Cost-utility analysis of paclitaxel in combination with cisplatin for patients with advanced ovarian cancer

Gynaecological cancer surveillance for women with Lynch syndrome: systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation

Background

Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which leads to an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing surgery is generally recommended to manage the risk of gynaecological cancer once childbearing is completed. The value of gynaecological colonoscopic surveillance as an interim measure or instead of risk-reducing surgery is uncertain. We aimed to determine whether gynaecological surveillance was effective and cost-effective in Lynch syndrome.

Methods

We conducted systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome, as well as a systematic review of health utility values relating to cancer and gynaecological risk reduction. Study identification included bibliographic database searching and citation chasing (searches updated 3 August 2021). Screening and assessment of eligibility for inclusion were conducted by independent researchers. Outcomes were prespecified and were informed by clinical experts and patient involvement. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted and results were synthesised narratively. We also developed a whole-disease economic model for Lynch syndrome using discrete event simulation methodology, including natural history components for colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer, and we used this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis of gynaecological risk management strategies, including surveillance, risk-reducing surgery and doing nothing.

Results

We found 30 studies in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which 20 were non-comparative (single-arm) studies. There were no high-quality studies providing precise outcome estimates at low risk of bias. There is some evidence that mortality rate is higher for surveillance than for risk-reducing surgery but mortality is also higher for no surveillance than for surveillance. Some asymptomatic cancers were detected through surveillance but some cancers were also missed. There was a wide range of pain experiences, including some individuals feeling no pain and some feeling severe pain. The use of pain relief (e.g. ibuprofen) was common, and some women underwent general anaesthetic for surveillance. Existing economic evaluations clearly found that risk-reducing surgery leads to the best lifetime health (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and is cost-effective, while surveillance is not cost-effective in comparison. Our economic evaluation found that a strategy of surveillance alone or offering surveillance and risk-reducing surgery was cost-effective, except for path_PMS2 Lynch syndrome. Offering only risk-reducing surgery was less effective than offering surveillance with or without surgery.

Limitations

Firm conclusions about clinical effectiveness could not be reached because of the lack of high-quality research. We did not assume that women would immediately take up risk-reducing surgery if offered, and it is possible that risk-reducing surgery would be more effective and cost-effective if it was taken up when offered.

Conclusions

There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome on clinical grounds, but modelling suggests that surveillance could be cost-effective. Further research is needed but it must be rigorously designed and well reported to be of benefit.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171098.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129713) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 41. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Cost Effectiveness of Chemotherapeutic Agents and Targeted Biologics in Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant chemotherapy is a key component of advanced ovarian cancer treatment, when surgery alone is not sufficient. Recurrence is common in ovarian cancer patients and most women require prolonged second-line and higher-line chemotherapy. With newer targeted therapies, modest improvements in survival and quality of life may be attained at substantial cost, but the relative economic efficiency of these newer agents remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We undertook this systematic review to comprehensively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various chemotherapeutic and targeted therapy alternatives for ovarian cancer.

METHODS

We searched Medline, PubMed, and Embase databases to identify economic evaluations published over the last 18 years (1996-2014). From the 2513 unique papers retrieved, 74 full texts were selected for full-text review based on a priori eligibility criteria. Two authors independently reviewed these articles to determine eligibility for final review. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES).

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies were included for reporting. Administration of intravenous cisplatin-paclitaxel combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment was the most cost-effective alternative (2014 US dollars [USD] equivalent incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] ~US$17,000-US$27,000 per life year gained [LYG]), while the use of bevacizumab did not demonstrate similar value for money (2014 USD equivalent ICER was greater than US$200,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). For second-line treatment, the use of platinum-paclitaxel combination or platinum monotherapy was cost-effective compared with platinum monotherapy or best supportive care, respectively, in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive disease. For patients with partial platinum sensitivity, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) plus trabectedin may be cost-effective (2014 USD equivalent ICER was ~US$57,000-US$62,000 per QALY) compared with PLD alone. For recurrent platinum-resistant cases, there was limited evidence to conclude the most valuable treatment; though one study showed that best supportive care was most cost-effective, while second-line monotherapy with doxorubicin (2014 USD equivalent ICER was ~US$90,000 per LYG) may also be cost-effective compared with best supportive care.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite varying methodological approaches and multiple sources for cost and effectiveness inputs, this systematic review demonstrated that standard platinum-taxane combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment was most cost-effective. There was unanimous agreement that bevacizumab was not a cost-effective front-line therapy compared with platinum-taxane combination for the overall ovarian cancer population, though its use in the high-use population may yield better value. For second-line treatment, platinum-based chemotherapy remained cost-effective among patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive disease, while there was limited evidence to conclude the most valuable treatment alternative among patients with recurrent platinum-resistant disease. Future research incorporating real-world data is essential to corroborate findings from trial-based economic evaluations. In addition, for improving consistency in reporting and quality of studies, incorporating QALYs in this population is important, especially since chemotherapy is administered for lengthy periods of time.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of diagnostic strategies for Lynch syndrome

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited autosomal dominant disorder characterised by an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and other cancers, and caused by mutations in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair genes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of strategies to identify LS in newly diagnosed early-onset CRC patients (aged < 50 years). Cascade testing of relatives is employed in all strategies for individuals in whom LS is identified.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

Systematic reviews were conducted of the test accuracy of microsatellite instability (MSI) testing or immunohistochemistry (IHC) in individuals with CRC at risk of LS, and of economic evidence relating to diagnostic strategies for LS. Reviews were carried out in April 2012 (test accuracy); and in February 2012, repeated in February 2013 (economic evaluations). Databases searched included MEDLINE (1946 to April week 3, 2012), EMBASE (1980 to week 17, 2012) and Web of Science (inception to 30 April 2012), and risk of bias for test accuracy was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) quality appraisal tool. A de novo economic model of diagnostic strategies for LS was developed.

RESULTS

Inconsistencies in study designs precluded pooling of diagnostic test accuracy results from a previous systematic review and nine subsequent primary studies. These were of mixed quality, with significant methodological concerns identified for most. IHC and MSI can both play a part in diagnosing LS but neither is gold standard. No UK studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of diagnosing and managing LS, although studies from other countries generally found some strategies to be cost-effective compared with no testing. The de novo model demonstrated that all strategies were cost-effective compared with no testing at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with the most cost-effective strategy utilising MSI and BRAF testing [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) = £5491 per QALY]. The maximum health benefit to the population of interest would be obtained using universal germline testing, but this would not be a cost-effective use of NHS resources compared with the next best strategy. When the age limit was raised from 50 to 60 and 70 years, the ICERs compared with no testing increased but remained below £20,000 per QALY (except for universal germline testing with an age limit of 70 years). The total net health benefit increased with the age limit as more individuals with LS were identified. Uncertainty was evaluated through univariate sensitivity analyses, which suggested that the parameters substantially affecting cost-effectiveness: were the risk of CRC for individuals with LS; the average number of relatives identified per index patient; the effectiveness of colonoscopy in preventing metachronous CRC; the cost of colonoscopy; the duration of the psychological impact of genetic testing on health-related quality of life (HRQoL); and the impact of prophylactic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy on HRQoL (this had the potential to make all testing strategies more expensive and less effective than no testing).

LIMITATIONS

The absence of high-quality data for the impact of prophylactic gynaecological surgery and the psychological impact of genetic testing on HRQoL is an acknowledged limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that reflex testing for LS in newly diagnosed CRC patients aged < 50 years is cost-effective. Such testing may also be cost-effective in newly diagnosed CRC patients aged < 60 or < 70 years. Results are subject to uncertainty due to a number of parameters, for some of which good estimates were not identified. We recommend future research to estimate the cost-effectiveness of testing for LS in individuals with newly diagnosed endometrial or ovarian cancer, and the inclusion of aspirin chemoprevention. Further research is required to accurately estimate the impact of interventions on HRQoL.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002436.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy versus Primary Surgery in Elderly Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer has increased in recent years. There is uncertainty about NAC's effectiveness and no study of its cost-effectiveness compared with that of standard primary debulking surgery (PDS).

OBJECTIVES

To seek answers to three important questions: 1) What is the lifetime cost of treating elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer, based on the primary treatment received? 2) Are the extra costs expended by the NAC group worth any extra survival advantage? 3) Would NAC potentially benefit a particular subgroup and serve as a cost-effective first-line treatment approach?

METHODS

A cohort of elderly women (≥65 years) with stage III/IV ovarian cancer was identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2009. Cost analysis was conducted from a payer perspective, and direct medical costs incurred by Medicare were integrated for each patient. Cumulative treatment costs were estimated with a phase-of-care approach, and effectiveness was measured as years of survival. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and propensity-score-adjusted net monetary benefit regression was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of NAC per life-year gained. Analyses were further stratified by risk group categorization on the basis of tumor stage, patient age, and comorbidity score.

RESULTS

Average lifetime cost for treatment with NAC was $17,417 more than with PDS. With only 0.1 incremental life-year gained, the ICER estimate was $174,173. Stratification, however, helped to delineate the treatment effect. Patients in the high-risk subgroup incurred $34,390 and 0.8 life-years more than did patients in the PDS subgroup, with a corresponding ICER of $42,987. In the non-high-risk subgroup, NAC use was dominated by PDS (more costly, less effective).

CONCLUSIONS

Administering NAC before surgery to patients in the high-risk subgroup was cost-effective at "normal" levels of willingness to pay, but not for the overall sample or for patients in the non-high-risk subgroup.

Preference-based utility scores for adverse events associated with the treatment of gynecologic cancers

OBJECTIVE

Our goals were to (1) define a set of descriptive health states related to adverse events (AEs) associated with gynecologic cancer treatment with radical surgery and chemoradiation and (2) derive a set of quality of life-related utility scores corresponding to these health states.

METHODS

We developed a list of health states for grade 3/4 AEs related to gynecologic cancer treatment. Using the visual analog scale score and time trade-off (TTO) methods, valuation of each health state was obtained through interviews of 60 volunteers (15 cervical cancer survivors treated with surgery and/or chemoradiation and 45 women without a cancer diagnosis). Health states were ranked by mean/median TTO scores. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare central tendencies related to patient and volunteer characteristics.

RESULTS

Patients and volunteers agreed on their preference rankings, with highest preference given to infection (median TTO = 1.0) and thrombosis (median TTO = 0.97). Lowest preference was assigned to radiation proctitis (median TTO = 0.87) and gastrointestinal fistula formation (median TTO = 0.83). Utility scores for the majority of health states were not significantly associated with age, race, parity, patient or volunteer status, history of abnormal Pap smear, stage of cervical cancer diagnosis, or personal experience of a serious treatment-related AE.

CONCLUSIONS

This study helps establish preferences and quality-of-life utility scores for health states related to toxicities from surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy for gynecologic cancer treatment. Such information can be used to inform medical decision making/counseling and may be applied to future comparative effectiveness models in which radical surgery and/or chemoradiation are considered.

Cost-utility analysis of platinum-based chemotherapy versus taxane and other regimens for ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVES

Most economic evaluations of chemotherapies for ovarian cancer patients have used hypothetical cohorts or randomized control trials, but evidence integrating real-world survival, cost, and utility data is limited.

METHODS

A propensity score-matched cohort of 6856 elderly (≥65 years) ovarian cancer patients diagnosed from 1991 to 2005 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data cohort were included. Treatment regimens (i.e., no chemotherapy, platinum-based only, platinum plus taxane, and other nonplatinum) were identified in the 6 months postdiagnosis. Patients were followed until death or end of study (December 2006). Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total health care costs were measured by using a payer's perspective (2009 US dollars). Methodological and statistical uncertainties were accounted by including alternative scenarios (for utility values) and net monetary benefit approach. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and stratified analyses were performed by tumor stages and age groups.

RESULTS

On comparing the platinum-based group versus no chemotherapy, we found that the ICER was $30,073/QALY and $58,151/QALY for early- and late-stage disease, respectively, while other nonplatinum and platinum plus taxane groups were dominated (less effective and more costly). Similar results were found across alternative scenarios and age groups. For patients 85 years or older, platinum plus taxane, however, was not dominated by the platinum-based group, with an ICER of $133,892/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Following elderly ovarian cancer patients over a lifetime using real-world longitudinal data and adjusting for quality of life, we found that treatment with platinum-based regimen was the most cost-effective treatment alternative.

The application of pharmacoeconomic modelling to estimate a value-based price for new cancer drugs

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Value-based pricing has recently been discussed by international bodies as a means to estimate a drug price that is linked to the benefits it offers patients and society. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended using three times a country's per capita gross domestic product (GDP) as the threshold for economic value. Using the WHO criteria, pharmacoeconomic modelling was used to illustrate the application of value-based price towards bevacizumab, a relatively new drug that provides a 1.4-month survival benefit to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

A decision model was developed to simulate outcomes in mCRC patients receiving chemotherapy ± bevacizumab. Clinical data were obtained from randomized trials and costs from Canadian cancer centres. Utility estimates were determined by interviewing 24 oncology nurses and pharmacists. A price per dose of bevacizumab was then estimated using a target threshold of $CAD117,000 per quality adjusted life year gained, which is three times the Canadian per capita GDP.

RESULTS

For a 1.4-month survival benefit, a price of $CAD830 per dose would be considered cost-effective from the Canadian public health care perspective. If the drug were able to improve patient quality of life or survival from 1.4 to 3 months, the drug price could increase to $CAD1560 and $CAD2180 and still be considered cost-effective.

DISCUSSION

The use of the WHO criteria for estimating a value-based price is feasible, but a balance between what patients/governments can afford to pay and the commercial viability of the product in the reference country would be required.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of prophylactic surgery versus gynecologic surveillance for women from hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) Families

Women at risk for Lynch Syndrome/HNPCC have an increased lifetime risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic surgery versus surveillance in women with Lynch Syndrome. A decision analytic model was designed incorporating key clinical decisions and existing probabilities, costs, and outcomes from the literature. Clinical forum where risk-reducing surgery and surveillance were considered. A theoretical population of women with Lynch Syndrome at age 30 was used for the analysis. A decision analytic model was designed comparing the health outcomes of prophylactic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at age 30 versus annual gynecologic screening versus annual gynecologic exam. The literature was searched for probabilities of different health outcomes, results of screening modalities, and costs of cancer diagnosis and treatment. Cost-effectiveness expressed in dollars per discounted life-years. Risk-reducing surgery is the least expensive option, costing $23,422 per patient for 25.71 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Annual screening costs $68,392 for 25.17 QALYs; and annual examination without screening costs $100,484 for 24.60 QALYs. Further, because risk-reducing surgery leads to both the lowest costs and the highest number of QALYs, it is a dominant strategy. Risk-reducing surgery is the most cost-effective option from a societal healthcare cost perspective.

Utility scores and treatment preferences for clinical early-stage cervical cancer

OBJECTIVES

To determine utility scores for health states relevant to the treatment of early-stage, high-risk cervical cancer.

METHODS

Seven descriptive health states incorporating the physical and emotional aspects of medical treatment, recovery, and prognosis were developed. Forty-five female volunteers valuated each health state using the visual analogue score (VAS) and time trade off (TTO) methods. Treatment options were ranked by mean and median TTO scores. The 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine the statistical significance of ranking preferences. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare central tendencies related to age, race, parity, and subject history of abnormal cervical cytology.

RESULTS

VAS and TTO scores were highly correlated. Volunteers ranked minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with low-risk features as most preferred (mean TTO = 0.96; median TTO = 1.00) and aborted radical hysterectomy followed by chemoradiation as least preferred (mean TTO = 0.69; median TTO = 0.83). Health states that included radical surgery were ranked higher than those that included chemoradiation, either in the adjuvant or primary setting. When survival was comparable, volunteers rated radical hysterectomy with high-risk pathology followed by adjuvant chemoradiation (mean TTO = 0.78; median TTO = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.69-0.87) similarly to chemoradiation alone (mean TTO = 0.76; median TTO 0.90; 95% CI: 0.66-0.86; p = NS). Utility scores for the majority of health states were not significantly associated with age, race, parity, or subject history of abnormal cervical cytology.

CONCLUSION

Subjects consistently preferred surgical excision to treat early-stage, high-risk cervical cancer and chose a minimally invasive approach. Such utility scores can be used to incorporate quality-of-life effects into comparative-effectiveness models for cervical cancer.

Improving patient access to cancer drugs in India: Using economic modeling to estimate a more affordable drug cost based on measures of societal value

Background: Using multiples of India's per capita gross domestic product (GDP) as the threshold for economic value as suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO), decision analysis modeling was used to estimate a more affordable monthly cost in India for a hypothetical new cancer drug that provides a 3-month survival benefit to Indian patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods: A decision model was developed to simulate progression-free and overall survival in mCRC patients receiving chemotherapy with and without the new drug. Costs for chemotherapy and side-effects management were obtained from both public and private hospitals in India. Utility estimates measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were determined by interviewing twenty-four oncology nurses using the Time Trade-Off technique. The monthly cost of the new drug was then estimated using a target threshold of US$9,300 per QALY gained, which is three times the Indian per capita GDP.

Results: The base-case analysis suggested that a price of US$98.00 per dose would be considered cost-effective from the Indian public healthcare perspective. If the drug were able to improve patient quality of life above the standard of care or survival from 3 to 6 months, the price per dose could increase to US$170 and US$253 and offer the same value.

Conclusions: The use of the WHO criteria for estimating the cost of a new drug based on economic value for a developing country like India is feasible and can be used to estimate a more affordable cost based on societal value thresholds.

Paclitaxel: cost-effectiveness in ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer accounts for a significant burden of healthcare costs worldwide. Therapy of this disease consists of a combined surgical and chemotherapeutic approach. Remarkable advances in chemotherapy have been made with the introduction of new agents such as paclitaxel. Based on positive clinical data from randomized trials, numerous cost studies have been undertaken to analyze the cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel. Reviewing all the available cost studies, the authors conclude that paclitaxel plus cisplatin treatment is cost effective. Paclitaxel demonstrated survival and utility gains in combination with cisplatin as first-line treatment in patients with Stage II-IV ovarian cancer compared with cyclophosphamide and cisplatin. Incremental costs of USD 6600-22,000 per life year gained are within an accepted range for new treatments.

Determination of quality of life-related utilities for health states relevant to ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment

OBJECTIVES

(1) To define a set of health state descriptions related to screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and toxicities relevant to ovarian cancer; (2) To derive a set of quality of life-related utilities to be used for cost-effectiveness analyses.

METHODS

A comprehensive list of health states was developed to represent the experiences of diagnostic testing for ovarian cancer, natural history of ovarian cancer (e.g., newly diagnosed early stage ovarian cancer, recurrent progressive ovarian cancer) and the most common chemotherapy-related toxicities (e.g. alopecia, peripheral neuropathy, pain, neutropenia, fatigue). Valuation of each health state was obtained through individual interviews of 13 ovarian cancer patients and 37 female members of the general public. Interviews employed visual analog score (VAS) and time trade off (TTO) methods of health state valuation.

RESULTS

Mean TTO-derived utilities were higher than VAS-derived utilities by 0.118 U (p<0.0001). Mean VAS-derived utilities for screening tests were 0.83 and 0.81 for true negative blood test and ultrasound; 0.79 and 0.78 for false negative blood test and ultrasound, respectively. Patients and volunteers generally agreed in their preference ranking of chemotherapy-associated states, with lowest rankings being given to febrile neutropenia, grades 3-4 fatigue, and grades 3-4 nausea/vomiting. For 55% of chemotherapy-associated health states, the average utility assigned was higher for patients than for volunteers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes societal preferences for a number of health states related to screening, diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer that can be used for assessing the cost-effectiveness of different ovarian cancer screening and treatment regimens.

Economic analysis of albumin-bound paclitaxel for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer

Background. An albumin-bound formulation of paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) was developed to provide additional efficacy and to overcome the safety drawbacks of paclitaxel and docetaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. To provide health economic data for the Canadian setting, an economic analysis comparing each of nab-paclitaxel and docetaxel, both as alternatives to paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer was conducted.

Methods. The clinical and safety data were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing either nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m2 q3wk) or docetaxel (100 mg/m 2 q3wk), to standard paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 q3wk). Health care resource use for the delivery of chemotherapy and the management of grade III/IV toxicity was collected from the oncology literature. Treatment preferences and health state utilities were obtained from 24 female oncology nurses and pharmacists using the time trade-off technique.

Results. Nab-paclitaxel had the lowest incidence of grade III/IV toxicity. This translated to lower overall costs for managing the grade III/IV events relative to both docetaxel and paclitaxel ($597 vs. $2626 vs. $1227). Using the median number of cycles administered and the cost impact of grade III/ IV toxicity, the overall cost for nab-paclitaxel would be $15,105 compared to $15,268 for docetaxel and $3557 for paclitaxel. When treatment preferences were assessed, 20 of 24 (83.3%) respondents selected nab-paclitaxel as their preferred choice compared to only 4 who selected docetaxel. These corresponded to a gain of 0.203 and 0.016 QALYs for nab-paclitaxel and docetaxel, respectively. With these utility benefits, the incremental cost per QALY gained was more favorable for nab-paclitaxel than docetaxel ($56,800 vs. $739,600).

Conclusions. Nab-paclitaxel would be an economically reasonable alternative to docetaxel in MBC patients. As an alternative to paclitaxel, formulary committees must decide if the $56,800 cost per QALY represents good value in their health care setting. J Oncol Pharm Practice (2009) 15: 67—78.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of prevention strategies for gynecologic cancers in Lynch syndrome

BACKGROUND

Women with Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) have an increased lifetime risk for endometrial and ovarian cancer. Screening and prophylactic surgery have been recommended as prevention strategies. In this study, the authors estimated the net health benefits and cost-effectiveness of these strategies in a Markov decision-analytic model.

METHODS

Five strategies were compared for a hypothetical cohort of women with Lynch syndrome: 1) no prevention ('reference'); 2) prophylactic surgery (hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy) at age 30 years; 3) prophylactic surgery at age 40 years; 4) annual screening with endometrial biopsy, transvaginal ultrasound, and CA 125 from age 30 years; and 5) annual screening from age 30 years until prophylactic surgery at age 40 years (combined strategy). Net health benefit was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the primary outcome measured was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Baseline and transition probabilities were obtained from published literature, and costs were from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Agency for Health Care Quality and Research. Sensitivity analyses were performed for uncertainty around various parameters.

RESULTS

The combined strategy provided the highest net health benefit (18.98 QALYs) but had an ICER of $194,650 per QALY relative to the next best strategy (prophylactic surgery at age 40 years). Prophylactic surgery at age 30 years and annual screening were dominated by alternate strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual screening followed by prophylactic surgery at age 40 years was the most effective gynecologic cancer prevention strategy, but the incremental benefit over prophylactic surgery alone was attained at substantial cost. The ICER would become favorable by improving the effectiveness and reducing the costs of screening in this population.

Markov-modeling for the administration of platinum analogues and paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy as well as topotecan and liposomal doxorubicin as second-line chemotherapy with epithelial ovarian carcinoma

PURPOSE

So far there is no analysis available on the cost effectiveness of the paclitaxel/platinum-analogue combination versus carboplatin monotherapy with ovarian cancer. Up-to-now only a cost-utility analysis on ovarian carcinoma has been published (Ortega et al. in Gynecol Oncol 66(3):454-463, 1997), which in addition to the first-line chemotherapy included second-line chemotherapy with effectiveness and cost data in the analysis. Therefore, within the scope of our study the cost effectiveness of platinum analogues and paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy as well as topotecan and liposomal doxorubicin as second-lie chemotherapy was to be determined with epithelial ovarian carcinoma.

METHODS

For this purpose a decision-making Markov model was developed which represents the medical and economic consequences of the administration of paclitaxel and platinum derivatives in first-line chemotherapy and the administration of topotecan and liposomal doxorubicin in second-line chemotherapy in the treatment of epithelial ovarian carcinoma by means of data from the literature. Patients were treated either in the early (FIGO stage I-IIa) or advanced stage (FIGO stage IIb-IV).

RESULTS

The therapeutic strategy caboplatin followed by topotecan costs 20,123.91 euros, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin followed by liposomal doxorubicin 22,336.57 euros, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/pactlitaxel followed by liposomal topotecan 29,820.64 euros and the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by liposomal doxorubicin 31,560.47 euros from the time of diagnosis until death or survival within 5 years. With lives saved, accordingly of 2.55, 2.70, 2.60 and 2.65 years' costs amounted to 7,891 euros, 8,270.35 euros, and 11,453.62 euros per year of life saved.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the threshold value of social willingness to pay 45,500 euros per year of life saved, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin followed by topotecan, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin followed by liposomal doxorubicin, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by topotcan and the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by liposomal doxorubicin can be evaluated to be cost effective.

Putting the ‘Q’ in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for advanced ovarian cancer – An approach using data clustering methods and the internet

There are few clearly described utility studies in advanced ovarian cancer, despite the public health importance of condition and the need for preference based measures of quality of life in economic evaluation of the new treatments. We used data clustering techniques to develop health state descriptions based on data from 66 women who completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 over a six month period while receiving chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. The health state descriptions were presented to a group of members of the general public (n=38), via the internet, and preferences elicited using the standard gamble technique. Mean utility values ranged from 0.685 to 0.977, although the range of individual preferences was wider, including values as low as 0.125. This is the first study to use data clustering methods combined with internet preference elicitation in oncology. The resulting health state model is parsimonious, data driven, and incorporates quality of life items tailored to cancer. The estimates therefore meet the needs of policy makers while reflecting more accurately the experience of disease than those based on generic preference measures.

An unadjusted NNT was a moderately good predictor of health benefit

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Whether the number needed to treat (NNT) is sufficiently precise to use in clinical practice remains unclear. We compared unadjusted NNTs to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, a more comprehensive measures of health benefit.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

From a subset (n = 65) of a dataset of 228 cost-effectiveness analyses, we compared how well NNTs predicted clinically important QALY gains using correlation analysis, multivariable models and receiver-operator curve (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

NNT was inversely correlated with QALY gains (P < .001); this relationship was affected by quality of life and life-expectancy gains of treatment (P <or= .04). The NNT is a moderately accurate predictor of treatments that provide large health benefits (area under ROC 0.74-0.81). For ruling out therapies with low QALY gains (threshold <or=0.125 to <or=0.5 QALYs), an NNT >15 had a sensitivity of 82% to 100%. For ruling in therapies with high QALY gains (threshold >or=0.125 to >or=0.5 QALYs), an NNT <or=5 had a specificity of 77%.

CONCLUSION

Using NNT thresholds of <or=5 and >15 to rule in and out therapies with large QALY gains may provide general guidance regarding the magnitude of health benefit.

Dalteparin versus warfarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolic events in cancer patients: a pharmacoeconomic analysis

OBJECTIVE

In a recent randomised trial (CLOT [Comparison of Low molecular weight heparin versus Oral anticoagulant Therapy for long term anticoagulation in cancer patients with venous thromboembolism]), which evaluated secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients, dalteparin reduced the relative risk of recurrent VTEs by 52% compared with oral anticoagulation therapy (p = 0.002). A Canadian pharmacoeconomic analysis was conducted to measure the economic value of dalteparin for this indication.

DESIGN

The study was conducted from the Canadian healthcare system. The first part of this study utilised the CLOT trial database, from which resource utilisation data were converted into Canadian cost estimates (Can dollars, year 2005 values). Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to compare the total cost of therapy between patients randomised to treatment with dalteparin or oral therapy. Health state utilities and treatment preferences were then measured in 24 oncology care providers using the time trade-off technique.

RESULTS

When all of the cost components were combined for the entire population (n = 676), patients in the dalteparin group had significantly higher overall costs than the control group (Can dollars 4162 vs Can dollars 2003; p < 0.001). The preference assessment revealed that 23 of 24 respondents (96%) selected dalteparin over warfarin, with an associated gain of 0.157 QALYs. When the incremental cost of dalteparin (Can dollars 2159 per patient) was combined with the QALY gain, the findings revealed that dalteparin was associated with a cost of approximately Can dollars 13,800 (95% CI 12,400, 15,100) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the practical advantages of dalteparin in terms of convenience, improved efficacy and the acceptable economic value, this analysis suggests that long-term dalteparin therapy is a sound alternative to warfarin for the prevention of recurrent VTEs in patients with cancer.

Eliciting women's preferences in health care: a review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

The increasing availability of information about health care suggests an expanding role for consumers to exercise their preferences in health-care decision-making. Numerous methods are available to assess consumer preferences in health care. We conducted a systematic review to characterize the study of women's preferences about health care.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search from 1965 to July 1999 was conducted as well as hand searches of the Medical Decision Making Journal (1981-1999) and references from retrieved articles. Only original articles on women's health issues were selected. Information on thirty-one variables related to study characteristics and preferences were extracted by two independent investigators. A third investigator resolved disagreements. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted to synthesize the data.

RESULTS

Four hundred eighty-three studies were identified in the initial search. Seventy articles were selected for review based on title, abstract, and inclusion criteria. There was an increase in published articles and number of methods used to elicit preferences. White women were studied more than black women (p < .001). Preferences were mainly studied in outpatient settings (p < .005) and in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada (83 percent). Preferences related to participation in decision-making were the most common (21 percent). Only 4 percent of the studies were performed to inform the debate for public policy questions. Willingness to pay was the method most used (11 percent), followed by category scaling (10 percent), rating scale (9 percent), standard-gamble (6 percent). Preferences for individual particular (opposed to sequential and health states) outcomes (68 percent), different treatments/tests (47 percent), and related to a treatment episode (31 percent) were addressed. Information regarding diseases, conditions, or procedures was given in 57 percent of studies. Information provided was mainly written (37 percent) and included positive and negative potential outcomes (67 percent). There is no relationship between the method or tool used for delivery information and the choice performed.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature on preferences in women's health care is limited to a fairly homogeneous population (white women from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada). Additionally, use of utility-based measures to capture preferences has decreased over time while others methods (e.g., time trade-off [TTO], contingent valuation) have increased. Women's preferences are not necessarily uniform even when asked similar questions using similar tools. Little information on women's preferences exists to inform policy-makers about women's health care.

Using decision modeling to determine pricing of new pharmaceuticals: The case of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist antiemetics for cancer chemotherapy

Objectives:Decision analysis is commonly used to perform economic evaluations of new pharmaceuticals. The outcomes of such studies are often reported as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with the new agent. Decision analysis can also be used in the context of estimating drug cost before market entry. The current study used neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, a new class of antiemetics for cancer patients, as an example to illustrate the process using an incremental cost of $Can20,000 per QALY gained as the target threshold.

Methods:A decision model was developed to simulate the control of acute and delayed emesis after cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The model compared standard therapy with granisetron and dexamethasone to the same protocol with the addition of an NK-1 before chemotherapy and continued twice daily for five days. The rates of complete emesis control were abstracted from a double-blind randomized trial. Costs of standard antiemetics and therapy for breakthrough vomiting were obtained from hospital sources. Utility estimates characterized as quality-adjusted emesis-free days were determined by interviewing twenty-five oncology nurses and pharmacists by using the Time Trade-Off technique. These data were then used to estimate the unit cost of the new antiemetic using a target threshold of $Can20,000 per QALY gained.

Results:A cost of $Can6.60 per NK-1 dose would generate an incremental cost of $Can20,000 per QALY. The sensitivity analysis on the unit cost identified a range from $Can4.80 to $Can10.00 per dose. For the recommended five days of therapy, the total cost should be $Can66.00 ($Can48.00–$Can100.00) for optimal economic efficiency relative to Canada's publicly funded health-care system.

Conclusions:The use of decision modeling for estimating drug cost before product launch is a powerful technique to ensure value for money. Such information can be of value to both drug manufacturers and formulary committees, because it would facilitate negotiations for optimal pricing in a given jurisdiction.

Cost-effectiveness analyses in gynecologic oncology: methodological quality and trends

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate methodological quality and trends of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) published in gynecologic oncology.

METHODS

A medical literature search of articles from 1966 through 2002 was performed to identify original, English-language articles that included economic analyses in gynecologic oncology. We included articles that were cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses or performed these analyses as part of their study. Ten methodological principles that should be incorporated in CEAs were assessed for each study. Each article was given a score of 0, 1, or 2 for each of the 10 methodological principles (max score = 20). Data were analyzed using the Student t test, ANOVA, and linear regression.

RESULTS

We screened 693 articles to identify 68 that met our inclusion criteria. The articles focused on cervical cancer (n = 53; 78%), ovarian cancer (n = 11; 16%), uterine cancer (n = 2; 3%), and general perioperative care (n = 2; 3%). The mean (+/-SD) methodological principle score was 16.1 (+/-4.1) and we observed a significant improvement in the total score over time (P = 0.01). Primary CEA's (CEA identified as the objective of the study) were of higher quality than secondary CEA's (primary objective of the study was not CEA but CEA was included in the study; total scores 18.2 vs. 11.6, respectively; P<0.0001). Studies with at least one investigator in public health or healthcare economies also had higher quality (mean total score 17.7 vs. 15.2; P=0.006). The most common limitations of published CEAs were in methodology or presentation of incremental analyses, sensitivity analyses, and discounting.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness analyses in gynecologic oncology showed significant improvement in quality over the last two decades. Despite this progress, methodological improvement is still needed in the areas of incremental comparisons and sensitivity analysis. Understanding the methodology of cost-effectiveness analysis is critical for researchers, editors, and readers to accurately interpret results of the growing body of CEA articles.

Cost-effectiveness studies in ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths. The costs associated with this cancer impact both on the affected individual and on the health system. Screening is currently unproven as a strategy for improving outcomes for women with ovarian cancer. Randomized controlled trials, however, are underway, estimating any impact of screening with ultrasound and CA125 on ovarian cancer mortality. Paclitaxel and carboplatin combination, the standard first-line chemotherapy regimen for ovarian cancer, has not been compared with cisplatin and cyclophosphamide regarding the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility, but for paclitaxel and cisplatin, numerous studies have addressed these issues. The estimated incremental costs resulting from these studies fall well within the generally accepted range for new therapies. Although acquisition costs of new chemotherapy drugs exceed those of older drugs, the impact of costly drugs on total costs may be cost saving due to less costs related to supportive and palliative care. The most important costs for the patient, the pain and suffering associated with ovarian cancer and its treatment, are hard to quantify. Nevertheless, patients' quality of life must be considered when making a clinical decision to treat this disease. A review of available cost-effectiveness studies is presented and discussed.

Quality of life associated with visual loss: a time tradeoff utility analysis comparison with medical health states

PURPOSE

To assess the visual utility values of patients with ocular disease and to compare these values with those of patients with systemic health states

DESIGN

Cross-sectional utility value assessment.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with ophthalmic diseases were interviewed in a one-on-one fashion using a standardized time tradeoff utility value assessment form. These values were compared with utility values for systemic health states present in the literature.

INTERVENTION

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Time tradeoff utility value on a scale ranging from 1.0 (perfect visual health) to 0.0 (death). The ophthalmic patient groups were stratified into 4 visual groups dependent on the visual acuity in the better-seeing eye. The groups were as follows: group 1, 20/20 to 20/25; group 2, 20/30 to 20/50; group 3, 20/60 to 20/100; group 4, 20/200 to no light perception.

RESULTS

A total of 500 subjects were enrolled in the study. The mean utility values for the visually stratified groups were: group 1, 0.88; group 2, 0.81; group 3, 0.72; group 4, 0.61. Comparable respective systemic health state utility values for each of the ophthalmic groups were: diabetes mellitus, status after kidney transplantation, moderate stroke, and moderately severe stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Visual loss is associated with a substantial and measurable diminution in quality of life. This diminution in quality of life can be directly compared with that induced by systemic health states.

Patient preferences regarding side effects of chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: do they change over time?

OBJECTIVE

The goals of this study were to: (1) systematically evaluate patient preferences regarding side effects of high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell support for treatment of advanced ovarian cancer; and (2) assess whether patients' preferences changed over time.

METHODS

Forty patients with stage III or IV disease were enrolled in this study. Patients' preferences regarding 12 health states (side effects) were assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS) and time trade-off (TTO) methods during mobilization chemotherapy (T(1)) and 6-7 weeks later after high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant (T(2)). Each assessment involved a 45-min interview conducted at the patient's bedside.

RESULTS

The three most preferred health states were no evidence of disease (NED), a chemotherapy with few or no side effects, and alopecia, while the least preferred health states were chemotherapy with multiple severe side effects, hepatotoxicity, and nausea and vomiting. These results were observed at both T(1) and T(2) using both preference assessment methods. Pancytopenia scores significantly increased from T(1) to T(2) using the VAS method (P < 0.05), but decreased using the TTO method.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy-experienced women with ovarian cancer have consistent preferences for the best and worst health states associated with the side effects of chemotherapy. Patients are more averse to nausea and vomiting than many other symptoms. Women's perceptions of pancytopenia may be dependent upon the number of prior cycles of chemotherapy and site of care for anemia, thrombocytopenia, and febrile neutropenia.

Prophylactic cranial irradiation revisited: cost-effectiveness and quality of life in small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the therapeutic usefulness and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who had achieved a complete remission.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was undertaken of all patients diagnosed in Saskatchewan with SCLC between 1987 and 1998 inclusive. Patients who achieved a complete remission were divided into two groups, depending on whether they underwent PCI (PCI+ and PCI-, respectively). The quality-of-life-adjusted survival was estimated by the Q-TWiST method (quality time without symptoms and toxicity). The mean incremental costs per month of incremental OS were calculated in a cost-effectiveness analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 98 complete remission patients, the median OS for PCI+ and PCI- patients was 20.0 and 19.0 months, respectively (p > 0.05, nonsignificant). The median disease-free survival was 14.7 and 10.0 months, respectively (p < 0.05). The difference in the mean Q-TWiST survival was significant (p < 0.01). The mean marginal cost was $18,834/PCI+ patient and $17,885/PCI- patient (p > 0.05, nonsignificant). The cost-effectiveness ratio was $70/mo of incremental OS if u(tox) and u(rel) (the utility coefficients to reflect the value of time in health states of toxicity and relapse) were assumed to be 1.0.

CONCLUSION

PCI is a cost-effective treatment that improves the quality-of-life-adjusted survival for patients with a complete remission of SCLC.

Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology

PURPOSE

Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) present the value of an intervention as the ratio of its incremental cost divided by its incremental survival benefit, with survival weighted by utilities to produce quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We critically reviewed the CUA literature and its role in informing clinical oncology practice, research priorities, and policy.

METHODS

The English-language literature was searched between 1975 and1997 for CUAs. Two readers abstracted from each article descriptions of the clinical situation and patients, the methods used, study perspective, the measures of effectiveness, costs included, discounting, and whether sensitivity analyses were performed. The readers then made subjective quality assessments. We also extracted utility values from the reviewed papers, along with information on how and from whom utilities were measured.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 40 studies, which described 263 health states and presented 89 cost-utility ratios. Both the number and quality of studies increased over time. However, many studies are at variance with current standards. Only 20% of studies took a societal perspective, more than a third failed to discount both the costs and QALYs, and utilities were often simply estimates from the investigators or other physicians.

CONCLUSION

The cost-utility literature in oncology is not large but is rapidly expanding. There remains much room for improvement in the methodological rigor with which utilities are measured. Considering quality-of-life effects by incorporating utilities into economic studies is particularly important in oncology, where many therapies obtain modest improvements in response or survival at the expense of nontrivial toxicity.

Simulation modeling of outcomes and cost effectiveness

Modeling will continue to be used to address important issues in clinical practice and health policy issues that have not been adequately studied with high-quality clinical trials. The apparent ad hoc nature of models belies the methodologic rigor that is applied to create the best models in cancer prevention and care. Models have progressed from simple decision trees to extremely complex microsimulation analyses, yet all are built using a logical process based on objective evaluation of the path between intervention and outcome. The best modelers take great care to justify both the structure and content of the model and then test their assumptions using a comprehensive process of sensitivity analysis and model validation. Like clinical trials, models sometimes produce results that are later found to be invalid as other data become available. When weighing the value of models in health care decision making, it is reasonable to consider the alternatives. In the absence of data, clinical policy decisions are often based on the recommendations of expert opinion panels or on poorly defined notions of the standard of care or medical necessity. Because such decision making rarely entails the rigorous process of data collection, synthesis, and testing that is the core of well-conducted modeling, it is usually not possible for external audiences to examine the assumptions and data that were used to derive the decisions. One of the modeler's most challenging tasks is to make the structure and content of the model transparent to the intended audience. The purpose of this article is to clarify the process of modeling, so that readers of models are more knowledgeable about their uses, strengths, and limitations.

Pharmacoeconomic considerations in treating ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death in women with gynaecological cancers. The most common type of ovarian cancer is epithelial ovarian cancer. Referred to as the 'silent' killer, this disease is difficult to detect because of the lack of specific symptoms. The majority of women who have ovarian cancer are diagnosed in the advanced stages. While the exact cause of ovarian cancer remains elusive, it is believed that the events relating to incessant ovulatory function play a major role in the development of this disease. Long term prognosis of women with ovarian cancer remains grim. Although ovarian cancer is highly responsive to chemotherapy, most women will develop persistent or recurrent disease after primary treatment. The standard front-line treatment is paclitaxel in combination with a platinum-based agent; however, toxicities associated with paclitaxel must be weighed against the clinical benefit. The economic issues associated with the treatment of ovarian cancer involve costs of chemotherapy agents and management of supportive care. Patient preferences and quality-of-life issues are also of major importance because of the short survival benefit for most patients. Therefore, quality of life must be maximised alongside efforts to prolong survival. More research is necessary to determine what trade-offs (e.g. adverse effects of treatment) patients are willing to make for modest gains in survival.

Paclitaxel. An update of its use in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer and ovarian and other gynaecological cancers

The antitumour agent paclitaxel has proved to be effective for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast or ovarian cancer, and limited data also indicate its clinical potential in patients with cervical or endometrial cancer. The regimen of paclitaxel administration has varied in clinical trials, the most common including a dosage of between 135 and 250 mg/m2 administered over an infusion period of 3 or 24 hours once every 3 weeks. Promising results have been achieved in phase I/II trials of a weekly regimen of paclitaxel (60 to 175 mg/m2). The objective response rate in patients with metastatic breast cancer (either pretreated or chemotherapy-naive) is generally between 20 and 35% with paclitaxel monotherapy, which compares well with that of other current treatment options including the anthracycline doxorubicin. Combination therapy with paclitaxel plus doxorubicin appears superior to treatment with either agent alone in terms of objective response rate and median duration of response. However, whether combination therapy also provides a survival advantage remains unclear; recent results of a phase III study indicate that it does not. Paclitaxel is also a useful second-line option in some patients with anthracycline-resistant disease. Combination therapy with paclitaxel and cisplatin has proved highly effective as first-line therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer, showing superior efficacy to cyclophosphamide/cisplatin in terms of progression-free survival time and median duration of survival. Combination therapy with paclitaxel and carboplatin has also shown promising results. Paclitaxel monotherapy is a useful second-line option for patients with platinum-refractory metastatic ovarian cancer (objective response rates have ranged from 15 to 48%). The major dose-limiting adverse events associated with paclitaxel include myelotoxicity and peripheral neuropathy. Paclitaxel has acceptable tolerability in most patients, although adverse events are common.

CONCLUSION

Paclitaxel generally appears to be as effective as other antineoplastic agents used in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, including doxorubicin. Importantly, it is a useful second-line option for some patients with anthracycline-resistant disease. Combination therapy with both paclitaxel and doxorubicin is a highly effective first-line option for metastatic breast cancer; however, recent results indicate no survival advantage versus monotherapy. Paclitaxel is a valuable agent for second-line treatment of patients with platinum-refractory metastatic ovarian cancer and, when combined with cisplatin or carboplatin, is recommended as first-line therapy for this disease.