AbstractBackgroundMonoclonal antibodies against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have proved beneficial for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), particularly when combined ...with predictive biomarkers of response. International guidelines recommend anti-EGFR therapy only for RAS ( NRAS,KRAS) wild-type tumors because tumors with RAS mutations are unlikely to benefit. ObjectivesWe aimed to review the cost-effectiveness of RAS testing in mCRC patients before anti-EGFR therapy and to assess how well economic evaluations adhere to guidelines. MethodsA systematic review of full economic evaluations comparing RAS testing with no testing was performed for articles published in English between 2000 and 2018. Study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies scale, and the British Medical Journal and the Philips checklists. ResultsSix economic evaluations (2 cost-effectiveness analyses, 2 cost-utility analyses, and 2 combined cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses) were included. All studies were of good quality and adopted the perspective of the healthcare system/payer; accordingly, only direct medical costs were considered. Four studies presented testing strategies with a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio under the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (£20 000-£30 000/QALY) and the US ($50 000-$100 000/QALY) thresholds. ConclusionsTesting mCRC patients for RAS status and administering EGFR inhibitors only to patients with RAS wild-type tumors is a more cost-effective strategy than treating all patients without testing. The treatment of mCRC is becoming more personalized, which is essential to avoid inappropriate therapy and unnecessarily high healthcare costs. Future economic assessments should take into account other parameters that reflect the real world (eg, NRAS mutation analysis, toxicity of biological agents, genetic test sensitivity and specificity).
PDF