Kellokumpu-Lehtinen P, Bergh J, Salminen E, Wiklund T, Lehtinen S, Aronen P, Sintonen H. Cost-effectiveness of intensive adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk breast cancer: is tailored and dose-escalated chemotherapy with growth factor support (GFS) more costly and less effective than marrow-supported high-dose chemotherapy - results from a randomized study.
Acta Oncol 2007;
46:146-52. [PMID:
17453362 DOI:
10.1080/02841860600965012]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
Based on randomized studies bone-marrow supported (BMS) high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) is not superior to conventional CT as adjuvant treatment for high-risk breast cancer. To compare the cost-effectiveness of these treatments we examined the data of Finnish patients in the SBG9401 trial 1. Patients were randomized to receive either dose-escalated (de FEC) (group A, n =59) or FEC and HDCT+BMS (group B, n =70). They received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) + tamoxifen. All direct health care costs of first line treatment at the oncology units were considered as well as productivity costs within the first 3 years of follow-up. Effectiveness was measured by the number of survival days during 5 years of follow-up. The mean direct health care costs were significantly higher in group B (25829 euro in group A vs. 36605 euro in group B, p <0.001), mainly due to a higher number of hospital days. Half of the costs in group A was due to the use of filgrastim (15335 euro in A and 2969 euro in B, p <0.001). The costs of RT were only 5% of total costs. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the number of survival days, but sensitivity analysis based on bootstrapping suggested that treatment A would be a less costly and more effective alternative in a great majority of cases.
Collapse