Real-world and trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients: a study of the Southeast Netherlands Breast Cancer Consortium

Budget impact and transferability of cost-effectiveness of DPYD testing in metastatic breast cancer in three health systems

The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of introducing extended DPYD testing prior to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients in the UK, The Netherlands and Hungary were examined. DPYD testing with ToxNav© was cost-effective in all three countries. In the UK and The Netherlands, the ToxNav strategy led to more quality-adjusted life years and fewer costs to the health systems compared with no genetic testing and standard dosing of capecitabine/5-fluorouracil. In Hungary, the ToxNav strategy produced more quality-adjusted life years at a higher cost compared with no testing and standard dose. The ToxNav strategy was found to offer budget savings in the UK and in The Netherlands, while in Hungary it resulted in additional budget costs.

Economic Evaluation of a Tumour-Agnostic Therapy: Dutch Economic Value of Larotrectinib in TRK Fusion-Positive Cancers

BACKGROUND

Larotrectinib is the first tumour-agnostic therapy that has been approved by the European Medicines Agency. Tumour-agnostic therapies are indicated for a multitude of tumour types. The economic models supporting reimbursement submissions of tumour-agnostic therapies are complex because of the multitude of indications per model.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of larotrectinib compared with standard of care in patients with cancer with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive tumour types in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A previously constructed cost-effectiveness model with a partitioned survival approach was adapted to the Dutch setting, simulating costs and effects of treatment in patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive cancer. The cost-effectiveness model conducts a naïve comparison of larotrectinib to a weighted comparator standard-of-care arm. Dutch specific resource use and costs were implemented and inflated to reflect 2019 euros. The analysis includes a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective.

RESULTS

Larotrectinib versus Dutch standard of care resulted in 5.61 incremental (QALYs) and €232,260 incremental costs, leading to an incremental cost-effectivenes ratio of €41,424/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis reveals a 88% chance of larotrectinib being cost effective compared with the pooled comparator standard-of-care arm at the applicable €80,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold in the Netherlands.

CONCLUSIONS

The incremental cost-effectivenes ratio was well below the applicable threshold for diseases with a high burden of disease in the Netherlands (€80,000). At this threshold, larotrectinib was estimated to be a cost-effective treatment for patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive cancer compared with current standard of care in the Netherlands.

Cost Effectiveness of Bevacizumab Plus Chemotherapy for the Treatment of Advanced and Metastatic Cervical Cancer in India-A Model-Based Economic Analysis

PURPOSE

Patients with advanced and metastatic cervical cancer have a poor prognosis with a 1-year survival rate of 10%-15%. Recently, an antiangiogenic humanized monoclonal antibody bevacizumab has shown to improve the survival of these patients. This study was designed to assess the cost effectiveness of incorporating bevacizumab with standard chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with advanced and metastatic cervical cancer in India.

METHODS

Using a disaggregated societal perspective and lifetime horizon, a Markov model was developed for estimating the costs and health outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients with advanced and metastatic cervical cancer treated with either standard chemotherapy alone or in combination with bevacizumab. Effectiveness data for each of the treatment regimen were assessed using estimates from Gynecologic Oncology Group 240 trial. Data on disease-specific mortality in metastatic cervical cancer, health system cost, and out-of-pocket expenditure were derived from Indian literature. Multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

Over the lifetime of one patient with advanced and metastatic cervical cancer, bevacizumab along with standard chemotherapy results in a gain of 0.275 (0.052-0.469) life-years (LY) and 0.129 (0.032-0.218) quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), at an additional cost of $3,816 US dollars (USD; 2,513-5,571) compared with standard chemotherapy alone. This resulted in an incremental cost of $19,080 USD (7,230-52,434) per LY gained and $34,744 USD (15,782-94,914) per QALY gained with the use of bevacizumab plus standard chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Addition of bevacizumab to the standard chemotherapy is not cost effective for the treatment of advanced and metastatic cervical cancer in India at a threshold of 1-time per-capita gross domestic product.

A Systematic Literature Review of Health Utility Values in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Health utility values (HUVs) are important inputs to the cost-utility analysis of breast cancer interventions.

PURPOSE

Provide a catalog of breast cancer-related published HUVs across different stages of breast cancer and treatment interventions.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit, and Cochrane databases (2005-2017).

STUDY SELECTION

Studies published in English that reported mean or median HUVs using direct or indirect methods of utility elicitation for breast cancer.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independent reviewers extracted data on a preestablished and piloted form; disagreements were resolved through discussion.

DATA ANALYSIS

Mixed-effects meta-regression using restricted maximum likelihood modeling was conducted for intervention type, stage of breast cancer, and typical clinical and treatment trajectory of breast cancer patients to assess the effect of study characteristics (i.e., sample size, utility elicitation method, and respondent type) on HUVs.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. Most articles (n = 52, 66%) derived HUVs using the EQ-5D. Patients with advanced-stage breast cancer (range, 0.08 to 0.82) reported lower HUVs as compared with patients with early-stage breast cancer (range, 0.58 to 0.99). The meta-regression analysis found that undergoing chemotherapy and surgery and radiation, being diagnosed with an advanced stage of breast cancer, and recurrent cancer were associated with lower HUVs. The members of the general public reported lower HUVs as compared with patients.

LIMITATIONS

There was considerable heterogeneity in the study population, health states assessed, and utility elicitation methods.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a catalog of published HUVs related to breast cancer. The substantial heterogeneity in the health utility studies makes it challenging for researchers to choose which HUVs to use in cost-utility analyses for breast cancer interventions.

Direct Medical Costs of Advanced Breast Cancer Treatment: A Real-World Study in the Southeast of The Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Policy makers increasingly seek to complement data from clinical trials with information from routine care. This study aims to provide a detailed account of the hospital resource use and associated costs of patients with advanced breast cancer in The Netherlands.

METHODS

Data from 597 patients with advanced breast cancer, diagnosed between 2010 and 2014, were retrieved from the Southeast Netherlands Advanced Breast Cancer Registry. Database lock for this study was in October 2017. We report the observed hospital costs for different resource categories and the lifetime costs per patient, adjusted for censoring using Lin's method. The relationship between patients' characteristics and costs was studied using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

The average (SE) lifetime hospital costs of patients with advanced breast cancer were €52 709 (405). Costs differed considerably between patient subgroups, ranging from €29 803 for patients with a triple-negative subtype to €92 272 for patients with hormone receptor positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive cancer. Apart from the cancer subtype, several other factors, including age and survival time, were independently associated with patient lifetime costs. Overall, a large share of costs was attributed to systemic therapies (56%), predominantly to a few expensive agents, such as trastuzumab (15%), everolimus (10%), and bevacizumab (9%), as well as to inpatient hospital days (20%).

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world study shows the high degree of variability in hospital resource use and associated costs in advanced breast cancer care. The presented resource use and costs data provide researchers and policy makers with key figures for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses.

Survival before and after the introduction of pertuzumab and T-DM1 in HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, a study of the SONABRE Registry

Purpose

Immediate and proper implementation of a new and more potent therapy is important to ensure that the patient achieves the best possible outcome. This study aimed to examine whether the real-world overall survival (OS) has improved in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2 +) advanced breast cancer (ABC) since the market release of pertuzumab and T-DM1. Furthermore, we aimed to assess the implementation and survival rates per hormone receptor (HR) subtype.

Patients and methods

We included 493 systemically treated patients consecutively diagnosed with HER2 + ABC in 2008–2017 from the SOutheast Netherlands Advanced BREast cancer (SONABRE) Registry. Median OS was obtained using the Kaplan–Meier method and differences between periods (2008–2012 versus 2013–2017) were tested using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression modeling. The 3-year implementation rates were estimated for any HER2-targeted therapy, pertuzumab, and T-DM1 by using the competing risk method and calculated from the date of diagnosis of ABC to start of HER2-targeted therapy of interest.

Results

The median OS in 2008–2012 versus 2013–2017 was 28.3 versus 39.7 months in all patients (adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) 0.85, 95%CI 0.66–1.08), 29.9 versus 36.3 months in patients with HR + /HER2 + disease (adjHR 0.97, 95%CI 0.72–1.32), and 22.7 versus 40.9 months in patients with HR-/HER2 + disease (adjHR 0.59, 95%CI 0.38–0.92). Any HER2-targeted therapy was used in 79% of patients in 2008–2012 and in 84% in 2013–2017. The use of pertuzumab and T-DM1 in 2013–2017 was 48% and 29%, respectively. For patients diagnosed with HR + /HER2 + and HR-/HER2 + disease, implementation rates in 2013–2017 were , respectively, 77% and 99% for any HER2-targeted therapy, 38% and 69% for pertuzumab, and 24% and 40% for T-DM1.

Conclusion

The survival of patients with HER2 + ABC improved since the introduction of pertuzumab and T-DM1. There is room for improvement in implementation of these HER2-targeted therapies, especially in patients with HR + /HER2 + disease.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-021-06178-8.

An economic evaluation of eribulin for advanced breast cancer treatment based on the Southeast Netherlands advanced breast cancer registry

Background: In 2013, eribulin was reimbursed under a coverage with evidence development (CED) as third or later chemotherapy line for advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients in the Netherlands because of uncertain cost effectiveness. In 2016, the final decision of reimbursing eribulin was taken without considering the evidence collected during CED research. We analysed the cost effectiveness of eribulin versus non-eribulin chemotherapy, using real-world data.Methods: A three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, dead) partitioned survival model was developed. The SOuth East Netherlands Advanced BREast Cancer (SONABRE) registry informed the effectiveness and costs inputs. Health state utility values were obtained from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the eribulin and matched non-eribulin chemotherapy was estimated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed. The financial risk (i.e., the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) plus the expected monetary loss (eML) associated with reimbursing eribulin) and budget impact associated with reimbursing eribulin were calculated.Results: Eribulin led to higher health benefits (0.07 quality-adjusted life year (QALY)) and costs (€15,321) compared with non-eribulin chemotherapy. This resulted in an ICER of €220,608. At a €80,000 per QALY threshold, the risk of reimbursing eribulin was €9,791 per patient (EVPI €13, eML €9,778). Scaled up to the Dutch population, the estimated annual budget impact was €1.9 million and the annual risk of reimbursing eribulin was €2.7 million.Conclusion: From a Dutch societal perspective, eribulin is not cost effective when considering its list price as third and later chemotherapy line for ABC patients.

Methodology and results of real-world cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma using registry data

OBJECTIVE

To predict the real-world (RW) cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) patients after one to three prior therapies.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model that included three health states (progression-free, progressed disease and death) was built. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and time to discontinuation (TTD) data for the Rd arm were derived using the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies in the Czech Republic; the relative treatment effects of KRd versus Rd were estimated from the phase 3, randomised, ASPIRE trial, and were used to predict PFS, OS and TTD for KRd. The model was developed from the payer perspective and included drug costs, administration costs, monitoring costs, palliative care costs and adverse-event related costs collected from Czech sources.

RESULTS

The base case incremental cost effectiveness ratio for KRd compared with Rd was €73,156 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Patients on KRd incurred costs of €117,534 over their lifetime compared with €53,165 for patients on Rd. The QALYs gained were 2.63 and 1.75 for patients on KRd and Rd, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining the strengths of randomised controlled trials and observational databases in cost-effectiveness models can generate policy-relevant results to allow well-informed decision-making. The current model showed that KRd is likely to be cost-effective versus Rd in the RW and, therefore, the reimbursement of KRd represents an efficient allocation of resources within the healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in specialist oncology centers in France

BACKGROUND

Evidence from clinical trials suggests that the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer improves progression-free survival (PFS) but not overall survival (OS). However, a retrospective analysis of real-world data from the French Comprehensive Cancer Centers (FCCC) through the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) Research Program, suggested that in this setting, the addition of bevacizumab may confer a significant benefit in terms of both PFS and OS. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone in the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer at specialist oncology centers in France.

METHODS

The analysis was performed using a three-state Markov model and clinical input data from N = 3426 HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients treated with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or paclitaxel alone. The analysis was performed from a third party payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon; future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 4% per annum.

RESULTS

In the overall population, the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel led to incremental gain of 0.72 life years and 0.48 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to paclitaxel alone. The incremental lifetime cost of the addition of bevacizumab was EUR 27,390, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 56,721 per QALY gained for bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone. In a subgroup of triple negative patients the ICER was EUR 66,874 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis indicated that the combination of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is likely to be cost-effective compared with paclitaxel alone for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in specialized oncology centers in France.

A real-life study on the implementation and effectiveness of exemestane plus everolimus per hospital type in patients with advanced breast cancer. A study of the Southeast Netherlands Advanced Breast Cancer registry

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess the implementation and effectiveness of exemestane plus everolimus treatment per hospital type in real-life, shortly after approval of everolimus.

METHODS

Advanced breast cancer patients treated with exemestane plus everolimus in 2012-2014 were included from the SONABRE registry. Progression-free survival (PFS) and a 12-week conditional PFS (post-hoc) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was performed by type of hospital and adjusted for patient, tumour and treatment characteristics.

RESULTS

We included 122 patients, comprising 48 patients treated in academic (N = 1), 56 in teaching (N = 4), and 18 in non-teaching (N = 2) hospitals. The median PFS was 6.3 months (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 4.0-8.6) overall, and 8.5 months (95% CI 7.7-9.3), 4.2 months (95% CI 2.0-6.3), and 5.5 months (95% CI 4.2-6.7) for the patients treated in academic, teaching and non-teaching hospitals, respectively. The adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) for PFS-events was 1.5 (95% CI 1.0-2.2) and 1.0 (95% CI 0.5-1.9) respectively for patients treated at teaching and non-teaching hospitals versus the academic hospital. The adjusted HR for 12-week conditional PFS-events was not different between hospital types. In the first 12-week treatment period, treatment was discontinued due to early progression in one out of 48 patients in the academic versus nine out of 74 patients in the non-academic hospitals, confirmed by imaging in one and two patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, the median PFS was borderline significantly different between hospital types, possibly the result of a different assessment approach in the first 12-week treatment period.

Real-world patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes in advanced breast cancer

Background

Advanced breast cancer (abc) represents a substantial burden for patients and caregivers. In the present study, we aimed to estimate quality of life (qol), utility, productivity loss, pain, health care resource utilization, and costs for patients with abc, and qol, utility, and productivity loss for their caregivers.

Methods

This multicentre prospective non-interventional study was conducted in Canada. Eligible participants were postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive, her2-negative unresectable abc and their caregivers. Validated questionnaires were used to measure qol, utility, productivity loss, and pain. Patients and caregivers were classified into 4 health states typically used in oncology economic modelling: first-line progression-free (1l-pf), first-line progressive disease (1l-pd), second- or subsequent-line progression-free (≥2l-pf), and second- or subsequent-line progressive disease (≥2l-pd).

Results

Most patients and caregivers accepted to participate, with total recruitment of 202 patients and 78 caregivers. Compared with patients in pf, patients in pd had lower mean qol scores (52.9 ± 29.9 for 1l-pd vs. 68.2 ± 23.2 for 1l-pf, and 54.0 ± 23.6 for ≥2l-pd vs. 66.0 ± 22.1 for ≥2l-pf), lower mean utility values (0.64 ± 0.22 for 1l-pd vs. 0.73 ± 0.20 for 1l-pf, and 0.65 ± 0.25 for ≥2l-pd vs. 0.74 ± 0.18 for ≥2l-pf), and greater productivity loss (39.4 ± 27.7 for 1l-pd vs. 27.5 ± 30.1 for 1l-pf, and 37.6 ± 29.2 for ≥2l-pd vs. 32.0 ± 29.0 for ≥2l-pf). Compared with caregivers of patients in pf, caregivers of patients in pd had lower qol scores and utility values, and greater productivity loss.

Conclusions

Study results indicate that, for patients and caregivers, pd health states are associated with a deterioration of qol and utility and a decrease in productivity in both 1l and ≥2l.

Cost-effectiveness thresholds: methods for setting and examples from around the world

INTRODUCTION

Cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) are used to judge if an intervention represents sufficient value for money to merit adoption in healthcare systems. The study was motivated by the Brazilian context of HTA, where meetings are being conducted to decide on the definition of a threshold.

AREAS COVERED

An electronic search was conducted on Medline (via PubMed), Lilacs (via BVS) and ScienceDirect followed by a complementary search of references of included studies, Google Scholar and conference abstracts. Cost-effectiveness thresholds are usually calculated through three different approaches: the willingness-to-pay, representative of welfare economics; the precedent method, based on the value of an already funded technology; and the opportunity cost method, which links the threshold to the volume of health displaced. An explicit threshold has never been formally adopted in most places. Some countries have defined thresholds, with some flexibility to consider other factors. An implicit threshold could be determined by research of funded cases.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

CETs have had an important role as a 'bridging concept' between the world of academic research and the 'real world' of healthcare prioritization. The definition of a cost-effectiveness threshold is paramount for the construction of a transparent and efficient Health Technology Assessment system.