TABLE I.
Intervention | Comparator | ICER/QALY | Disease | Overall survival (OS) benefit | References |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Regorafenib | Best supportive care | $734,153 | Colon cancer | 1.4 months | Goldstein [38] |
Bevacizumab | Paclitaxel | $745,000 | Breast cancer | No OS benefit | Montero [39] |
Cetuximab | FOLFOX + Bevacizumab | $122,610 | Colon cancer | 5.7 months | Shankaran [40] |
Imatinib | Physician choice tyrosine kinase inhibitor | $227,136 | Chronic myeloid leukemia | No OS benefit | Larson [41] |
Erlotinib | Gemcitabine | $410,000 | Pancreatic cancer | 0.33 months | Miksad [42] |
Vemurafenib | Dacarbazine | $353,993 | Melanoma | 3.9 months | Curl [43] |
Ixazomib | Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone | $433,794 | Multiple myeloma | Not available yet | Institute of Clinical and Economic Review [44] |
FOLFOX | FOLFIRI | $65,170 | Colorectal cancer | 5 months | Tumeh [45] |
Using ICER (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) divided by QALY (Quality adjusted life year) gives an estimated cost given the known benefit of therapy, with quality of life taken into account, of each intervention compared to the comparator. It has been proposed, that in order for a therapy to be beneficial, that the ICER cost be below the QALY. The examples provided highlight that this is not the case in many interventions and are in fact, not cost effective given the small benefit.