Abstract
Background: To explore the potential value of consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in stage II colon cancer treatment selection, we carried out an early cost-effectiveness assessment of a CMS-based strategy for adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: We used a Markov cohort model to evaluate three selection strategies: (i) the Dutch guideline strategy (MSS+pT4), (ii) the mutation-based strategy (MSS plus a BRAF and/or KRAS mutation or MSS plus pT4), and (iii) the CMS-based strategy (CMS4 or pT4). Outcomes were number of colon cancer deaths per 1, 000 patients, total discounted costs per patient (pp), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) pp. The analyses were conducted from a Dutch societal perspective. The robustness of model predictions was assessed in sensitivity analyses. To evaluate the value of future research, we performed a value of information (VOI) analysis. Results: The Dutch guideline strategy resulted in 8.10 QALYs pp and total costs of €23, 660 pp. The CMS-based and mutation-based strategies were more effective and more costly, with 8.12 and 8.13 QALYs pp and €24, 643 and €24, 542 pp, respectively. Assuming a threshold of €50, 000/QALY, the mutation-based strategy was considered as the optimal strategy in an incremental analysis. However, the VOI analysis showed substantial decision uncertainty driven by the molecular markers (expected value of partial perfect information: €18M). Conclusions: Onthe basis of current evidence, our analyses suggest that the mutation-based selection strategy would be the best use of resources. However, the extensive decision uncertainty for the molecular markers does not allow selection of an optimal strategy at present. Impact: Future research is needed to eliminate decision uncertainty driven by molecular markers.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1726-1734 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Sept 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:M.J.E. Greuter reports grants from ZonMw during the conduct of the study. M. Koopman reports other support from Nordic Farma, Merck-Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Servier, and grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche, and Servier outside the submitted work. L. Vermeulen reports personal fees from Genentech, and grants from Pierre Fabre, MSD, Bayer, and Servier outside the submitted work. G.R. Vink reports grants from Servier, Sirtex, BMS, Bayer, Merck, Pierre Fabre, and Personal Genome Diagnostics outside the submitted work. V.M.H. Coupéreports grants from ZonMw during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from KWF, ZonMw, Novartis, and GSK outside the submitted work. No disclosures were reported by the other authors.
Funding Information:
Financial support for this study was provided by a grant from ZonMw (grant no.: 848015007). ZonMw had no role in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing the manuscript, and publishing the report. The authors thank the registration team of The Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL) for the collection of the data for the NCR.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Association for Cancer Research.
