Health Technology Assessment

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (mono- or combination chemotherapy), bevacizumab (combination with non-oxaliplatin chemotherapy) and panitumumab (monotherapy) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy (review of technology appraisal No. 150 and part review of technology appraisal No. 118): a systematic review and economic model

  • Type:
    Extended Research Article Our publication formats
  • Headline:
    Study found that, although cetuximab and panitumumab appear to be clinically beneficial for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) wild-type patients compared with best supportive care, they are likely to represent poor value for money when judged by cost-effectiveness criteria currently used in the UK.
  • Authors:
    M Hoyle,
    L Crathorne,
    J Peters,
    T Jones-Hughes,
    C Cooper,
    M Napier,
    P Tappenden,
    C Hyde
    Detailed Author information

    M Hoyle1,*, L Crathorne1, J Peters1, T Jones-Hughes1, C Cooper1, M Napier2, P Tappenden3, C Hyde1

    • 1 Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
    • 2 Royal Devon & Exeter Foundation Trust Hospital, Exeter, UK
    • 3 School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
    • * Corresponding author
  • Journal:
  • Issue:
    Volume: 17, Issue: 14
  • Published:
  • Citation:
    NICE Technology Assessment Report. Hoyle M, Crathorne L, Peters J, Jones-Hughes T, Cooper C, Napier M, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (mono- or combination chemotherapy), bevacizumab (combination with non-oxaliplatin chemotherapy) and panitumumab (monotherapy) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy (review of technology appraisal No. 150 and part review of technology appraisal No. 118): a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess 2013;17(14). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17140
  • DOI:
Crossmark status check