Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX for Patients with Borderline Resectable or Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a Decision Analysis. (17th December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Choi, Jin G.; Nipp, Ryan D.; Tramontano, Angela; Ali, Ayman; Zhan, Tiannan; Pandharipande, Pari; Dowling, Emily C.; Ferrone, Cristina R.; Hong, Theodore S.; Schrag, Deborah; Fernandez‐Del Castillo, Carlos; Ryan, David P.; Kong, Chung Yin; Hur, Chin
• Is Part Of: Oncologist. Volume 24:Number 7(2019)
• Page Start: 945
• Page End: 954
• Publication Date: 2018-12-17
• Subjects: Decision support techniques -- Pancreatic neoplasms -- Cost‐benefit analysis -- Computer simulation; Oncology -- Periodicals; Tumors -- Periodicals; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Tumeurs -- Périodiques; Oncology; Tumors; Neoplasms; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0114
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1083-7159

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of using neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (nFOLFIRINOX) for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC) are unknown. Our objective was to determine whether nFOLFIRINOX is more effective or cost‐effective for patients with BR/LA PDAC compared with upfront resection surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEM/CAPE) or gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM). Materials and Methods: We performed a decision‐analysis to assess the value of nFOLFIRINOX versus GEM/CAPE or GEM using a mathematical simulation model. Model transition probabilities were estimated using published and institutional clinical data. Model outcomes included overall and disease‐free survival, quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs), cost in U.S. dollars, and cost‐effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the uncertainty of model assumptions. Results: Model results found median overall survival (34.5/28.0/22.0 months) and disease‐free survival (15.0/14.0/13.0 months) were better for nFOLFIRINOX compared with GEM/CAPE and GEM. nFOLFIRINOX was the optimal strategy on an efficiency frontier, resulting in an additional 0.35 life‐years, or 0.30 QALYs, at a cost of $46, 200/QALY gained compared with GEM/CAPE. Sensitivity analysis found that cancer recurrence and complete resection rates most affected model results, but were otherwise robust. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found that nFOLFIRINOX was cost‐effective 92.4% of the time at a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $100, 000/QALY. Conclusion: Our modeling analysis suggests that nFOLFIRINOX is preferable to upfront surgery for patients with BR/LA PDAC from both an effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness standpoint. Additional clinical data that further define the long‐term effectiveness of nFOLFIRINOX are needed to confirm our results. Abstract : Decision‐analytic modeling can provide a methodologic platform that integrates the best available data to quantitatively explore clinical decisions by simulating a hypothetical clinical trial between competing strategies. This article analyzes a mathematical decision‐analytic model to estimate the long‐term clinical outcomes and cost‐effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX compared with surgery followed by adjuvant gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine/capecitabine for patients with potentially resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.