---
title: "Zanzalintinib (XL092) in Metastatic colorectal cancer: cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights"
description: "Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights for Zanzalintinib (XL092) in Metastatic colorectal cancer, each value quoted from the article: 12 cost-effectiveness analyses and 7 studies reporting utility weights. Analyses: Regorafenib dose optimization versus trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab and fruquintinib in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, United States: Bekaii-Saab et al. (2025); Regorafenib dose optimization versus standard-dose regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, and trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, United States: Cho et al. (2022); Regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil versus best supportive care in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, United States: Cho et al. (2018); Fruquintinib versus placebo in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, United States: Kang et al. (2025); 8 further articles. Utility weights: Utility weights for progression-free and progressed disease and adverse events, refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: Kang et al. (2025); Utility weights for pre-progression and post-progression disease, refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: Bekaii-Saab et al. (2025); Utility weights for progression-free and progressive disease in the United States, United Kingdom, and China and adverse events by grade, metastatic colorectal cancer: Zhu et al. (2024); Utility weights for stable and progressive disease and adverse events, refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: Ahluwalia et al. (2025); 3 further articles. Every value is a verbatim quote from the primary article it is shown with."
canonical: "https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/cost-effectiveness-analyses"
published: "2026-10-22T07:49:06-04:00"
modified: "2026-10-22T07:49:06-04:00"
---
# Zanzalintinib (XL092) in Metastatic colorectal cancer: cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights
Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights that a model of this product could cite, adapt, or compare against, grouped by how each article relates to the product and its indication. Every value is quoted from the article it cites, and section 3 lists the searches that found the articles.
## Overview
| Item | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Literature searched | Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, searched October 21, 2026; the queries are listed in section 3. |
| Cost-effectiveness analyses | 12 |
| Studies reporting utility weights | 7 |
## 1 Cost-effectiveness analyses
### 1.1 Analyses of Zanzalintinib (XL092)
No evidence found.
### 1.2 Treatments for the same indication
#### Regorafenib dose optimization versus trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab and fruquintinib in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, United States: Bekaii-Saab et al. (2025)
Relevance: Evaluates regorafenib dose optimization against trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab and against fruquintinib in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer from a United States payer perspective, with regorafenib the active comparator in STELLAR-303.
Access: Free full text
> “We evaluated relative cost-effectiveness of these therapies in patients with mCRC from a US payer’s perspective.”
> “A partitioned survival model (PSM) was constructed to estimate total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).”
> “The model comprised of three health states: Pre-disease progression, post-disease progression, and death.”
> “All outcomes were captured from a US payer perspective with an annual discounting rate of 5% applied to both costs and QALYs.”
> “The model used a monthly cycle and a 3-year time horizon.”
> “Compared to ReDO, TAS-BEV was associated with an additional 0.197 QALYs at an additional cost of $109,461, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $554,567 per QALY gained.”
> “On the other hand, ReDo had a negligible cost difference ($130,821 versus $130,902), when compared with fruquintinib, and a slightly better QALY (0.576 versus 0.517), resulting in ReDO dominant over fruquintinib.”
> “Under the conventional willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in US ($150,000 per QALY gained), ReDO was cost-effective when compared with TAS-BEV and was dominant over fruquintinib.”
> “In patients with prior anti-VEGF therapy, ReDO remained cost-effective compared to TAS-BEV and fruquintinib under the conventional WTP threshold.”
Source: [Bekaii-Saab et al. (2025)](https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2025.2496068)
#### Regorafenib dose optimization versus standard-dose regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, and trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, United States: Cho et al. (2022)
Relevance: Evaluates regorafenib dose optimization against standard-dose regorafenib, the comparator regimen in STELLAR-303, and against trifluridine/tipiracil in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in the United States.
> “Given the incorporation of ReDO and TAS-BEV as treatment options, we sought to evaluate relative cost-effectiveness of ReDO vs. RSD, TAS-102, and TAS-BEV for mCRC from a payer perspective.”
> “A Markov model was constructed to estimate total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for ReDO, RSD, TAS-102, and TAS-BEV.”
> “Health state utility values were from the RSD phase 3 clinical trial.”
> “In the base case, ReDO was dominant over TAS-BEV (ie provided a higher QALY at a lower cost).”
> “ReDO produced an ICER of $104,308 per QALY relative to RSD and $37,966 relative to TAS-102.”
Source: [Cho et al. (2022)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36216759/)
#### Regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil versus best supportive care in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, United States: Cho et al. (2018)
Relevance: Evaluates regorafenib, the active comparator in STELLAR-303, and trifluridine/tipiracil against best supportive care and against each other in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in the United States.
> “Given the small incremental clinical benefit, we evaluated their cost-effectiveness from a United States payer's perspective.”
> “A Markov model was constructed to compare costs and effectiveness of regorafenib, TAS-102, and BSC.”
> “In our base case, regorafenib and TAS-102 had the ICERs of $395,223 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $399,740 per QALY versus BSC, respectively.”
> “Compared with regorafenib, TAS-102 provided an additional 0.041 QALY at the cost of $16,608 or $406,104 per QALY, but the differences were not robust in sensitivity analyses.”
> “In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, BSC was more cost-effective than both regorafenib and TAS-102 in 50% of repetitions at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $330,000 per QALY.”
Source: [Cho et al. (2018)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30228027/)
#### Fruquintinib versus placebo in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, United States: Kang et al. (2025)
Relevance: Evaluates fruquintinib, a later-line VEGFR inhibitor listed in section 2 and studied in FRESCO-2, against placebo in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in the United States.
> “This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib versus placebo for this patient population from the perspective of US payers.”
> “We developed a partitioned survival model on the basis of patient-level data reconstructed from the survival curves of the FRESCO-2 trial.”
> “The time horizon of the model was the patient’s lifetime, defined as 10 years, during which most patients in both groups die.”
> “We used a discount rate of 3.0% per year for both clinical outcomes and costs.”
> “Fruquintinib treatment resulted in incremental gains of 0.108 life years (LYs) and 0.073 QALYs compared with the placebo, at an additional cost of US$112,294, primarily driven by medication expenses.”
> “The ICER for fruquintinib versus placebo was calculated at US$1,037,855 per LY and US$1,546,619 per QALY gained, exceeding the predefined cost-effectiveness threshold.”
> “In the PSA, the probability of fruquintinib not being cost-effective was 100% at the US$100,000 threshold”
Source: [Kang et al. (2025)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11718036/)
#### Trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, United States, United Kingdom, and China: Zhu et al. (2024)
Relevance: Evaluates trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab, an approved treatment alternative listed in section 2, against trifluridine/tipiracil alone in metastatic colorectal cancer in the United States, the United Kingdom, and China.
> “A comprehensive Markov model of the 10-year horizon for three health states was established using data from the SUNLIGHT trial to evaluate the cost and health effects of TAS-102 with or without bevacizumab at particular willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds”
> “In the United States, United Kingdom, and China, the major cost and efficacy outcomes were analyzed with assumed annual discount rates of 3%, 3.5%, and 5%, respectively.”
> “Treatment with TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy increased effectiveness (cost) by 0.39 ($151,474), 0.38 ($26,794), and 0.41 ($8596) QALYs, with an ICER of $388,171, $69,617, and $20,919 per QALY and an INHB of −0.62, −0.03, and 0.18 QALYs in the United States, United Kingdom, and China, respectively.”
> “At respective WTP thresholds of $150,000, $65,000, and $37,653 per QALY in the United States, United Kingdom, and China, the odds of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab being the dominant treatment were 0%, 49.6%, and 87.8%, respectively.”
> “TAS-102 plus bevacizumab treatment represents a cost-effective third-line treatment for refractory mCRC from a Chinese payers’ perspective, although the same was not true in the United States or United Kingdom at current drug prices.”
Source: [Zhu et al. (2024)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11450621/)
#### Regorafenib at three doses versus best supportive care in third-line metastatic colorectal cancer, United States: Goldstein et al. (2015)
Relevance: Evaluates regorafenib, the active comparator in STELLAR-303, at alternative daily doses against best supportive care as third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer from a United States payer perspective.
> “To address this issue, we developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib as third-line therapy in patients with mCRC from the perspective of the US payer.”
> “We performed analyses in the model with three different dosing strategies: 120, 160, and 147 mg daily.”
> “We did not perform annual discounting of the costs and benefits in this analysis, because the OS rate was 24% at 1 year for both groups.”
> “On the basis of the dosing strategy used, the incremental cost of a course of treatment with regorafenib was $32,000 (120-mg dosing) to $43,000 (160-mg dosing).”
> “The ICER for regorafenib compared with best supportive care was between $730,000 and $980,000 per QALY.”
> “ICER, $ per QALY 732,242 897,411 975,954”
> “These results demonstrated nearly 0% probability that regorafenib is cost-effective at WTP values < $600,000 per QALY.”
Source: [Goldstein et al. (2015)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4737857/)
#### Trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib versus best supportive care in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer, England and Wales: Bullement et al. (2018)
Relevance: Evaluates trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib against best supportive care and against each other in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer in England and Wales.
Access: Free full text
> “This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib relative to BSC alone in patients with mCRC who have been previously treated with, or are not considered candidates for, standard chemotherapies.”
> “A partitioned survival model was constructed to assess the lifetime costs and benefits accrued by patients.”
> “A 10-year time horizon was used in the model (ie, costs and outcomes for patients were considered up until 10 years after the initiation of treatment).”
> “Costs and QALYs were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%, in line with NICE guidance.”
> “Trifluridine/tipiracil was associated with a 0.27 incremental life year versus BSC alone, which corresponds to a 0.17 quality-adjusted life year gain.”
> “The incremental cost of treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil was £8,479, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £51,194 per quality-adjusted life year gained.”
> “Compared with BSC alone, regorafenib is associated with a 0.16 LYG, incremental QALY gain of 0.11, and incremental costs of £14,613.”
> “Rego vs. BSC £133,561”
> “Compared with regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil is associated with a 0.10 LYG, incremental QALY gain of 0.06, and a cost saving of £6134, and therefore, trifluridine/tipiracil dominates regorafenib (ie, increased expected benefit for reduced expected cost).”
Source: [Bullement et al. (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcc.2017.09.001)
#### Regorafenib versus fruquintinib as third-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer, China: Guan et al. (2021)
Relevance: Evaluates fruquintinib against regorafenib, the comparator in STELLAR-303, as third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China.
Access: Free full text
> “A three-state Markov model with monthly cycle was constructed to estimate lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with mCRC from Chinese health care perspective.”
> “According to the recommendation of China guideline for pharmacoeconomics evaluation, a discount rate of 5% per annum was used for both cost inputs and health outcomes”
> “Survival analysis was applied to calculate transition probabilities using the data from the clinical trials FRESCO and CONCUR, which were also the data sources accessing probabilities of adverse events.”
> “Fruquintinib provided 0.74 QALYs at a cost of CNY 151,058 (USD 22,888), whereas regorafenib provided 0.79 QALYs at a cost of CNY 226,657 (USD 32,224).”
> “Compared to fruquintinib, the ICER of regorafenib was CNY 1,529,197/QALY (USD 231,697/QALY) from Chinese health care perspective, which was above the triple GDP per capita of China in 2019 (CNY 212,676) (USD 32,224) as the threshold to define the cost-effectiveness.”
> “Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the probability that fruquintinib was more cost-effective was 100% when the threshold was the triple GDP per capita of China.”
Source: [Guan et al. (2021)](https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2021.1888743)
#### Durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus best supportive care in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, Canada: Ahluwalia et al. (2025)
Relevance: Evaluates durvalumab plus tremelimumab against best supportive care in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer from the Canadian public-payer perspective, the refractory setting in which STELLAR-303 studied zanzalintinib with atezolizumab.
Access: Free full text
> “A 4-state microsimulation model was used to evaluate the expected health outcomes in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs (2023 Canadian Dollars) over a lifetime horizon (5 years) from the Canadian public-payer perspective.”
> “Direct phase 2 CCTG CO.26 trial data informed model inputs, including overall survival Kaplan-Meier curves, progression-free survival Kaplan-Meier curves, and adverse event rates.”
> “All health outcomes and costs were discounted at 1.5% per annum as per Canada's Drug Agency guidelines.”
> “In the ITT population, expected QALYs for the treatment and best supportive care arms were 0.47 and 0.33 (incremental (Δ)0.14), respectively, and expected costs were $56 743 and $17 177 (Δ$39 566) for an ICUR of $277 661/QALY.”
> “In the plasma tumor mutation burden > 28 subgroup, expected QALYs were 0.43 and 0.21 (Δ0.21) and expected costs were $58 498 and $16 941 (Δ$41 557) for an ICUR of $193 945/QALY.”
> “Combined durvalumab and tremelimumab is not cost-effective in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer per conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds.”
Source: [Ahluwalia et al. (2025)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2159)
### 1.3 The same disease in other populations or settings
#### Sotorasib plus panitumumab versus standard care in refractory KRAS G12C-mutated colorectal cancer, United States: Liu et al. (2025)
Relevance: Evaluates sotorasib plus panitumumab, a therapy listed in section 2 for the KRAS G12C-mutated subgroup, against trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The results against trifluridine/tipiracil and against regorafenib separately are reported in the full text, which this page does not quote.
> “This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of sotorasib plus panitumumab in contrast to standard care in the treatment of refractory colorectal cancer (CRC) with mutated KRASG12Cfrom the perspective of healthcare payers in the U.S.A.”
> “An economic evaluation utilizing a 3-state partitioned survival model assessed the cost-effectiveness of sotorasib plus panitumumab versus standard care.”
> “The estimated cost for sotorasib plus panitumumab treatment was higher than that of standard care treatment (77,087.936 USD vs 8905.065 USD).”
> “In addition, the estimated utility was relatively augmented than that of standard care treatment (0.876 QALYs vs 0.857 QALYs).”
> “The ICER was calculated at 3,551,555554USD/ QALY, suggesting the sotorasib plus panitumumab therapy did not demonstrate an economic advantage over standard care therapy for refractory CRC patients with mutated KRASG12C at the threshold of 150,000 USD/ QALY.”
Source: [Liu et al. (2025)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40518842/)
### 1.4 Related diseases and analogous treatments
#### Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in recurrent mismatch repair-proficient endometrial cancer after platinum-based therapy, United States: Dioun et al. (2024)
Relevance: Evaluates lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, the combination LEAP-017 studied in metastatic colorectal cancer (section 2), against chemotherapy in recurrent mismatch repair-proficient endometrial cancer after platinum-based therapy in the United States.
> “A Markov model was created to simulate the clinical trajectory of 10,000 patients with recurrent pMMR endometrial cancer.”
> “The initial decision point in the model was treatment with ether lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or chemotherapy (doxorubicin or dose-dense paclitaxel).”
> “A cycle length of 3 months and a time horizon of 2 years was used.”
> “The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed in 2020 US dollars/QALYs.”
> “Chemotherapy was the least costly strategy at $66,693 followed by lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab ($193,590).”
> “Chemotherapy was cost-effective compared with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (ICER: $164,493/QALYs).”
> “Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab became cost-effective when its cost was reduced by $1553 per month (7.8% reduction).”
Source: [Dioun et al. (2024)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262241/)
#### Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib in first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma, United States: Liao et al. (2021)
Relevance: Evaluates first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib against sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma from a United States payer perspective.
> “A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nivolumab plus cabozantinib with those of sunitinib in the first-line treatment of advanced RCC.”
> “The total cost per patient was $681,425 for nivolumab plus cabozantinib and $256,302 for sunitinib.”
> “The incremental QALY for nivolumab plus cabozantinib was 0.49 compared with sunitinib.”
> “The ICER for nivolumab plus cabozantinib was $863,720 per QALY gained versus sunitinib.”
> “On the basis of a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was not cost-effective under current drug pricing in the first-line treatment of advanced RCC from a US payer's perspective.”
Source: [Liao et al. (2021)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34664194/)
## 2 Utility weights
### 2.1 Utility weights from analyses of Zanzalintinib (XL092)
No evidence found.
### 2.2 Utility weights for the same indication
#### Utility weights for progression-free and progressed disease and adverse events, refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: Kang et al. (2025)
Relevance: EQ-5D utilities for progression-free and progressed refractory colorectal cancer and disutilities for diarrhea, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, and abdominal pain in a United States fruquintinib model.
> “The utility scores, which depict the relative health-related quality of life for an individual in a specific health state, were 0.72 and 0.58 for PF and PD, respectively, obtained from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisal 866, guidance for regorafenib for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer”
> “These utility scores are pooled EQ-5D-3L values collected from CORRECT [ 8 ] and CONCUR trials [ 32 ], which are phase 3 trials of regorafenib.”
> “This previous study used disutility values investigated for metastatic breast cancer in the United Kingdom”
Source: [Kang et al. (2025)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11718036/)
| Health state | Utility |
| --- | --- |
| “Progression-free” | “0.72” |
| “Progressed” | “0.58” |
| “Diarrhea” | “0.116” |
| “Fatigue” | “0.115” |
| “Hand-foot syndrome” | “0.116” |
| “Abdominal pain” | “0.116” |
Source: [Kang et al. (2025)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11718036/)
#### Utility weights for pre-progression and post-progression disease, refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: Bekaii-Saab et al. (2025)
Relevance: Utilities for pre-progression and post-progression refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in a United States model of regorafenib dose optimization, with regorafenib the comparator in STELLAR-303.
Access: Free full text
> “Health state utilities for pre- and post-progression states were obtained from a regorafenib phase 3 trial in the mCRC population, which reported EQ-5D scores of 0.73 for the pre-progression state and 0.59 for the post-progression state”
Source: [Bekaii-Saab et al. (2025)](https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2025.2496068)
#### Utility weights for progression-free and progressive disease in the United States, United Kingdom, and China and adverse events by grade, metastatic colorectal cancer: Zhu et al. (2024)
Relevance: Utilities for progression-free and progressive metastatic colorectal cancer, with United States or United Kingdom values and China values, and disutilities by adverse-event grade.
> “The utility values for the PFS and PD states were 0.73 and 0.59, 0.73 and 0.59, and 0.78 and 0.69 for American, British, and Chinese patients, respectively.”
Source: [Zhu et al. (2024)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11450621/)
| Health state | Utility |
| --- | --- |
| “Utility of PFS in the United States or United Kingdom” | “0.730 0.584 0.876” |
| “Utility of PD in the United States or the United Kingdom” | “0.590 0.472 0.708” |
| “Utility of PFS in China” | “0.780 0.624 0.936” |
| “Utility of PD in China” | “0.690 0.552 0.828” |
| “Disutility due to AEs (grade 1 and 2)” | “0.105 0.084 0.126” |
| “Disutility due to AEs (grade ⩾3)” | “0.183 0.146 0.220” |
Source: [Zhu et al. (2024)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11450621/)
#### Utility weights for stable and progressive disease and adverse events, refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: Ahluwalia et al. (2025)
Relevance: Utilities for stable and progressive refractory metastatic colorectal cancer and for adverse events, obtained from published literature, in a Canadian model of durvalumab plus tremelimumab.
Access: Free full text
> “Health-state utilities were not collected as part of the CO.26 trial, and instead, the health utilities for the health states of patients with refractory mCRC were obtained from the CORRECT trial, a phase-3 RCT of patients with refractory mCRC.”
> “These values were determined using the EQ-5D index questionnaire”
> “Disutility estimates were derived from the literature for grade ≥ 3 AEs of interest (dyspnea, diarrhea, anemia, and lipase elevation).”
> “The duration for each AE was assumed to be 1 week based on expert opinion.”
Source: [Ahluwalia et al. (2025)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2159)
| Source of value | Health state | Utility (SD) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| “CORRECT trial health states” | “Metastatic stable treatment” | “0.73 (0.25)” |
| “CORRECT trial health states” | “Metastatic progressive treatment” | “0.59 (0.31)” |
| “TTO community-reported health states” | “Metastatic stable” | “0.643 (0.0443)” |
| “TTO community-reported health states” | “Metastatic Progressive” | “0.304 (0.0425)” |
| “TTO patient-reported health states” | “Metastatic stable” | “0.606 (0.0533)” |
| “TTO patient-reported health states” | “Metastatic progressive” | “0.527 (0.0477)” |
| “AE Disutilities” | “Dyspnea” | “−0.05 (0.012)” |
| “AE Disutilities” | “Diarrhea” | “−0.09 (0.0098)” |
| “AE Disutilities” | “Anemia” | “−0.073 (0.012)” |
| “AE Disutilities” | “Lipase Elevation” | “−0.2 (0.02)” |
Source: [Ahluwalia et al. (2025)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2159)
#### Utility weights for progression-free and post-progression disease and adverse events, metastatic colorectal cancer: Kashiwa and Matsushita (2020)
Relevance: Utilities for progression-free and post-progression metastatic colorectal cancer and for adverse events, extracted from published studies.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which this page does not quote.
> “Efficacy data, utility values, and costs were extracted from published studies.”
> “The health outcomes were life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained.”
Source: [Kashiwa and Matsushita (2020)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32653227/)
#### Utility weights for progression-free and progressive disease, hand-foot skin reaction, and diarrhea, metastatic colorectal cancer: Guan et al. (2021)
Relevance: Utilities for progression-free and progressive metastatic colorectal cancer and disutilities for hand-foot skin reaction and diarrhea in a model of fruquintinib against regorafenib.
Access: Free full text
> “Utilities applied to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from literature review.”
> “The utility of patients in the PFS state was set at a value of 0.78, and the utility of patients in the PD state was estimated at a value of 0.69”
> “hand-foot syndrome would last for 14 days and the disutility was −0.116.”
> “Diarrhea would last for five days and the disutility was −0.103”
> “The duration-adjusted disutility was subtracted from the baseline utility to calculate the overall utility of each health state.”
Source: [Guan et al. (2021)](https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2021.1888743)
#### Utility weights by treatment received, metastatic colorectal cancer: Bullement et al. (2018)
Relevance: EQ-5D utilities for metastatic colorectal cancer by treatment received: best supportive care, trifluridine/tipiracil, or regorafenib.
Access: Free full text
> “We used utilities derived from the index scale measure in our model in line with NICE guidance”
> “EQ-5D-3L utilities from the CORRECT study were reported as 0.73 and 0.74 for patients who received regorafenib plus BSC and placebo plus BSC, respectively, at baseline, and 0.59 for both patient groups at the end of treatment.”
> “These utility values were used to directly inform patient HRQL in each of the model health states considered (as shown in Figure 1), by applying the baseline values for pre-progressive patients and the post-treatment values for patients in post-progressive disease (after which all patients discontinue treatment).”
> “Utility values from the CORRECT study implied a small disutility (−0.01) for patients who have not yet progressed and are actively receiving treatment with regorafenib, which we applied in our model to account for the potential decrement in HRQL associated with receiving active treatment with either trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib”
Source: [Bullement et al. (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcc.2017.09.001)
### 2.3 Utility weights for the same disease in other populations or settings
No evidence found.
### 2.4 Utility weights for related diseases and analogous treatments
No evidence found.
## 3 Search strategy
| Dataset | Query | Results |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Ratios | zanzalintinib OR XL092 | 0 |
| Methods | ivonescimab OR zipalertinib OR zanzalintinib | 1 |
| Ratios | sotorasib OR adagrasib | 6 |
| Ratios | regorafenib | 46 |
| Ratios | fruquintinib | 5 |
| Ratios | trifluridine OR "TAS-102" OR tipiracil | 31 |
| Ratios | "colorectal" AND (refractory OR "third-line") | 53 |
| Ratios | "colorectal" AND "third-line" | 39 |
| Ratios | "colorectal" AND refractory | 38 |
| Weights | "colorectal" AND (refractory OR "third-line" OR "progression-free") | 240 |
| Weights | "hand-foot" AND "colorectal" | 12 |
| Ratios | cabozantinib AND (atezolizumab OR nivolumab) | 109 |
| Ratios | lenvatinib AND pembrolizumab | 69 |
| Ratios | "colorectal" AND (lenvatinib OR atezolizumab OR cobimetinib) | 0 |
| Ratios | "colorectal" AND "microsatellite stable" | 1 |
| Methods | "colorectal" AND (Medicare OR "treatment discontinuation") | 28 |
## Related pages
- [Zanzalintinib (XL092): Metastatic colorectal cancer](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer.md)
- [Zanzalintinib (XL092) in Metastatic colorectal cancer: Terms and abbreviations](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/terms-and-abbreviations) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/terms-and-abbreviations.md)
- [Zanzalintinib (XL092): Metastatic colorectal cancer](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/executive-summary) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/executive-summary.md)
- [Zanzalintinib (XL092) in Metastatic colorectal cancer: Product information and disease description](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/product-information-and-disease-description) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/product-information-and-disease-description.md)
- [Zanzalintinib (XL092) in Metastatic colorectal cancer: Clinical evidence](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/clinical-evidence) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/clinical-evidence.md)
- [Zanzalintinib (XL092) in Metastatic colorectal cancer: Economic information and modeling report](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/economics) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/economics.md)
- [Zanzalintinib (XL092) in Metastatic colorectal cancer: References](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/references) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/references.md)
- [Zanzalintinib (XL092) in Metastatic colorectal cancer: prevalence by geography](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/prevalence) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/zanzalintinib--metastatic-colorectal-cancer/prevalence.md)