Aromatase inhibitors--socio-economical issues

Periodontal Health in Women With Early-Stage Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Newly on Aromatase Inhibitors: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Aromatase inhibitor (AI) use results in low estrogen levels, which in turn affect bone mineral density (BMD). Periodontitis, alveolar bone loss, and tooth loss are associated with low BMD. The goal of this study is to assess the prevalence of periodontitis and perceived oral health and evaluate salivary biomarkers in postmenopausal women who are survivors of early-stage (I to IIIA) breast cancer (BCa) and receive adjuvant AI therapy.

METHODS

Participants included 58 postmenopausal women: 29 with BCa on AIs and 29 controls without BCa diagnoses. Baseline periodontal status was assessed with: 1) periodontal probing depth (PD); 2) bleeding on probing (BOP); and 3) attachment loss (AL). Demographic and dental utilization information was gathered by questionnaire. Linear regression modeling was used to analyze the outcomes.

RESULTS

No differences were found in mean PD or number of teeth. The AI group had significantly more sites with BOP (27.8 versus 16.7; P = 0.02), higher worst-site AL (5.2 versus 4.0 mm; P <0.01), and more sites with dental calculus (18.2 versus 6.4; P <0.001) than controls. Linear regression adjusted for income, tobacco use, dental insurance, and previous radiation and chemotherapy exposure demonstrated that AI use increased AL by >2 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 3.92). Median salivary osteocalcin and tumor necrosis factor-α levels were significantly higher in the AI group than the control group.

CONCLUSION

This first investigation of the periodontal status of women initiating adjuvant AI therapy identifies this population as having an increased risk for periodontitis.

The economic burden of metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of literature from developed countries

OBJECTIVE

Breast cancer, the most common malignant cancer among women in Western countries, has poor prognosis following metastasis. New therapies potentially extend survival, but their value is questioned when benefits are incremental and expensive. The objective of our study was to understand the economic impact of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and its treatment, and to evaluate the designs of these studies.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the MEDLINE-indexed, English-language literature, identifying 31 articles on the economic evaluation of MBC in 10 developed countries, including studies of per-patient costs, gross national costs, and cost-effectiveness models. We also included health technology assessments (HTAs) from government and regulatory agencies.

RESULTS

Total per-patient costs of MBC are only available for Sweden ($17,301-$48,169 annually, depending on patient age (2005 USD)). Most economic analyses of per-patient direct costs originate from the US; across all countries, data indicate that this burden is substantial. Gross national costs of MBC are available only for the UK (cost of incident MBC cases is estimated to be $22 million annually (2002 GBP)). Many cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that a number of new and established treatments are cost-effective compared to standard care in various countries, but many offer small increments in survival. The cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab, capecitabine, and nab-paclitaxel has been evaluated in many recent studies.

CONCLUSION

Most economic evaluations of MBC have utilized secondary rather than primary data, and have used scenarios and assumptions which may be inaccurate or outdated. The quality of evidence disseminated to decision-makers could be improved by adherence to best practices in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant treatment of breast cancer

The development of the novel, third-generation aromatase inhibitors and inactivators represents a major improvement of endocrine therapy in breast cancer. Subsequent to phase III studies revealing clinical superiority of these drugs compared to conventional therapy as second- and first-line treatment for advanced disease, several randomised studies have found these compounds, administered either as monotherapy or in sequence with tamoxifen, to improve relapse-free survival compared to tamoxifen monotherapy in the adjuvant setting. Notably, we lack data on long-term follow-up with respect to efficacy as well as side effects, and there are currently no data on head to head comparisons between the different aromatase inhibitors. Several critical issues, like influences of treatment on bone and blood lipid profiles underline the need for long-term follow-up with respect to clinical events like bone fractures and cardiovascular events. Finally, we need data on cost-utility with respect to the different strategies as well as with respect to patient age and risk profile.