Résumé
Abstract only 13506 Background: The oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine is as effective but better tolerated than i.v. 5-FU/LV as first-line treatment in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer. Costs associated with the administration route could vary widely according to national rules and medical practice. We compared costs and outcomes of capecitabine, the Mayo Clinic, and de Gramont regimens as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. Methods: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of the three regimens using the third-party payer perspective, time horizon and efficacy/safety data (adjusted for indirect comparisons) from two published clinical trials [Twelves et al. N Engl J Med 2005; Andre et al. J Clin Oncol 2003]. The costs of chemotherapy and the treatment of side effects were estimated from the clinical trials and expert opinion. We applied French standard costs to resources consumed and evaluated cost-effectiveness using relapse-free survival (RFS), defined in X-ACT study, as an efficacy indicator. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed varying the cost estimates for each treatment. Results: Capecitabine-treated pts had a mean life duration increase without treatment failure of 1.3 months vs. Mayo (see table). De Gramont was considered as effective as Mayo. In the base-case analysis capecitabine appeared to be dominant, more effective and less costly than either Mayo Clinic or de Gramont. In the sensitivity analyses, capecitabine remained dominant except for the minimum costs scenario vs. de Gramont. In this case, the cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 8997.55€ per year without relapse. Conclusions: As adjuvant treatment for colon cancer, capecitabine decreases medical resources consumed, mainly in hospitals. Its approval in this setting is expected to bring cost savings and better outcomes. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]