drug administration, central venous access management, treatment of adverse events (AE), including hospital days for treatment-related AEs and total hours of ambulatory encounters. Unit costs were based on government fee schedules (i.e. Medicare reimbursements) and other published sources. Results: Total direct medical cost estimates were similar for bi-weekly FOLFOX4 and 3-weekly XELOX: $45,800 vs. $44,500. XELOX had higher drug costs while FOLFOX had higher drug administration costs, with about 15 more visits. Costs for hospitalization and ambulatory encounters were slightly lower for FOLFOX4; other medications and venous access were slightly higher for FOLFOX4. Similar patterns held for FOLFOX4+bev vs. XELOX+bev (total direct medical cost estimates $76,100 vs. $79,200). Indirect time cost estimates were lower with XELOX due to fewer cycles and visits: estimated savings range from $1000-$5000 depending on assumptions used. Conclusion: XELOX is estimated to have similar total direct medical costs and lower indirect costs compared with FOLFOX4. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.