Cost–effectiveness analysis of adjuvant therapy for node positive breast cancer in Korea: docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC)

Clinical Impact of Primary Prophylactic Pegfilgrastim in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Adjuvant Docetaxel-Doxorubicin-Cyclophosphamide Chemotherapy

Purpose

The regimen including concurrent docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) has been categorized as an important risk factor for febrile neutropenia (FN). This comparative study examined the clinical impact of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (pegfilgrastim) during adjuvant TAC chemotherapy in Korean patients with advanced breast cancer.

Methods

We analyzed data from 239 patients who received 6 cycles of adjuvant TAC chemotherapy. We categorized patients into 2 groups according to the use of primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim and compared the incidence and risk of FN, hospital care costs, and survival in the 2 groups.

Results

The incidence of FN decreased from 54.2% to 21.2% in all patients, after the use of pegfilgrastim. The analysis of a total of 1,432 chemotherapy cycles showed that the incidence of FN decreased from 36.1% to 9.1% after the use of pegfilgrastim. Moreover, the decrease in the incidence of FN with the use of pegfilgrastim resulted in a significant decrease in the mean duration of neutropenia (4.15 to 1.29 days), the risk of hospitalization (99.5% to 29.7%) and the mean total hospital care cost (USD 3,038 to USD 2,347). High relative dose intensity (RDI) in patients treated with pegfilgrastim than in those not treated with pegfilgrastim (99.18% vs. 93.85%) was associated with a better overall survival (p = 0.033).

Conclusions

The use of pegfilgrastim during adjuvant TAC chemotherapy was significantly associated with a decrease in the incidence and risk of FN, hospital care costs, and risk of death compared to the use of adjuvant TAC without primary prophylaxis.

Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Panitumumab Plus FOLFIRI for the Second-Line Treatment of Patients with Wild-Type Ras Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The NCT00339183 trial demonstrated that adding panitumumab to fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as a second-line therapy of wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) increases the median progression-free survival (PFS). Nevertheless, panitumumab is not yet approved in China, and the costs and outcomes of the therapy are still unclear. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of this intervention from the perspective of Chinese health care systems by constructing two pricing scenarios for panitumumab. Scenario 1: Pricing is based on the price of a similar product (cetuximab) in China. Scenario 2: We estimated the value-based price.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was created based on the results of the NCT00339183 trial, which evaluated panitumumab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI. The model simulated the disease progression. We calculated medical costs from the perspectives of the Chinese health care systems. The primary outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

In scenario 1, compared with FOLFIRI alone, FOLFIRI with panitumumab arm had an ICER of ¥1,539,988/QALY. The most influential factors were the mean overall survival (OS), utility before progression and cost of panitumumab. The probability of panitumumab plus FOLFIRI being cost-effective in China was 0% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was ¥193,932/QALY. In scenario 2, when the cost of panitumumab was assumed to be ¥4032.61 or ¥5218.96 per cycle, the ICERs approximated the WTP thresholds of ¥193,932/QALY or ¥420,633/QALY, respectively. In this value-based pricing scenario, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI is estimated to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

We construct two pricing scenarios in China. In scenario 1, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI as a second-line therapy of mCRC provided an incremental benefit, but simultaneously increased costs (at the current price) even further. In scenario 2, when the value-based price was adopted, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI was estimated to be cost-effective. Our study establishes a pricing framework for new anticancer drugs to reflect the economics of drugs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00339183.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in China based on the ESPAC-4 trial

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer has been evaluated in the ESPAC-4 trial. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of these adjuvant regimens on resected pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A Markov model was established to simulate the disease process of resected pancreatic cancer (relapse-free survival, progressive disease, and death). The efficacy and toxicity profiles were collected from the ESPAC-4 trial. Transition probabilities were calculated based on survival in each group. Cost data were calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health-care payer. The primary endpoint in the analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and model uncertainties were explored by one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Our results demonstrated that gemcitabine monotherapy cost $36,028.45 and yielded a survival of 1.02 quality-adjusted life year (QALY), while gemcitabine plus capecitabine cost $46,095.05 and yielded a survival of 1.23 QALY. Therefore, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of gemcitabine plus capecitabine vs gemcitabine monotherapy was $45,191.23 which surpassed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $29,291.42 per QALY in China.

CONCLUSION

The gemcitabine monotherapy regimen is more cost-effective compared with gemcitabine plus capecitabine regimen for the patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer from the Chinese societal perspective.

Economic Evaluation of Letrozole for Early Breast Cancer in a Health Resource-Limited Setting

Objective

Long-term aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy is expected to improve the health outcomes with high health resource consumption in early breast cancer. The aim of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of letrozole for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor positive early breast cancer in a health resource-limited setting.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to project the lifetime outcomes based on the clinical course of early breast cancer. The clinical and utility data were derived from reported results. Costs were estimated from the perspective of Chinese health care. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) were measured. Probabilistic sensitivity and one-way analyses were conducted.

Results

Compared to 5 years of tamoxifen therapy, 5 years of AI treatment with letrozole improved the QALYs (10.44 versus 10.84) and increased the lifetime costs (CNY ¥13,613 versus CNY ¥28,797), resulting in an ICER of CNY ¥38,092 /QALY. The ICER of 5 years of letrozole versus 2-3 years of tamoxifen and then letrozole was CNY ¥68,233 /QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed that the age of initiating adjuvant endocrine therapy was the most influential parameter.

Conclusions

In health resource-limited settings, adjuvant endocrine therapy with letrozole is a cost-effective strategy compared to tamoxifen in women with early breast cancer.

The cost-effectiveness of a NSCLC patient assistance program for pemetrexed maintenance therapy in People's Republic of China

Background

Eli Lilly and the China Primary Health Care Foundation are currently implementing a patient assistance program (PAP) in China, which allows first-line nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who complete four cycles of pemetrexed induction therapy to receive free, continuous pemetrexed maintenance therapy.

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed maintenance therapy vs basic standard care (BSC) and the economic impacts of providing a PAP for pemetrexed maintenance therapy to NSCLC patients who have completed pemetrexed induction therapy in a Chinese health care setting.

Methods

We developed a novel decision-analytic model to evaluate the long-term costs and clinical efficacy of pemetrexed plus BSC vs BSC alone. We utilized a three-state (progression-free survival, progressed disease, and dead) partition survival model for both the clinical and economic aspects of the analysis. Cost and health utility estimates were derived from the literature. We performed a scenario analysis to estimate the real-world impact of introducing the PAP in China by comparing the use of the PAP vs non-PAP. Model uncertainty was evaluated using one-way and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results

Compared to BSC, pemetrexed plus BSC resulted in a gain of 0.22 years of life (95% credible range [CR]: 0.04–0.46) and 0.13 quality-adjusted life years (95% CR: 0.04–0.26) per patient, at an increased cost of $28,105 (95% CR: −$22,720 to $48,646) without a PAP and $3,068 (95% CR: −$1,263 to $9,163) with a PAP. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for pemetrexed plus BSC vs BSC alone was cost-prohibitive at $222,700 for non-PAP, but cost-effective at $24,319 with a PAP.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that maintenance pemetrexed therapy following pemetrexed induction for patients with advanced NSCLC is likely to be highly non-cost-effective in the absence of a PAP, but the pending implementation of the PAP promises to make it cost-effective, with a >90% probability of cost-effectiveness at a Chinese willingness-to-pay threshold per quality-adjusted life year.

Unremarked or Unperformed? Systematic Review on Reporting of Validation Efforts of Health Economic Decision Models in Seasonal Influenza and Early Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Transparent reporting of validation efforts of health economic models give stakeholders better insight into the credibility of model outcomes. In this study we reviewed recently published studies on seasonal influenza and early breast cancer in order to gain insight into the reporting of model validation efforts in the overall health economic literature.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in Pubmed and Embase to retrieve health economic modelling studies published between 2008 and 2014. Reporting on model validation was evaluated by checking for the word validation, and by using AdViSHE (Assessment of the Validation Status of Health Economic decision models), a tool containing a structured list of relevant items for validation. Additionally, we contacted corresponding authors to ask whether more validation efforts were performed other than those reported in the manuscripts.

RESULTS

A total of 53 studies on seasonal influenza and 41 studies on early breast cancer were included in our review. The word validation was used in 16 studies (30 %) on seasonal influenza and 23 studies (56 %) on early breast cancer; however, in a minority of studies, this referred to a model validation technique. Fifty-seven percent of seasonal influenza studies and 71 % of early breast cancer studies reported one or more validation techniques. Cross-validation of study outcomes was found most often. A limited number of studies reported on model validation efforts, although good examples were identified. Author comments indicated that more validation techniques were performed than those reported in the manuscripts.

CONCLUSIONS

Although validation is deemed important by many researchers, this is not reflected in the reporting habits of health economic modelling studies. Systematic reporting of validation efforts would be desirable to further enhance decision makers' confidence in health economic models and their outcomes.

Cost-utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review

The economic evaluation (EE) of health care products has become a necessity. Their quality must be high in order to trust the results and make informed decisions. While cost-utility analyses (CUAs) should be preferred to cost-effectiveness analyses in the oncology area, the quality of breast cancer (BC)-related CUA has been given little attention so far. Thus, firstly, a systematic review of published CUA related to drug therapies for BC, gene expression profiling, and HER2 status testing was performed. Secondly, the quality of selected CUA was assessed and the factors associated with a high-quality CUA identified. The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE/EMBASE, and Cochrane to identify published CUA between 2000 and 2014. After screening and data extraction, the quality of each selected CUA was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the checklist proposed by Drummond et al. The analysis of factors associated with a high-quality CUA (defined as a Drummond score ≥7) was performed using a two-step approach. Our systematic review was based on 140 CUAs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including differences in the perspective adopted, the time horizon, measurement of cost and effectiveness, and more specially health-state utility values (HSUVs). The median Drummond score was 7 [range 3-10]. Only one in two of the CUA (n = 74) had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous of "high quality." The statistically significant predictors of a high-quality CUA were article with "gene expression profiling" topic (p = 0.001), consulting or pharmaceutical company as main location of first author (p = 0.004), and articles with both incremental cost-utility ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes of EE (p = 0.02). Our systematic review identified only 140 CUAs published over the past 15 years with one in two of high quality. It showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, especially focused on HSUVs. A critical appraisal of utility values is necessary to better understand one of the main difficulties encountered by authors and propose areas for improvement to increase the quality of CUA. Since the last 5 years, there is a tendency toward an improvement in the quality of these studies, probably coupled with economic context, a better and widely spreading of recommendations and thus appropriation by medical practitioners. That being said, there is an urgent need for mandatory use of European and international recommendations to ensure quality of such approaches and to allow easy comparison.

Cost-Effectiveness of Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer and Age Effect in Older Women

BACKGROUND

Previous economic evaluations compared specific chemotherapy agents using input parameters from clinical trials and resource utilization costs. Cost-effectiveness of treatment groups (drug classes) using community-level effectiveness and cost data, however, has not been assessed for elderly patients with breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy regimens by age and disease stage under "real-world" conditions for patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

The Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data were used to identify patients with breast cancer with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I/II/IIIa, hormone receptor-negative (estrogen receptor-negative and progesterone receptor-negative) patients from 1992 to 2009. Patients were categorized into three adjuvant treatment groups: 1) no chemotherapy, 2) anthracycline, and 3) non-anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Median life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis and were evaluated against average total health care costs (2013 US dollars).

RESULTS

A total of 4575 patients (propensity score-matched) were included for the primary analysis. The anthracycline group experienced 12.05 QALYs and mean total health care costs of $119,055, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7,688 per QALY gained as compared with the no chemotherapy group (QALYs 7.81; average health care cost $86,383). The non-anthracycline-based group was dominated by the anthracycline group with lower QALYs (9.56) and higher health care costs ($122,791). Base-case results were found to be consistent with the best-case and worst-case scenarios for utility assignments. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied by age group (range $3,790-$90,405 per QALY gained).

CONCLUSIONS

Anthracycline-based chemotherapy was found cost-effective for elderly patients with early stage (stage I, II, IIIa) breast cancer considering the US threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Further research may be needed to characterize differential effects across age groups.

Weight change and its impact on prognosis after adjuvant TAC (docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy in Korean women with node-positive breast cancer

The aim of this study was to characterize weight changes and analyze their effect on prognosis after three-drug combination chemotherapy using docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) chemotherapy in Korean women with breast cancer. We analyzed weight changes and the effect of these changes on relapse-free survival (RFS) in 108 patients who received adjuvant TAC chemotherapy at the Department of Surgery of St. Vincent's Hospital at the Catholic University of Korea between January 2005 and March 2010. Following chemotherapy, 59 (54.6%) patients experienced weight gain, with their weight significantly increasing compared to their weight at diagnosis (p<0.0001). However, weight gain after chemotherapy was not associated with RFS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-3.0; p=0.8955]. No significant weight (at 12 months, p=0.522; at 24 months, p=0.632) and body mass index (BMI) (at 12 months, p=0.381; at 24 months, p=0.288) changes were observed compared to the weight and BMI at diagnosis, and weight change at 12 months (HR 1.9; 95% CI 0.6-6.1; p=0.2786) and 24 months (HR 2.7; 95% CI 0.9-8.4; p=0.0776) was not associated with RFS. The present study suggests that weight gain after adjuvant TAC chemotherapy is common in Korean women with breast cancer. In contrast to previous Western studies, weight gain did not appear to be sustained, and there was no relationship between weight gain and poor RFS.

Cost-effectiveness of continuation maintenance pemetrexed after cisplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: estimates from the perspective of the Chinese health care system

BACKGROUND

Continuation maintenance treatment with pemetrexed is approved by current clinical guidelines as a category 2A recommendation after induction therapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy (CP strategy) for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the cost-effectiveness of the treatment remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We completed a trial-based assessment, from the perspective of the Chinese health care system, of the cost-effectiveness of maintenance pemetrexed treatment after a CP strategy for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to estimate costs and benefits. It was based on a clinical trial that compared continuation maintenance pemetrexed therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo plus BSC after a CP strategy for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the stability of the model.

RESULTS

The model base case analysis suggested that continuation maintenance pemetrexed therapy after a CP strategy would increase benefits in a 1-, 2-, 5-, or 10-year time horizon, with incremental costs of $183,589.06, $126,353.16, $124,766.68, and $124,793.12 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. The most sensitive influential variable in the cost-effectiveness analysis was the utility of the progression-free survival state, followed by proportion of patients with postdiscontinuation therapy in both arms, proportion of BSC costs for PFS versus progressed survival state, and cost of pemetrexed. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost-effective probability of adding continuation maintenance pemetrexed therapy to BSC was zero. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the Markov model was robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuation maintenance of pemetrexed after a CP strategy for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC is not cost-effective based on a recent clinical trial. Decreasing the price or adjusting the dosage of pemetrexed may be a better option for meeting the treatment demands of Chinese patients.

Cost-utility analysis of adjuvant therapies for breast cancer in Iran

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of Docetaxel with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) and 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (FAC) in node-positive breast cancer patients in the south of Iran.

METHODS

A double blind study was done on a cohort of 100 patients suffering from breast cancer with node-positive over 8 months in the radiotherapy center of Namazi hospital, Shiraz-Iran. Health-related quality of life was assessed using questionnaire (QLQ-C30) from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). QLQ-C30 scale scores were mapped to 15D and EuroQol 5D utilities to measure the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).Third party payer point of view was applied to measure and value the cost of treatments. Cost data were extracted from hospital and health insurance organizations. Robustness of the results was checked through a two way sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

TAC was associated with higher deterioration in HRQoL during treatment and higher improvements over 4 months follow-up. On average, the cost of treatment per patient in TAC was 15 times higher than FAC (p < .001). In overall, TAC was resulted in lower QALYs and higher cost over study period.

CONCLUSIONS

FAC was a dominant option versus TAC in short-term. The higher improvement in HRQoL over follow-up in TAC may not compensate the more intensive deterioration caused during treatment in short-term. The short time horizon of study may limit the generalizability of our findings and, hence, there is a need to conduct long-term economic evaluation studies whenever data is available to inform decision making.

The cost-utility of adjuvant chemotherapy using docetaxel and cyclophosphamide compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer

PURPOSE

The adoption of a chemotherapeutic regimen in oncologic practice is a function of both its clinical and its economic impacts on cancer management. For breast cancer, U.S. Oncology trial 9735 reported significant improvements in disease-free and overall survival favoring adjuvant tc (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles) compared with ac (doxorubicin 60 mg/ m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles). We carried out an economic evaluation to examine the cost-utility of adjuvant tc relative to ac, in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (qaly) gained, given the improved breast cancer outcomes and higher costs associated with the tc regimen.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to calculate the cumulative costs and qalys gained over a 10-year horizon for hypothetical cohorts of women with breast cancer treated with ac or with tc. Event rates, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature and local resources. Efficacy and adverse events were based on results reported from U.S. Oncology trial 9735. The model takes a third-party direct payer perspective and reports its results in 2008 Canadian dollars. Costs and benefits were both discounted at 3%.

RESULTS

At a 10-year horizon, tc was associated with $3,960 incremental costs and a 0.24 qaly gain compared with ac, for a favorable cost-utility of $16,753 per qaly gained. Results were robust to model assumptions and input parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to ac, tc is a cost-effective adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, with a cost-effectiveness ratio well below commonly applied thresholds.

Neuro-cognitive impairment in breast cancer patients: pharmacological considerations

Post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment has been an issue of concern in cancer survivors. While most reviews are focused on patient-related factors, it is proposed that drug-related factors may also be determinants. The objective of this review is to study the relationship between the types and dose intensities of chemotherapy regimens on cognitive impairment in breast cancer patients through a systematic literature search. Eighteen prospective studies were selected. The types, dose intensities and durations of chemotherapy regimens received by subjects were compared against prevalence results obtained in individual studies. It was observed that the duration of impairment varied across different generations of chemotherapy regimens. Concurrent administration of multiple cytotoxic agents can lead to a synergistic decline on cognition. Current clinical evidence is insufficient to evaluate the relationship between the types, dose intensities of chemotherapy regimens and cognitive impairment. More investigation is needed to examine the role of pharmacological factors in chemotherapy-associated cognitive changes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 5 years of postoperative adjuvant tamoxifen therapy for Korean women with breast cancer: retrospective cohort study of the Korean breast cancer society database

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of postoperative adjuvant tamoxifen therapy using data from a Korean breast cancer registry.

METHODS

In this retrospective, observational cohort study, patients were selected from the Korean Breast Cancer Society database. Women with stage I, II, or III breast cancer (diagnosed between 1981 and 2005), for whom information about tamoxifen use (20 mg/d for 5 years) and estrogen-receptor and/or progesterone-receptor status was available, were included. Cost-effectiveness was calculated from the perspective of Korean society. Using a decision analytic model based on standard clinical flow, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for overall survival were calculated with stratification by disease stage and hormone-receptor status. One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. All results were represented as US dollars (US $1 approximately 1000 Korean won, in year-2005 values).

RESULTS

A total of 17,579 patients were included in the analysis (10,694 tamoxifen users, 6885 nonusers). Among those with stage I or II breast cancer, ICERs for estrogen-receptor positive (ER+)/progesterone-receptor positive (PR+) tamoxifen users ranged from $739 to $1939. Tamoxifen use among those with either ER+ or PR+ status (but not both) remained cost-effective: $1217 to $3107 for 1 life-year gained. However, among estrogen-receptor negative (ER-)/progesterone-receptor negative (PR-) patients, tamoxifen use was more expensive and associated with shorter survival, and most ICERs were negative values, except for those aged >or=50 years (ICERs ranged from -$462 to -$3738 for 1 life-year gained). In contrast to those with stage I or II disease, tamoxifen use among patients with stage III disease was cost-effective regardless of hormone-receptor status. However, because of the small sample size, further studies are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, postoperative adjuvant tamoxifen use was cost-effective for stage I or II ER+ and/or PR+ breast cancer, but not for ER-/PR- disease. Tamoxifen therapy appeared to be cost-effective for patients with stage III breast cancer regardless of hormone-receptor status. Seoul National University Hospital identifier: C-0702-019-198.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer from a Chinese perspective: doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide versus docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide

An oncology trial compared four cycles of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) with four cycles of docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) in operable breast cancer patients (71% were diagnosed with hormone receptor positive and 48% with node-negative breast cancer). The objective of this study was to estimate the lifetime cost effectiveness of AC versus TC, from a Chinese healthcare provider perspective, based on a clinical trial. A lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a Markov model. Events rates and utilities in the Markov model were derived from published papers. Data on cost of breast cancer care were obtained from the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, PR China. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Cost estimates were valued in Chinese yuan (Y), year 2008 values. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Patients receiving TC gained 14.45 QALYs, 0.41 QALYs more than patients receiving AC. The lifetime costs of patients receiving TC were Y93 511, Y10 116 more than that of AC patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were Y26 742 per life-year gained ( pound 2719.8 per year) and Y24 305 per QALY gained ( pound2471.9 per QALY). The most sensitive parameter in the model was the cost of primary cancer treatments in the TC arm. At a threshold willingness to pay of Y86 514 per QALY, the probability of TC being cost effective was 90%. Our model suggests that TC may be considered cost effective from a Chinese healthcare provider perspective, according to the threshold defined by the WHO.