Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1 genotyping in second-line, high-dose, once every 3 weeks irinotecan monotherapy treatment of colorectal cancer. METHODS: Standard therapy was compared with alternative strategies based on UGT1A1 genotyping from the US healthcare payer perspective. Two alternative strategies (dose reduction and prophylactic use of G-CSF with prior genotyping) and standard therapy were evaluated in a decision analysis, whereas alternative regimens were considered in discussion. The effectiveness outcome was severe neutropenia occurrence and number of life-years gained. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: Genotyping in combination with a subsequent reduction of initial irinotecan dose for UGT1A1 7/7 genotype patients was cost-saving for the population of African and Caucasian origin. By contrast, UGT1A1 genotyping was not cost effective for the population of Asian ancestry. Furthermore, the prophylactic use of G-CSFs in UGT1A1 7/7 genotype patients was not cost effective in any population group. Finally, the application of a 3-weekly high-dose treatment regimen with a 20% reduced dosage compared with the low-dose weekly irinotecan regimen in patients with UGT1A1 7/7 genotype was less expensive and is more convenient for the patient.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Obradović et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: