Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Economic Evaluation of Monoclonal Antibodies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the major causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. The median overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has doubled over the last 20 years partly due to the introduction of advanced biologic therapies. However, these treatment modalities bear significant costs on healthcare systems globally, and may jeopardize their fiscal sustainability. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise the economic evaluations of monoclonal antibodies in mCRC.

Methodology

A literature search was performed in the electronic databases of: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, EMBASE, EMBASE Alert, PUBMED, NHS Economic Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment Database for full articles published from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020.

Results

Twenty economic analyses were identified in the literature that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and evaluated the cost-effectiveness of (a) bevacizumab as first-line treatment for mCRC and as maintenance treatment, (b) cetuximab as first-line treatment, (c) panitumumab versus bevacizumab and cetuximab versus bevacizumab as first-line treatment, (d) aflibercept and ramucirumab as second-line treatment, (e) cetuximab and panitumumab as third-line treatment, (f) cetuximab versus panitumumab as later lines of treatment, and (g) RAS testing prior to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) treatment.

Conclusions

Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy is cost-effective as neither first-line treatment nor maintenance treatment. Sequential treatment with bevacizumab in first-line and second-line treatment was also not cost-effective. Testing for KRAS and extended RAS mutations is cost-effective and should be performed prior to anti-EGFR treatment. In the RAS wild-type subgroup of mCRCs the use of anti-EGFR (panitumumab or cetuximab) in first-line treatment leads to a more favorable cost-effectiveness profile than the corresponding anti-VEGF (bevacizumab). Cetuximab is not cost-effective as a first-line treatment. Anti-EGFR administration is not a cost-effective strategy in third-line treatment, even for RAS wild-type mCRCs, compared to best supportive care. Aflibercept was superior to ramucirumab and costed less, but neither were cost-effective compared to standard care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Favoriti P, Carbone G, Greco M, Pirozzi F, Pirozzi RE, Corcione F. Worldwide burden of colorectal cancer: a review. Updat Surg. 2016;68(1):7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold M, Sierra MS, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Gut. 2017;66(4):683–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Murphy CC, Harlan LC, Lund JL, Lynch CF, Geiger AM. Patterns of colorectal cancer care in the United States: 1990–2010. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(10):djv198. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv198.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Eurostat, 2018. Cancer statistics—specific cancers. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/39738.pdf, Accessed 3 Jul 2019.

  5. American Cancer Society, 2019. Survival Rates for Colorectal Cancer. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/colon-rectal-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates.html Accessed 10 Jul 2019.

  6. Bresalier RS. Colorectal cancer. In: Feldman M, Friedman LS, Brandt LJ, editors. Sleisenger and Fordtran’s gastrointestinal and liver disease. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2016. p. 2248–96.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sorich MJ, Wiese MD, Rowland A, Kichenadasse G, McKinnon RA, Karapetis CS. Extended RAS mutations and anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody survival benefit in metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(1):13–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R, Sobrero A, Van Krieken JH, Aderka D, Aranda Aguilar E, Bardelli A, Benson A, Bodoky G, Ciardiello F, D’Hoore A, Diaz-Rubio E, Douillard J-Y, Ducreux M, Falcone A, Grothey A, Gruenberger T, Haustermans K, Heinemann V, Hoff P, Köhne C-H, Labianca R, Laurent-Puig P, Ma B, Maughan T, Muro K, Normanno N, Österlund P, Oyen WJG, Papamichael D, Pentheroudakis G, Pfeiffer P, Price TJ, Punt C, Ricke J, Roth A, Salazar R, Scheithauer W, Schmoll HJ, Tabernero J, Taïeb J, Tejpar S, Wasan H, Yoshino T, Zaanan A, Arnold D. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:1386–422.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tran B, Kopetz S, Tie J, Gibbs P, Jiang ZQ, Lieu CH, Agarwal A, Maru DM, Sieber O, Desai J. Impact of BRAF mutation and microsatellite instability on the pattern of metastatic spread and prognosis in metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer. 2011;117(20):4623–32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Witsch E, Sela M, Yarden Y. Roles for Growth Factors in Cancer Progression. Physiology (Bethesda). 2010;25(2):85–101.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lange A, Prenzler A, Frank M, Kirstein M, Vogel A, von der Schulenburg JM. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:40–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF, Bloom BS, Neumann PJ, Sullivan SD, Yu HT, Keeler EB, Ofman JJ. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care. 2003;41(1):32–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ofman JJ, Sullivan SD, Neumann PJ, Chiou C-F, Henning JM, Wade SW, Hay JW. Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. Managed Care Pharmacy. 2003;9:53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gerkens S, Crott R, Cleemput I, Thissen J-P, Closon M-C, Horsmans Y, Beguin C. Comparison of three instruments assessing the quality of economic evaluations: a practical exercise on economic evaluations of the surgical treatment of obesity. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(3):318–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldstein DA, Chen Q, Ayer T, Chan KKW, Virik K, Hammerman A, Brenner B, Flowers CR, Hall PS. Bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: a global cost-effectiveness analysis. Oncologist. 2017;22:694–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Goldstein DA, Chen Q, Ayer T, Howard DH, Lipscomb J, El-Rayes BF, Flowers CR. First- and second-line bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(10):1112–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sherman SK, Lange JJ, Dahdaleh FS, Rajeev R, Gamblin TC, Polite BN, Turaga KK. Cost-effectiveness of maintenance capecitabine and bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(2):236–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Graham CN, Maglinte GA, Schwartzberg LS, Price TJ, Knox HN, Hechmati G, Hjelmgren J, Barber B, Fakih MG. Economic analysis of panitumumab compared with cetuximab in patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer that progressed after standard chemotherapy. Clin Ther. 2016;38(6):1376–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Graham CN, Christodoulopoulou A, Knox HN, Sabatelli L, Hechmati G, Garawin T, Strickler JH. A within-trial costeffectiveness analysis of panitumumab compared with bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer in the US. J Med Econ. 2018;21(11):1075–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shankaran V, Ortendahl JD, Purdum AG, Bolinder B, Anene AM, Sun GH, Bentley TGK. Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer in the United States. Am J Clin Oncol. 2018;41(1):65–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ungari AQ, Pereira LRL, Nunes AA, Peria FM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of XELOX versus XELOX plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer in a public hospital school. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:691.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Carvalho AC, Leal F, Sasse AD. Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab and panitumumab for chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(4):e0175409.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoyle M, Peters J, Crathorne L, Jones-Hughes T, Cooper C, Napier M, Hyde C. Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab, cetuximab plus irinotecan, and panitumumab for third and further lines of treatment for KRAS wild-type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Value Health. 2013;16(2):288–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Harty G, Jarrett J, Jofre-Bonet M. Consequences of biomarker analysis on the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in combination with FOLFIRI as a first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: personalised medicine at work. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018;16(4):515–25.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Wu B, Yao Y, Zhang K, Ma X. RAS testing and cetuximab treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting with limited health resources. Oncotarget. 2017;8(41):71164–72.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Wen F, Yang Y, Zhang P, Zhang J, Zhou J, Tang R, Chen H, Zheng H, Fu P, Li Q. Cost-effectiveness of RAS screening before monoclonal antibodies therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer based on FIRE3 study. Cancer Biol Ther. 2015;16(11):1577–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Franken MD, van Rooijen EM, May AM, Koffijberg H, van Tinteren H, Mol L, ten Tije AJ, Creemers GJ, van der Velden AMT, Tanis BC, Uyl-de Groot CA, Punt CJA, Koopman M, van Oijen MGH. Cost-effectiveness of capecitabine and bevacizumab maintenance treatment after first-line induction treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2017;75:204–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Uyl-de Groot CA, van Rooijen EM, Punt CJA, Pescott CP. Real-world cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer based on patient chart review in the Netherlands. Heal Econ Rev. 2018;8(1):13.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Carter HE, Zannino D, Simes RJ, Schofield DJ, Howard K, Zalcberg JR, Price TJ, Tebbutt NC. The cost effectiveness of bevacizumab when added to capecitabine, with or without mitomycin-C, as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Australasian phase III MAX study. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:535–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Matter-Walstra K, Schwenkglenks M, Betticher D, von Moos R, Dietrich D, Baertschi D, Koeberle D. Bevacizumab continuation versus treatment holidays after first-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a health economic analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial (SAKK 41/06). Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016;15(4):314–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Graham CN, Hechmati G, Hjelmgren J, de Liège F, Lanier J, Knox H, Barber B. Cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(16):2791–801.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Rivera F, Valladares M, Gea S, López-Martínez N. Cost-effectiveness analysis in the Spanish setting of the PEAK trial of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer. J Med Econ. 2017;20(6):574–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Davari M, Ashrafi F, Maracy M, Aslani A, Tabatabaei M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab in treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Iranian pharmaceutical market. Int J Prev Med. 2015;6:63. https://doi.org/10.4103/2008-7802.161068.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Kashiwa M, Matsushita R. Comparative cost-effectiveness of aflibercept and ramucirumab in combination with irinotecan and fluorouracil-based therapy for the second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan. Clin Ther. 2020;42(7):1361–75.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Macedo LT, da Costa Lima AB, Sasse AD. Addition of bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis, with emphasis on chemotherapy subgroups. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hurwitz HI, Tebbutt NC, Kabbinavar F, Giantonio BJ, Guan ZZ, Mitchell L, Waterkamp D, Tabernero J. Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: pooled analysis from seven randomized controlled trials. Oncologist. 2013;18(9):1004–12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Saltz LB, Clarke S, Díaz-Rubio E, Scheithauer W, Figer A, Wong R, Koski S, Lichinitser M, Yang TS, Rivera F, Couture F, Sirzén F, Cassidy J. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(12):2013–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tournigand C, André T, Achille E, Lledo G, Flesh M, Mery-Mignard D, Quinaux E, Couteau C, Buyse M, Ganem G, Landi B, Colin P, Louvet C, de Gramont A. FOLFIRI followed by FOLFOX6 or the reverse sequence in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomized GERCOR study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(2):229–37.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S, Humblet Y, Hendlisz A, Neyns B, Canon JL, Van Laethem JL, Maurel J, Richardson G, Wolf M, Amado RG. Open-label phase III trial of panitimumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(13):1658–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bennouna J, Sastre J, Arnold D, Österlund P, Greil R, Van Cutsem E, von Moos R, Vieitez JM, Bouche O, Borg C, Steffens C, Alonso-Orduna V, Schlichting C, Reyes-Rivera I, Bendahmane B, Andre T, Kubicka S, ML18147 Study Investigators. Continuation of bevacizumab after first progression in metastatic colorectal cancer (ML18147): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(1):29–37.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Simkens LH, van Tinteren H, May A, ten Tije AJ, Creemers GJ, Loosveld OJ, de Jongh FE, Erdkamp FL, Erjavec Z, van der Torren AM, Tol J, Braun HJ, Nieboer P, van der Hoeven JJ, Haasjes JG, Jansen RL, Wals J, Cats A, Derleyn VA, Honkoop AH, Mol L, Punt CJ, Koopman M. Maintenance treatment with capecitabine and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (CAIRO3): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. Lancet. 2015;385(9980):1843–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Köberle D, Betticher DC, von Moos R, Dietrich D, Brauchli P, Baertschi D, Matter K, Winterhalder R, Borner M, Anchisi S, Moosmann P, Kollar A, Saletti P, Roth A, Frueh M, Kueng M, Popescu RA, Schacher S, Hess V, Herrmann R. Bevacizumab continuation versus no continuation after first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III non-inferiority trial (SAKK 41/06). Ann Oncol. 2015;26(4):709–14.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Schwartzberg LS, Rivera F, Karthaus M, Fasola G, Canon JL, Hecht JR, Yu H, Oliner KS, Go WY. PEAK: a randomized, multicenter phase II study of panitumumab plus modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) or bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with previously untreated, unresectable, wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(21):2240–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Van Cutsem E, Köhne CH, Hitre E, Zaluski J, Chang Chien CR, Makhson A, D’Haens G, Pintér T, Lim R, Bodoky G, Roh JK, Folprecht G, Ruff P, Stroh C, Tejpar S, Schlichting M, Nippgen J, Rougier P. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1408–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T, Kiani A, Vehling-Kaiser U, Al-Batran SE, Heintges T, Lerchenmüller C, Kahl C, Seipelt G, Kullmann F, Stauch M, Scheithauer W, Hielscher J, Scholz M, Müller S, Link H, Niederle N, Rost A, Höffkes HG, Moehler M, Lindig RU, Modest DP, Rossius L, Kirchner T, Jung A, Stintzing S. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncology. 2014;15(10):1065–75.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Makhson A, Hartmann JT, Aparicio J, de Braud F, Donea S, Ludwig H, Schuch G, Stroh C, Loos AH, Zubel A, Koralewski P. Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with and without cetuximab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(5):663–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Ocvirk J, Brodowicz T, Wrba F, Ciuleanu TE, Kurteva G, Beslija S, Koza I, Pápai Z, Messinger D, Yilmaz U, Faluhelyi Z, Yalcin S, Papamichael D, Wenczl M, Mrsic-Krmpotic Z, Shacham-Shmueli E, Vrbanec D, Esser R, Scheithauer W, Zielinski CC. Cetuximab plus FOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI in metastatic colorectal cancer: CECOG trial. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(25):3133–43.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhao G, Gao P, Yang KH, Tian JH, Ma B. Capecitabine/oxaliplatin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(7):615–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Karapetis C, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker D, O’Callaghan CJ, Tu D, Tebbutt NC, Simes RJ, Chalchal H, Shapiro JD, Robitaille S, Price TJ, Shepherd L, Au HJ, Langer C, Moore MJ, Zalcberg JR. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(17):1757–65.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Price TJ, Peeters M, Kim TW, Li J, Cascinu S, Ruff P, Suresh AS, Thomas A, Tjulandin S, Zhang K, Murugappan S, Sidhu R. Panitumumab versus cetuximab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (ASPECCT): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(6):569–79.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, Van Cutschem E, Siena S, Freeman DJ, Juan T, Sikorski R, Suggs S, Radinsky R, Patterson SD, Chang DD. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(10):1626–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, Khayat D, Bleiberg H, Santoro A, Bets D, Mueser M, Harstrick A, Verslype C, Chau I, Van Cutsem E. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(4):337–45.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. De Roock W, Claes B, Bernasconi D, De Schutter J, Biesmans B, Fountzilas G, Kalogeras KT, Kotoula V, Papamichael D, Laurent-Puig P, Penault-Llorca F, Rougier P, Vincenzi B, Santini D, Tonini G, Cappuzzo F, Frattini M, Molinari F, Saletti P, De Dosso S, Martini M, Bardelli A, Siena S, Sartore-Bianchi A, Tabernero J, Macarulla T, Di Fiore F, Gangloff AO, Ciardiello F, Pfeiffer P, Qvortrup C, Hansen TP, Van Cutsem E, Piessevaux H, Lambrechts D, Delorenzi M, Tejpar S. Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective consortium analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(8):753–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70130-3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. De Roock W, Piessevaux H, De Schutter J, Janssens M, De Hertogh G, Personeni N, Biesmans B, Van Laethem JL, Peeters M, Humblet Y, Van Cutsem E, Tejpar S. KRAS wild-type state predicts survival and is associated to early radiological response in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(3):508–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lievre A, Bachet JB, Boige V, Cayre A, Le Corre D, Buc E, Ychou M, Bouché O, Landi B, Louvet C, André T, Bibeau F, Diebold MD, Rougier P, Ducreux M, Tomasic G, Emile JF, Penault-Llorca F, Laurent-Puig P. KRAS mutationns as an independent prognostic factor in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(3):374–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Petrou P. Assessing the pricing and benefits of oncology products: an update. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;21(3):335–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Cameron D, Ubels J, Norström F. On what basis are medical cost-effectiveness thresholds set? Clashing opinions and an absence of data: a systematic review. Glob Health Action. 2018;11:1447828.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European University of Cyprus, Engomi-Nicosia, Cyprus

    Stavroula Koilakou

  2. Pharmacoepidemiology-Pharmacovigilance, Pharmacy School, School of Sciences and Engineering, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Panagiotis Petrou

Authors
  1. Stavroula Koilakou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Panagiotis Petrou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stavroula Koilakou.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Not applicable.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Author contributions

All authors contributed equally to the article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koilakou, S., Petrou, P. Economic Evaluation of Monoclonal Antibodies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review. Mol Diagn Ther 25, 715–734 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-021-00560-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-021-00560-4

Search

Navigation