French multi-institutional cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine alone as second-line treatment in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients.

Abstract

Context: In France, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) is heterogeneously used in metastatic pancreatic cancer due to disparities in its financial accessibility in the institutions.

Objectives: GEM-NAB conduct a French multi-institutional cost-effectiveness analysis of GEM-NAB versus gemcitabine alone (GEM) as second-line treatment in pancreatic cancer patients.

Design: All the unresected metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) consecutive patients who received GEM-NAB (institution 1) or GEM alone (institutions 2 and 3) as second-line treatment after failure of a 5-fluorouracil based systemic chemotherapy regimen were screened.

Methods: This study was conducted from the French national healthcare insurance perspective. The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS) expressed in months, calculated from the date of the first second-line chemotherapy administration to death. Only direct (medical and non-medical) costs have been considered for this analysis. Data were collected retrospectively in one university hospital and two general hospitals.

Results: The OS was significantly improved in patients receiving GEM-NAB (hazard ratio: 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.38-0.77, p = 0.001), with a median OS of 6.2 months (versus 4.1 months in patients receiving GEM alone). Taking into account the cost of GEM-NAB which was afforded by each institution, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €1,449,231 by year of life (€40,256 per patient). In both groups, most of the costs were attributable to readmissions and outpatient chemotherapy administration.

Conclusion: The issues of the article is based on the trade-off between the benefit in terms of OS of patients treated with GEM-NAB, which is minor (a gain of 2 months of survival, with an accumulated rate of grade ⩾ 3 non-hematological adverse effects) and the additional institutional cost (€25k per year of life for each patient treated). The debate is complex and refers to an ethical component, which is the cost of human life when no other therapeutic alternative is offered to the patient.