Cost-utility analysis of adjuvant goserelin (Zoladex) and adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal women with breast cancer

Cost-effectiveness analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

To examine the cost-effectiveness of using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for primary or secondary prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer from the perspective of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to simulate the events that may occur during and after a high-risk chemotherapy treatment. Various G-CSF prophylaxis strategies and medications were compared in the model. Effectiveness data were derived from the literature and an analysis of the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). Cost data were obtained from a published NHIRD study, and health utility values were also obtained from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NT$269,683 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to primary prophylaxis with lenograstim. The ICER for primary prophylaxis with lenograstim versus no G-CSF prophylaxis was NT$61,995 per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to variations in relative risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) for pegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF prophylaxis. Furthermore, in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of one times Taiwan's gross domestic product per capita, the probability of being cost-effective was 88.1% for primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that primary prophylaxis with either short- or long-acting G-CSF could be considered cost-effective for FN prevention in breast cancer patients receiving high-risk regimens.

Role of Anti-Cancer Peptides as Immunomodulatory Agents: Potential and Design Strategy

The usage of peptide-based drugs to combat cancer is gaining significance in the pharmaceutical industry. The collateral damage caused to normal cells due to the use of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, etc. has given an impetus to the search for alternative methods of cancer treatment. For a long time, antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) have been shown to display anticancer activity. However, the immunomodulatory activity of anti-cancer peptides has not been researched very extensively. The interconnection of cancer and immune responses is well-known. Hence, a search and design of molecules that can show anti-cancer and immunomodulatory activity can be lead molecules in this field. A large number of anti-cancer peptides show good immunomodulatory activity by inhibiting the pro-inflammatory responses that assist cancer progression. Here, we thoroughly review both the naturally occurring and synthetic anti-cancer peptides that are reported to possess both anti-cancer and immunomodulatory activity. We also assess the structural and biophysical parameters that can be utilized to improve the activity. Both activities are mostly reported by different groups, however, we discuss them together to highlight their interconnection, which can be used in the future to design peptide drugs in the field of cancer therapeutics.

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.

A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients' Experience

To summarize utility estimates of breast cancer and to assess the relative impacts of study characteristics on predicting breast cancer utilities. We searched Medline, Embase, RISS, and KoreaMed from January 1996 to April 2019 to find literature reporting utilities for breast cancer. Thirty-five articles were identified, reporting 224 utilities. A hierarchical linear model was used to conduct a meta-regression that included disease stages, assessment methods, respondent type, age of the respondents, and scale bounds as explanatory variables. The utility for early and late-stage breast cancer, as estimated by using the time-tradeoff with the scales anchored by death to perfect health with non-patients, were 0.742 and 0.525, respectively. The severity of breast cancer, assessment method, and respondent type were significant predictors of utilities, but the age of the respondents and bounds of the scale were not. Patients who experienced the health states valued 0.142 higher than did non-patients (P <0.001). Besides the disease stage, the respondent type had the highest impact on breast cancer utility.

Economic Evaluation of Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine Versus Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine for the Treatment of First-Line Advanced Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in China: Using Markov Model and Partitioned Survival Model

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as a first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China.

METHODS

The Markov model and partitioned survival (PS) model were used, and the study included three health states over the period of a lifetime. Transition probabilities and safety data were derived from the CBCSG006 trial (cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients who had acquired metastatic triple-negative breast cancer). Cost and utility values were derived from previous studies, the Chinese Drug Bidding Database, and healthcare documents. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability.

RESULTS

In the Markov model, compared with paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.15 QALYs, with an incremental cost of 1976.33 USD. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 12,826.98 USD/QALY (quality-adjusted life year). In the PS model, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.17 QALYs with an incremental cost of 2384.63 USD; the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 13,867.7 USD/QALY. In the first scenario analysis, in which the 3-year time horizon was used in both arms, the total QALYs in the cisplatin plus gemcitabine group were larger and the costs were lower, indicating that cisplatin plus gemcitabine was superior to paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. In the second scenario, in which the progression-free (PF) utility (during chemotherapy) was 0.76, the PF utility was 0.96, and the post-progression (PP) utility was 0.55, the result obtained with the Markov model showed that the ICUR was 11,063.68 USD/QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) on the Markov model, the probabilities that cisplatin plus gemcitabine would be cost-effective were 48.94-78.72% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was 9776.8 to 29,330.4 USD/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the present analysis suggest that cisplatin plus gemcitabine might be much more cost-effective than paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients receiving first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China.

Survival outcome of combined GnRH agonist and tamoxifen is comparable to that of sequential adriamycin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy plus tamoxifen in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer

Survival outcome of ovarian suppression plus tamoxifen has been shown to be comparable with chemotherapy in premenopausal women; however, there are a few previous studies that compared this treatment to the current standard adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen. The aim of the present study was to compare the survival outcome of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist plus tamoxifen (GnRH-TAM) and chemotherapy AC plus tamoxifen (AC-TAM) in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer who were hormone receptor-positive. Premenopausal patients with early breast cancer who were treated at The Siriraj Hospital between January 2005 and December 2015 were retrospectively recruited. The inclusion criteria included newly diagnosed breast cancer, size ≤3 cm, node-negative and hormone receptor-positive. All patients received adjuvant systemic therapy and were divided into two groups. In the GnRH-TAM group, the patients received subcutaneous injection of 10.8 mg of goserelin every 3 months for 2-3 years and TAM (20 mg/day) for 5 years. In the AC-TAM group, AC was administered every 3 weeks for 4 cycles followed by TAM (20 mg/day) for 5 years. In total, 40 patients received GnRH-TAM and 130 patients received AC-TAM. The mean age at diagnosis was 44.4±6.3 years while the median follow up time was 77 (36-167) months. There was no mortality in either group and no significant difference in disease-free survival between the two groups. No adverse effect occurred and good compliance was observed in all patients who received GnRH-TAM. Treatment with GnRH-TAM resulted in a comparable survival outcome and better quality of life compared with AC-TAM.

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.

A structured review of health utility measures and elicitation in advanced/metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Health utilities are increasingly incorporated in health economic evaluations. Different elicitation methods, direct and indirect, have been established in the past. This study examined the evidence on health utility elicitation previously reported in advanced/metastatic breast cancer and aimed to link these results to requirements of reimbursement bodies.

METHODS

Searches were conducted using a detailed search strategy across several electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and EconLit databases), online sources (Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry and the Health Economics Research Center), and web sites of health technology assessment (HTA) bodies. Publications were selected based on the search strategy and the overall study objectives.

RESULTS

A total of 768 publications were identified in the searches, and 26 publications, comprising 18 journal articles and eight submissions to HTA bodies, were included in the evidence review. Most journal articles derived utilities from the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D). Other utility measures, such as the direct methods standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), and visual analog scale (VAS), were less frequently used. Several studies described mapping algorithms to generate utilities from disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments such as European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Breast Cancer 23 (EORTC QLQ-BR23), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General questionnaire (FACT-G), and Utility-Based Questionnaire-Cancer (UBQ-C); most used EQ-5D as the reference. Sociodemographic factors that affect health utilities, such as age, sex, income, and education, as well as disease progression, choice of utility elicitation method, and country settings, were identified within the journal articles. Most submissions to HTA bodies obtained utility values from the literature rather than exploring the HRQOL data obtained during clinical development. This was critiqued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Furthermore, the impact of age on utilities was highlighted by NICE and it was suggested that an age match of the study population should be attempted.

CONCLUSION

Health utilities are recorded across the globe to varying extents and using differing elicitation methods. Manufacturers seeking reimbursement need to be aware of the country-specific requirements for elicitation of health utilities.

Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Interventions That Affect Fertility and Childbearing: How Health Effects Are Measured Matters

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines for economic evaluations of health interventions define relevant outcomes as those accruing to individuals receiving interventions. Little consensus exists on counting health impacts on current and future fertility and childbearing. Our objective was to characterize current practices for counting such health outcomes.

METHODS

We developed a framework characterizing health interventions with direct and/or indirect effects on fertility and childbearing and how such outcomes are reported. We identified interventions spanning the framework and performed a targeted literature review for economic evaluations of these interventions. For each article, we characterized how the potential health outcomes from each intervention were considered, focusing on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with fertility and childbearing.

RESULTS

We reviewed 108 studies, identifying 7 themes: 1) Studies were heterogeneous in reporting outcomes. 2) Studies often selected outcomes for inclusion that tend to bias toward finding the intervention to be cost-effective. 3) Studies often avoided the challenges of assigning QALYs for pregnancy and fertility by instead considering cost per intermediate outcome. 4) Even for the same intervention, studies took heterogeneous approaches to outcome evaluation. 5) Studies used multiple, competing rationales for whether and how to include fertility-related QALYs and whose QALYs to include. 6) Studies examining interventions with indirect effects on fertility typically ignored such QALYs. 7) Even recent studies had these shortcomings. Limitations include that the review was targeted rather than systematic.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations inconsistently consider QALYs from current and future fertility and childbearing in ways that frequently appear biased toward the interventions considered. As the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine updates its guidelines, making the practice of cost-effectiveness analysis more consistent is a priority. Our study contributes to harmonizing methods in this respect.

Ovarian Ablation Using Goserelin Improves Survival of Premenopausal Patients with Stage II/III Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer without Chemotherapy-Induced Amenorrhea

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the value of ovarian ablation using goserelin in premenopausal patients with stage II/III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer without chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea (CIA).

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data of breast patients treated between October 1999 and November 2007 without CIA. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for calculation of the survival rate. Log rank method and Cox regression analysis were used for univariate and multivariate prognostic analysis.

Results

The median follow-up period was 61 months. Initially, 353 patients remained without CIA after chemotherapy and 98 among those who received goserelin and tamoxifen (TAM). In univariate analysis, goserelin improved locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) (98.9% vs. 94.1%, p=0.041), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (85.4% vs. 71.9%, p=0.006), disease-free survival (DFS) (85.4% vs. 71.6%, p=0.005), and overall survival (OS) (93.5% vs. 83.5%, p=0.010). In multivariate analysis, goserelin treatment was an independent factor influencing DMFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.603; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.228 to 2.092; p=0.001), DFS (HR, 1.606; 95% CI, 1.231 to 2.096; p=0.001), and OS (HR, 3.311; 95% CI, 1.416 to 7.742; p=0.006). In addition, treatment with goserelin resulted in significantly improved LRFS (p=0.039), DMFS (p=0.043), DFS (p=0.036), and OS (p=0.010) in patients aged < 40 years. In patients aged ≥ 40 years, goserelin only improved DMFS (p=0.028) and DFS (p=0.027).

Conclusion

Ovarian ablation with goserelin plus TAM resulted in significantly improved therapeutic efficacy in premenopausal patients with stage II/III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer without CIA.