, Volume 36, Issue 11, pp 1333–1343 | Cite as

Economic Evaluation for the UK of Systemic Chemotherapies as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

  • Mahdi Gharaibeh
  • Ali McBride
  • David S. Alberts
  • Brian Erstad
  • Marion Slack
  • Nimer Alsaid
  • J. Lyle Bootman
  • Ivo AbrahamEmail author
Original Research Article



Gemcitabine (GEM), oxaliplatin plus GEM (OX + GEM), cisplatin plus GEM (CIS + GEM), capecitabine plus GEM (CAP + GEM), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and nab-paclitaxel plus GEM (NAB-P + GEM) are the most commonly used regimens as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) in the UK. Independent economic evaluation of these regimens simultaneously has not been conducted for the UK.


Using data from a network meta-analysis as efficacy measures, we estimated the cost effectiveness and cost utility of these regimens for the UK.


A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed-disease, and death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained and life-years [LYs]) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for patients with MPC, from the payer perspective. The model was specified to calculate total costs in 2017 British pounds (GBP, £). All values were discounted at 3.5% per year over a full lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results.


FFX was the most effective regimen, NAB-P + GEM was the most costly regimen, and GEM was the least costly and least effective regimen. OX + GEM, CIS + GEM, and NAB-P + GEM were dominated by CAP + GEM and FFX. Compared with GEM, the ICUR for CAP + GEM and FFX was £28,066 and £33,020/QALY gained, respectively; compared with GEM, the ICER for CAP + GEM and FFX was £17,437 and £22,291/LY gained, respectively; and compared with CAP + GEM, the ICUR and ICER for FFX were £34,947/QALY gained and 24,414/LY gained, respectively.


At a threshold value of £30,000/QALY, CAP + GEM was found to be the only cost-effective regimen in the management of MPC in the UK.



The authors thank Stephanie Fletcher for her assistance in the technical preparation of this manuscript.

Author Contributions

Concept and overall approach: MG, AM, JLB, NA, IA. Study design: MG, IA. Interpretation of results: MG, AM, DA, MS, BE, JLB, IA. Clinical guidance: AM, DA. Drafting of the manuscript: MG, IA. Critical review of manuscript: AM, DA, BE, MS, JLB.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Mahdi Gharaibeh. Ali McBride, David S. Alberts, Marion Slack, Brian Erstad, J. Lyle Bootman, Nimer Alsaid, and Ivo Abraham declare no competing interests.

Research Support

This analysis was conducted independently and without external funding support.

Supplementary material

40273_2018_684_MOESM1_ESM.docx (151 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 150 kb)


  1. 1.
    Cancer Research UK. Pancreatic cancer statistics. 2013. Accessed 4 Sept 2017.
  2. 2.
    Goel G, Sun W. Novel approaches in the management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: potential promises for the future. J Hematol Oncol. 2015;8:44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burris HA 3rd, Moore MJ, Andersen J, Green MR, Rothenberg ML, Modiano MR, et al. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2403–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choi M, Razzaque S, Kim R. Systemic therapy of advanced pancreatic cancer: has the landscape changed? Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2012;10:442–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hu J, Zhao G, Wang H-X. A meta-analysis of gemcitabine containing chemotherapy for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Hematol Oncol. 2011;4:11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moore MJ, Goldstein D, Hamm J, Figer A, Hecht JR, Gallinger S, et al. National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1960–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, Bouché O, Guimbaud R, Bécouarn Y, et al. Groupe Tumeurs Digestives of Unicancer; PRODIGE Intergroup. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1817–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, Chiorean EG, Infante J, Moore M, et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1691–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gharaibeh M, Bootman JL, McBride A, Martin J, Abraham I. Economic evaluations of first-line chemotherapy regimens for pancreatic cancer: a critical review. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35:83–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles in combination with gemcitabine for previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. 2015. Accessed 4 Sept 2017.
  11. 11.
    Gharaibeh M, McBride A, Bootman JL, Abraham I. Economic evaluation for the UK of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:1301–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gresham GK, Wells GA, Gill S, Cameron C, Jonker DJ. Chemotherapy regimens for advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:471.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smyth EN, Bapat B, Ball DE, André T, Kaye JA. Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma treatment patterns, health care resource use, and outcomes in France and the United Kingdom between 2009 and 2012: a retrospective study. Clin Ther. 2015;37:1301–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Colucci G, Labianca R, Di Costanzo F, Gebbia V, Cartenì G, Massidda B, et al. Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale (GOIM); Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio dei Carcinomi dell’ Apparato Digerente (GISCAD); Gruppo Oncologico Italiano di Ricerca Clinica (GOIRC). Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with single-agent gemcitabine as first-line treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: the GIP-1 study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1645–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cunningham D, Chau I, Stocken DD, Valle JW, Smith D, Steward W, et al. Phase III randomized comparison of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus capecitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5513–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herrmann R, Bodoky G, Ruhstaller T, Glimelius B, Bajetta E, Schüller J, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research; Central European Cooperative Oncology Group, et al. Gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2212–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heinemann V, Quietzsch D, Gieseler F, Gonnermann M, Schönekäs H, Rost A, et al. Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3946–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Louvet C, Quietzsch D, Gieseler F, Gonnermann M, Schönekäs H, Rost A, et al. Gemcitabine in combination with oxaliplatin compared with gemcitabine alone in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of a GERCOR and GISCAD phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3509–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poplin E, Feng Y, Berlin J, Rothenberg ML, Hochster H, Mitchell E, et al. Phase III randomized study of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin versus gemcitabine (fixed-dose rate infusion) compared with gemcitabine (30-minute infusion) in patients with pancreatic carcinoma E6201: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3778–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faluyi OO, Connor JL, Chatterjee M, Ikin C, Wong H, Palmer DH. Advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma outcomes with transition from devolved to centralized care in a regional Cancer Centre. Br J Cancer. 2017;116:424–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Latimer N. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 14: Undertaking survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials—extrapolation with patient-level data; 2011. Accessed 4 Sept 2017.
  22. 22.
    Vemer P, Ramos IC, van Voorn GAK, Al MJ, Feenstra TL. AdViSHE. A validation-assessment tool of health-economic models for decision makers and model users. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:349–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gharaibeh M, Patel H, McBride A, Bootman JL, Abraham I. Weibull and exponential proportional hazard modelling for optimizing economic evaluations of cancer treatments: FOLFIRINOX (FFX) vs gemcitabine (GEM) in metastatic pancreas cancer (mPC) [abstract no. e15704]. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(Suppl_15):e15704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sacco JJ, Botten J, Macbeth F, Bagust A, Clark P. The average body surface area of adult cancer patients in the UK: a multicentre retrospective study. PLoS One. 2010;5:e8933.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    The British National Formulary. 2014. Accessed 21 Apr 2018.
  26. 26.
    Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2012–2013. 2015. Accessed 21 Apr 2018.
  27. 27.
    Personal Social Services Research Unit. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2015 PSSRU. 2015. Accessed 21 Apr 2018.
  28. 28.
    United Kingdom Consumer Price Index. United Kingdom Inflation Rate. 2016. Accessed 4 Sept 2017.
  29. 29.
    Lloyd A, Nafees B, Narewska J, Dewilde S, Watkins J. Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:683–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nafees B, Stafford M, Gavriel S, Bhalla S, Watkins J. Health state utilities for non small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Swinburn P, Lloyd A, Nathan P, Choueiri TK, Cella D, Neary MP. Elicitation of health state utilities in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26:1091–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tolley K, Goad C, Yi Y, Maroudas P, Haiderali A, Thompson G. Utility elicitation study in the UK general public for late-stage chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14:749–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tam VC, Ko YJ, Mittmann N, Cheung MC, Kumar K, Hassan S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of systemic therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol. 2013;20:e90–106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Romanus D, Kindler HL, Archer L, Basch E, Niedzwiecki D, Weeks J, Cancer and Leukemia Group B, et al. Does health-related quality of life improve for advanced pancreatic cancer patients who respond to gemcitabine? Analysis of a randomized phase III trial of the cancer and leukemia group B (CALGB 80303). J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012;43:205–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Coyle D, Ko YJ, Coyle K, Saluja R, Shah K, Lien K, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of systemic therapies in advanced pancreatic cancer in the Canadian health care system. Value Health. 2017;20:586–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stainthorpe A, Greenhalgh J, Bagust A, Richardson M, Boland A, Beale S, et al. Paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles with gemcitabine for untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer: an evidence review group perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018. (Epub 29 Mar 2018).CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Malin JL. Wrestling with the high price of cancer care: should we control costs by individuals’ ability to pay or society’s willingness to pay? J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3212–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mason A, Drummond M, Ramsey S, Campbell J, Raisch D. Comparison of anticancer drug coverage decisions in the United States and United Kingdom: does the evidence support the rhetoric? J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3234–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    Drummond M, Towse A. Is it time to reconsider the role of patient co-payments for pharmaceuticals in Europe? Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13:1–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weinfurt KP. Value of high-cost cancer care: a behavioral science perspective. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:223–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lang HC. Willingness to pay for lung cancer treatment. Value Health. 2010;13:743–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wong YN, Hamilton O, Egleston B, Salador K, Murphy C, Meropol NJ. Understanding how out-of-pocket expenses, treatment value, and patient characteristics influence treatment choices. Oncologist. 2010;15:566–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lakdawalla DN, Romley JA, Sanchez Y, Maclean JR, Penrod JR, Philipson T. How cancer patients value hope and the implications for cost-effectiveness assessments of high-cost cancer therapies. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31:676–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gaskin DJ, Kong J, Meropol NJ, Yabroff KR, Weaver C, Schulman KA. Treatment choices by seriously ill patients: the Health Stock Risk Adjustment Model. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18:84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Oettle H. Progress in the knowledge and treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: from benchside to bedside. Cancer Treat Rev. 2014;40:1039–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of PharmacyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.University of Arizona Cancer CenterTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Banner University Medical Center-TucsonTucsonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of PharmacyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine-TucsonUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations