Adjuvant trastuzumab for breast cancer: assessing HER2/neu status incurs more costs for treatment

Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab (herceptin) in HER2-overexpressed metastatic breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

In women with Human Epidermal growth Receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC), Trastuzumab has become the standard of care but previous studies have raised doubts about its economic acceptability. We carried out the first cost-effectiveness study for Trastuzumab in MBC patients, in France, that is based on observed resource use and outcomes in clinical practice.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 47 HER2-positive MBC patients in a before-and-after design study. Nineteen patients did not receive Trastuzumab ("before" Trastuzumab introduction in clinical practice) and 28 patients received Trastuzumab (the "after" population). Direct medical costs were estimated on the basis of the physical quantities reported in the patient medical records, for the period from first metastatic progression until death or date of patient last news. Monetary values (2002 French francs) were attributed to these quantities on the basis of unit costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

In the Trastuzumab group, median overall survival was significantly higher (37 months vs. 19 months in the non-Ttrastuzumab group, P = 0.001) but total treatment costs were 3 times higher (€ 39,608 vs. € 12,795). The cost per additional life-year saved by Trastuzumab treatment was estimated to be € 27,492 (95% confidence interval: € 20,964-€ 34,020/year of life [bootstrapped estimation]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that despite its high unit price, Trastuzumab should be considered cost-effective in MBC patients to the extent that its incremental cost per life-year saved remains lower than gross domestic product per capita in countries like France.

Genetic tests and genomic biomarkers: regulation, qualification and validation

The identification of new risk factors for specific diseases is an enduring theme in medical research. Advances in molecular biology, genetics, and computational biology are accelerating the pace of this work. The research seeks to increase our understanding of the causes of diseases, but there is also hope that the recognition of new risk factors will lead to improved methods for identifying persons who are in the early stages of, or at high risk for, the diseases of concern. Research has shown, however, that a genomic biomarker must have a much stronger association with the disease outcome than we ordinarily see in etiologic research if it is to provide a basis for early diagnosis or prediction in individual patients. However, even if the literature contains ~150,000 reports of disease-associated molecular markers, there are still very few validated biomarkers of proven and robust clinical utility. At present there is no established, standardized means for validating the association between a marker (or set of markers) and clinical outcomes. The Regulatory Authorities have undertaken a number of initiatives in order to enhance the use of biomarkers in drug development, to promote a more informed drug development and maximise the benefit of innovative medicines to the patients.

Current controversies in the management of early breast cancer

Medical professionals in general, and medical oncologists in particular, have highly stressful practices because they are under constant pressure to have the highest-quality, up-to-date evidence available in order to make the right decision for each individual patient. From a practical point of view, being updated on oncological and other medical specialties may seem an insurmountable task because the number of scientific publications has increased dramatically. The use of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or the application of results obtained from high-quality randomised controlled trials are some of the most common ways to address this need. Unfortunately, they do not cover all complex clinical situations that the majority of medical oncologists face in their outpatient consultations. In this review, we report the conclusions achieved in a multiexpert meeting where five important controversies in the treatment of breast cancer were analysed. Five highly experienced medical oncologists were required to defend an affirmative answer and another five were required to defend a negative answer for each of the clinical questions. After that, a one-day meeting was organised to debate each clinical question and to reach a consensus. We report here the content of this multi-expert meeting along with the conclusions drawn.

HER2 testing in the UK: consensus from a national consultation

OBJECTIVE

To gain an understanding of current attitudes among oncologists and pathologists to prospective HER2 testing in breast cancer and to gauge whether a national consensus exists regarding extent and quality of testing.

DESIGN

Qualitative study, with semi-quantitative components, using emailed questionnaires and open-ended discussion documents.

PARTICIPANTS

186 relevant specialists, including 76 breast oncologists and 99 pathologists, representing all but three of the UK cancer networks.

RESULTS

A strong consensus was seen in favour of universal, non-selective testing for HER2 at the point of breast cancer diagnosis. Similarly, an overwhelming majority of participants agreed that, to optimise the quality of test results, all laboratories undertaking HER2 testing should be CPA-accredited, participate in the recognised national external quality assessment scheme (UK NEQAS), and carry out a formal annual audit of its testing service. A further recommendation that testing be restricted to laboratories undertaking a minimum 250 tests per annum for immunohistochemistry and 100 tests per annum for in situ hybridisation techniques met with majority support. However, this was not a clear consensus; a significant minority of participants favoured continued use of local services falling short of these criteria.

CONCLUSION

This study was successful in gauging national specialist opinion regarding the extent and quality assurance of HER2 testing in the UK.