Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology (Aug 2024)

Early evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ctDNA-guided selection for adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer

  • Astrid Kramer,
  • Marjolein J. E. Greuter,
  • Suzanna J. Schraa,
  • Geraldine R. Vink,
  • Jillian Phallen,
  • Victor E. Velculescu,
  • Gerrit A. Meijer,
  • Daan van den Broek,
  • Miriam Koopman,
  • Jeanine M. L. Roodhart,
  • Remond J. A. Fijneman,
  • Valesca P. Retèl,
  • Veerle M. H. Coupé

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/17588359241266164
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16

Abstract

Read online

Background: Current patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) after curative surgery for stage II colon cancer (CC) is suboptimal, causing overtreatment of high-risk patients and undertreatment of low-risk patients. Postoperative circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) could improve patient selection for ACT. Objectives: We conducted an early model-based evaluation of the (cost-)effectiveness of ctDNA-guided selection for ACT in stage II CC in the Netherlands to assess the conditions for cost-effective implementation. Methods: A validated Markov model, simulating 1000 stage II CC patients from diagnosis to death, was supplemented with ctDNA data. Five ACT selection strategies were evaluated: the current guideline (pT4, pMMR), ctDNA-only, and three strategies that combined ctDNA status with pT4 and pMMR status in different ways. For each strategy, the costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), recurrences, and CC deaths were estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of the costs of ctDNA testing, strategy adherence, ctDNA as a predictive biomarker, and ctDNA test performance. Results: Model predictions showed that compared to current guidelines, the ctDNA-only strategy was less effective (+2.2% recurrences, −0.016 QALYs), while the combination strategies were more effective (−3.6% recurrences, +0.038 QALYs). The combination strategies were not cost-effective, since the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €67,413 per QALY, exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed that the combination strategies would be cost-effective if the ctDNA test costs were lower than €1500, or if ctDNA status was predictive of treatment response, or if the ctDNA test performance improved substantially. Conclusion: Adding ctDNA to current high-risk clinicopathological features (pT4 and pMMR) can improve patient selection for ACT and can also potentially be cost-effective. Future studies should investigate the predictive value of post-surgery ctDNA status to accurately evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ctDNA testing for ACT decisions in stage II CC.