Docetaxel in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant treatment for early node-positive breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis

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.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab for Treatment of Platinum-Resistant Recurrent or Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

Background

The CheckMate 141 trial found that nivolumab improved survival for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC). Despite the improved survival, nivolumab is much more expensive than standard therapies. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for the treatment of HNC.

Methods

We constructed a Markov model to simulate treatment with nivolumab or standard single-agent therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic platinum-refractory HNC. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and probability of toxicity, were derived from clinical trial data, while costs (in 2017 US dollars) and health utilities were estimated from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed as dollar per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), were calculated, with values of less than $100 000/QALY considered cost-effective from a health care payer perspective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess model uncertainty.

Results

Our base case model found that treatment with nivolumab increased overall cost by $117 800 and improved effectiveness by 0.400 QALYs compared with standard therapy, leading to an ICER of $294 400/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the cost of nivolumab, though nivolumab only became cost-effective if the cost per cycle decreased from $13 432 to $3931. The model was not particularly sensitive to assumptions about survival. If one assumed that all patients alive at the end of the CheckMate 141 trial were cured of their disease, nivolumab was still not cost-effective (ICER $244 600/QALY).

Conclusion

While nivolumab improves overall survival, at its current cost it would not be considered a cost-effective treatment option for patients with HNC.

Unremarked or Unperformed? Systematic Review on Reporting of Validation Efforts of Health Economic Decision Models in Seasonal Influenza and Early Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Transparent reporting of validation efforts of health economic models give stakeholders better insight into the credibility of model outcomes. In this study we reviewed recently published studies on seasonal influenza and early breast cancer in order to gain insight into the reporting of model validation efforts in the overall health economic literature.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in Pubmed and Embase to retrieve health economic modelling studies published between 2008 and 2014. Reporting on model validation was evaluated by checking for the word validation, and by using AdViSHE (Assessment of the Validation Status of Health Economic decision models), a tool containing a structured list of relevant items for validation. Additionally, we contacted corresponding authors to ask whether more validation efforts were performed other than those reported in the manuscripts.

RESULTS

A total of 53 studies on seasonal influenza and 41 studies on early breast cancer were included in our review. The word validation was used in 16 studies (30 %) on seasonal influenza and 23 studies (56 %) on early breast cancer; however, in a minority of studies, this referred to a model validation technique. Fifty-seven percent of seasonal influenza studies and 71 % of early breast cancer studies reported one or more validation techniques. Cross-validation of study outcomes was found most often. A limited number of studies reported on model validation efforts, although good examples were identified. Author comments indicated that more validation techniques were performed than those reported in the manuscripts.

CONCLUSIONS

Although validation is deemed important by many researchers, this is not reflected in the reporting habits of health economic modelling studies. Systematic reporting of validation efforts would be desirable to further enhance decision makers' confidence in health economic models and their outcomes.

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.

Fluorouracil plasma monitoring: systematic review and economic evaluation of the My5-FU assay for guiding dose adjustment in patients receiving fluorouracil chemotherapy by continuous infusion

BACKGROUND

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is a chemotherapy used in colorectal, head and neck (H&N) and other cancers. Dose adjustment is based on body surface area (BSA) but wide variations occur. Pharmacokinetic (PK) dosing is suggested to bring plasma levels into the therapeutic range to promote fewer side effects and better patient outcomes. We investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the My5-FU assay for PK dose adjustment to 5-FU therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence on the accuracy of the My5-FU assay compared with gold standard methods [high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)]; the effectiveness of My5-FU PK dosing compared with BSA; the effectiveness of HPLC and/or LC-MS compared with BSA; the generalisability of published My5-FU and PK studies; costs of using My5-FU; to develop a cost-effectiveness model.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and other databases between January and April 2014.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts with arbitration and consensus agreement. We undertook quality assessment. We reconstructed Kaplan-Meier plots for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for comparison of BSA and PK dosing. We developed a Markov model to compare My5-FU with BSA dosing which modelled PFS, OS and adverse events, using a 2-week cycle over a 20 year time horizon with a 3.5% discount rate. Health impacts were evaluated from the patient perspective, while costs were evaluated from the NHS and Personal Social Services perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 8341 records were identified through electronic searches and 35 and 54 studies were included in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness reviews respectively. There was a high apparent correlation between My5-FU, HPLC and LC-MS/mass spectrometer but upper and lower limits of agreement were -18% to 30%. Median OS were estimated as 19.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.0 to 21.0] months for PK versus 14.6 (95% CI 14.1 to 15.3) months for BSA for 5-FU+folinic acid (FA); and 27.4 (95% CI 23.2 to 38.8) months for PK versus 20.6 (95% CI 18.4 to 22.9) months for BSA for FOLFOX6 in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PK versus BSA studies were generalisable to the relevant populations. We developed cost-effectiveness models for mCRC and H&N cancer. The base case assumed a cost per My5-FU assay of £ 61.03. For mCRC for 12 cycles of a oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil and FA (FOLFOX) regimen, there was a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.599 with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £ 4148 per QALY. Probabilistic and scenario analyses gave similar results. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed My5-FU to be 100% cost-effective at a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY. For H&N cancer, again, given caveats about the poor evidence base, we also estimated that My5-FU is likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Quality and quantity of evidence were very weak for PK versus BSA dosing for all cancers with no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using current regimens. For H&N cancer, two studies of regimens no longer in use were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a linked evidence approach, My5-FU appears to be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £ 20,000 per QALY for both mCRC and H&N cancer. Considerable uncertainties remain about evidence quality and practical implementation. RCTs are needed of PK versus BSA dosing in relevant cancers.

The INTRABEAM® Photon Radiotherapy System for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Initial treatment for early breast cancer is usually either breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy. After BCS, whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (WB-EBRT) is the standard of care. A potential alternative to post-operative WB-EBRT is intraoperative radiation therapy delivered by the INTRABEAM(®) Photon Radiotherapy System (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) to the tissue adjacent to the resection cavity at the time of surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of INTRABEAM for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer during surgical removal of the tumour.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to March 2014 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of articles, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines and the manufacturer's submission were also searched. The advisory group was contacted to identify additional evidence.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were conducted. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to full texts of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer, and differences in opinion were resolved through discussion at each stage. Clinical effectiveness studies were included if they were carried out in patients with early operable breast cancer. The intervention was the INTRABEAM system, which was compared with WB-EBRT, and study designs were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Controlled clinical trials could be considered if data from available RCTs were incomplete (e.g. absence of data on outcomes of interest). A cost-utility decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of INTRABEAM compared with WB-EBRT for early operable breast cancer.

RESULTS

One non-inferiority RCT, TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A), met the inclusion criteria for the review. The review found that local recurrence was slightly higher following INTRABEAM than WB-EBRT, but the difference did not exceed the 2.5% non-inferiority margin providing INTRABEAM was given at the same time as BCS. Overall survival was similar with both treatments. Statistically significant differences in complications were found for the occurrence of wound seroma requiring more than three aspirations (more frequent in the INTRABEAM group) and for a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity score of grade 3 or 4 (less frequent in the INTRABEAM group). Cost-effectiveness base-case analysis indicates that INTRABEAM is less expensive but also less effective than WB-EBRT because it is associated with lower total costs but fewer total quality-adjusted life-years gained. However, sensitivity analyses identified four model parameters that can cause a switch in the treatment option that is considered cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The base-case result from the model is subject to uncertainty because the disease progression parameters are largely drawn from the single available RCT. The RCT median follow-up of 2 years 5 months may be inadequate, particularly as the number of participants with local recurrence is low. The model is particularly sensitive to this parameter.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

A significant investment in INTRABEAM equipment and staff training (clinical and non-clinical) would be required to make this technology available across the NHS. Longer-term follow-up data from the TARGIT-A trial and analysis of registry data are required as results are currently based on a small number of events and economic modelling results are uncertain.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006720.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Note that the economic model associated with this document is protected by intellectual property rights, which are owned by the University of Southampton. Anyone wishing to modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, dismantle or create derivative work based on the economic model must first seek the agreement of the property owners.

Cost-Effectiveness of Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer and Age Effect in Older Women

BACKGROUND

Previous economic evaluations compared specific chemotherapy agents using input parameters from clinical trials and resource utilization costs. Cost-effectiveness of treatment groups (drug classes) using community-level effectiveness and cost data, however, has not been assessed for elderly patients with breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy regimens by age and disease stage under "real-world" conditions for patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

The Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data were used to identify patients with breast cancer with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I/II/IIIa, hormone receptor-negative (estrogen receptor-negative and progesterone receptor-negative) patients from 1992 to 2009. Patients were categorized into three adjuvant treatment groups: 1) no chemotherapy, 2) anthracycline, and 3) non-anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Median life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis and were evaluated against average total health care costs (2013 US dollars).

RESULTS

A total of 4575 patients (propensity score-matched) were included for the primary analysis. The anthracycline group experienced 12.05 QALYs and mean total health care costs of $119,055, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7,688 per QALY gained as compared with the no chemotherapy group (QALYs 7.81; average health care cost $86,383). The non-anthracycline-based group was dominated by the anthracycline group with lower QALYs (9.56) and higher health care costs ($122,791). Base-case results were found to be consistent with the best-case and worst-case scenarios for utility assignments. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied by age group (range $3,790-$90,405 per QALY gained).

CONCLUSIONS

Anthracycline-based chemotherapy was found cost-effective for elderly patients with early stage (stage I, II, IIIa) breast cancer considering the US threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Further research may be needed to characterize differential effects across age groups.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of docetaxel versus weekly paclitaxel in adjuvant treatment of regional breast cancer in New Zealand

BACKGROUND

There have been recent important changes to adjuvant regimens and costs of taxanes for the treatment of early breast cancer, requiring a re-evaluation of comparative cost effectiveness. In particular, weekly paclitaxel is now commonly used but has not been subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIM

Our aim was to estimate the cost effectiveness of adjuvant docetaxel and weekly paclitaxel versus each other, and compared with standard 3-weekly paclitaxel, in women aged ≥25 years diagnosed with regional breast cancer in New Zealand.

METHODS

A macrosimulation Markov model was used, with a lifetime horizon and health system perspective. The model compared 3-weekly docetaxel and weekly paclitaxel versus standard 3-weekly paclitaxel (E1199 regimen) in the hospital setting. Data on overall survival and toxicities (febrile neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy) were derived from relevant published clinical trials. Epidemiological and cost data were derived from New Zealand datasets. Health outcomes were measured with health-adjusted life-years (HALYs), similar to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs included intervention and health system costs in year 2011 values, with 3% per annum discounting on costs and HALYs.

RESULTS

The mean HALY gain per patient compared with standard 3-weekly paclitaxel was 0.51 with weekly paclitaxel and 0.21 with docetaxel, while incremental costs were $NZ 12,284 and $NZ 4,021, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of docetaxel versus 3-weekly paclitaxel was $NZ 19,400 (purchasing power parity [PPP]-adjusted $US 13,100) per HALY gained, and the ICER of weekly paclitaxel versus docetaxel was $NZ 27,100 ($US 18,300) per HALY gained. In terms of net monetary benefit, weekly paclitaxel was the optimal strategy for willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds >$NZ 27,000 per HALY gained. However, the model was highly sensitive to uncertainty around survival differences, while toxicity-related morbidity had little impact. Thus, if it was assumed that weekly paclitaxel and docetaxel had the same efficacy, docetaxel would be favoured over weekly paclitaxel.

CONCLUSION

Both weekly paclitaxel and docetaxel are likely to be cost effective compared with standard 3-weekly paclitaxel. Weekly paclitaxel was the optimal choice for WTP thresholds greater than $NZ27,000 per HALY gained (PPP-adjusted $US 18,000). However, uncertainty remains around relative survival benefits, and weekly paclitaxel becomes cost ineffective versus docetaxel if it is assumed that the two regimens have equal effectiveness. Reduced uncertainty about the relative survival benefits may improve decision making for funding.

Cost effectiveness of a 21-gene recurrence score assay versus Canadian clinical practice in post-menopausal women with early-stage estrogen or progesterone-receptor-positive, axillary lymph-node positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

A 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay provides a method of guiding treatment decisions in women with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). We investigated the cost effectiveness of using the RS assay versus current clinical practice (CCP) in post-menopausal women with estrogen- or progesterone-receptor-positive, one to three positive axillary lymph-node ESBC from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system.

METHODS

We developed a decision analytic model to project the lifetime clinical and economic consequences of ESBC. We assumed that the RS assay would classify patients among risk levels (low, intermediate and high) and corresponding adjuvant treatment regimens. The model was parameterized using 7-year follow-up data from the Manitoba Cancer Registry, cost data from Manitoba Health administrative databases and secondary sources. Costs are presented in 2012 Canadian dollars, and future costs and benefits were discounted at 5 %.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, the RS assay compared with CCP led to an increase of 0.08 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and an increase in cost of Can$36.2 per person, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Can$464/QALY gained. The ICER was most sensitive to the proportion of women classified to intermediate risk by the RS assay who received adjuvant chemotherapy, and absolute risk of relapse among patients receiving the RS assay.

CONCLUSIONS

The RS assay is likely to be cost effective in the Canadian healthcare system. Field evaluations of the assay in this patient population will help reduce uncertainty in clinical guidelines for intermediate-range RS-assay values and specific disease outcomes by the RS assay, which are important drivers of ICER.

Are the true impacts of adverse events considered in economic models of antineoplastic drugs? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Antineoplastic drugs for cancer are often associated with adverse events, which influence patients' physical health, quality of life and survival. However, the modelling of adverse events in cost-effectiveness analyses of antineoplastic drugs has not been examined.

AIMS

This article reviews published economic evaluations that include a calculated cost for adverse events of antineoplastic drugs. The aim is to identify how existing models manage four issues specific to antineoplastic drug adverse events: the selection of adverse events for inclusion in models, the influence of dose modifications on drug quantity and survival outcomes, the influence of adverse events on quality of life and the consideration of multiple simultaneous or recurring adverse events.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using MESH headings and key words in multiple electronic databases, covering the years 1999-2009. Inclusion criteria for eligibility were papers covering a population of adults with solid tumour cancers, the inclusion of at least one adverse event and the resource use and/or costs of adverse event treatment.

RESULTS

From 4,985 citations, 26 eligible articles were identified. Studies were generally of moderate quality and addressed a range of cancers and treatment types. While the four issues specific to antineoplastic drug adverse events were addressed by some studies, no study addressed all of the issues in the same model.

CONCLUSION

This review indicates that current modelling assumptions may restrict our understanding of the true impact of adverse events on cost effectiveness of antineoplastic drugs. This understanding could be improved through consideration of the selection of adverse events, dose modifications, multiple events and quality of life in cost-effectiveness studies.

The value of comparative effectiveness research: projected return on investment of the RxPONDER trial (SWOG S1007)

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the value of research of the RxPONDER study, an ongoing comparative effectiveness RCT designed to evaluate a 21-gene profile in early stage, node-positive breast cancer.

METHODS

We developed a disease-based decision-analytic model to compare use of the 21-gene profile versus standard care. Key clinical data were derived from SWOG-8814, an RCT of chemotherapy in lymph node-positive breast cancer. Other model parameters were obtained from published sources. Probabilistic simulations and value of information calculations were used to assess the expected value of sample information (EVSI) and the expected value of sample parameter information (EVSPI).

RESULTS

The cost of the RxPONDER trial is expected to be at least $27 million. The expected value of research of the RxPONDER trial ranged from $450 million to $1 billion, representing a return of 17 to 39 times the projected cost of the trial. The primary objective of RxPONDER, to assess survival, had the largest estimated value relative to other model inputs. The value of RxPONDER increased by $50 million to $100 million after stakeholder input on additional data collection.

CONCLUSION

The RxPONDER study appears to represent a good investment of public research funds. Stakeholder engagement and assessment of the return on investment should be considered to optimize and quantify the value of comparative effectiveness studies.

Cost-effectiveness of a 21-gene recurrence score assay versus Canadian clinical practice in women with early-stage estrogen- or progesterone-receptor-positive, axillary lymph-node negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

A 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay may inform adjuvant systematic treatment decisions in women with early stage breast cancer. We sought to investigate the cost effectiveness of using the RS-assay versus current clinical practice (CCP) in women with early-stage estrogen- or progesterone-receptor-positive, axilliary lymph-node negative breast cancer (ER+/ PR + LN- ESBC) from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to project the lifetime clinical and economic consequences of ESBC. We evaluated adjuvant therapy separately in post- and pre-menopausal women with ER+/ PR + LN- ESBC. We assumed that the RS-assay would reclassify pre- and post-menopausal women among risk levels (low, intermediate and high) and guide adjuvant systematic treatment decisions. The model was parameterized using 7 year follow up data from the Manitoba Cancer Registry, cost data from Manitoba administrative databases, and secondary sources. Costs are presented in 2010 CAD. Future costs and benefits were discounted at 5%.

RESULTS

The RS-assay compared to CCP generated cost-savings in pre-menopausal women and had an ICER of $60,000 per QALY gained in post-menopausal women. The cost effectiveness was most sensitive to the proportion of women classified as intermediate risk by the RS-assay who receive adjuvant chemotherapy and the risk of relapse in the RS-assay model.

CONCLUSIONS

The RS-assay is likely to be cost effective in the Canadian healthcare system and should be considered for adoption in women with ER+/ PR + LN- ESBC. However, ongoing assessment and validation of the assay in real-world clinical practice is warranted.

Cost-utility analysis of adjuvant therapies for breast cancer in Iran

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of Docetaxel with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) and 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (FAC) in node-positive breast cancer patients in the south of Iran.

METHODS

A double blind study was done on a cohort of 100 patients suffering from breast cancer with node-positive over 8 months in the radiotherapy center of Namazi hospital, Shiraz-Iran. Health-related quality of life was assessed using questionnaire (QLQ-C30) from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). QLQ-C30 scale scores were mapped to 15D and EuroQol 5D utilities to measure the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).Third party payer point of view was applied to measure and value the cost of treatments. Cost data were extracted from hospital and health insurance organizations. Robustness of the results was checked through a two way sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

TAC was associated with higher deterioration in HRQoL during treatment and higher improvements over 4 months follow-up. On average, the cost of treatment per patient in TAC was 15 times higher than FAC (p < .001). In overall, TAC was resulted in lower QALYs and higher cost over study period.

CONCLUSIONS

FAC was a dominant option versus TAC in short-term. The higher improvement in HRQoL over follow-up in TAC may not compensate the more intensive deterioration caused during treatment in short-term. The short time horizon of study may limit the generalizability of our findings and, hence, there is a need to conduct long-term economic evaluation studies whenever data is available to inform decision making.

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

Background

Increased health care costs have made it incumbent on health-care facilities and physicians to demonstrate both clinical and cost efficacy when recommending treatments. Though studies have examined the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant goserelin with radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer, few have compared the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant goserelin to adjuvant chemotherapy alone in premenopausal breast cancer.

Methods

In this retrospective study at one hospital, the records of 152 patients with stage Ia to IIIa ER + breast cancer who received goserelin or chemotherapy were reviewed. Survival analysis was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients were interviewed to evaluate their quality of life using the European Organization for Research and Treatment Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30, version 4.0), and to obtain the utility value by the standard gamble (SG) and visual scale (VS) methods. Total medical cost was assessed from the (National Health Insurance) NHI payer's perspective.

Results

Survival at 11 years was significantly better in the groserelin group (P < 0.0012). The lifetime lost was lower in the goserelin group (42 months vs. 66 months). The quality adjusted survival (QAS) of patients who received goserelin was longer (122.5 ± 6.3 vs. 112.2 ± 6.7 months). Total expenses of goserelin were more than cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF) or 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide (FEC) chemotherapy regimes, but less than docetaxel, epirubicin (TE) or docetaxel, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide (TEC) regimes. The quality-adjusted life-year was higher in the goserelin group.

Conclusions

Goserelin therapy results in better survival and higher utility-weighted life-years, and is more cost-effective than TC or TEC chemotherapy.

The cost-utility of adjuvant chemotherapy using docetaxel and cyclophosphamide compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer

PURPOSE

The adoption of a chemotherapeutic regimen in oncologic practice is a function of both its clinical and its economic impacts on cancer management. For breast cancer, U.S. Oncology trial 9735 reported significant improvements in disease-free and overall survival favoring adjuvant tc (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles) compared with ac (doxorubicin 60 mg/ m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles). We carried out an economic evaluation to examine the cost-utility of adjuvant tc relative to ac, in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (qaly) gained, given the improved breast cancer outcomes and higher costs associated with the tc regimen.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to calculate the cumulative costs and qalys gained over a 10-year horizon for hypothetical cohorts of women with breast cancer treated with ac or with tc. Event rates, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature and local resources. Efficacy and adverse events were based on results reported from U.S. Oncology trial 9735. The model takes a third-party direct payer perspective and reports its results in 2008 Canadian dollars. Costs and benefits were both discounted at 3%.

RESULTS

At a 10-year horizon, tc was associated with $3,960 incremental costs and a 0.24 qaly gain compared with ac, for a favorable cost-utility of $16,753 per qaly gained. Results were robust to model assumptions and input parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to ac, tc is a cost-effective adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, with a cost-effectiveness ratio well below commonly applied thresholds.

Potential health economic impact of intravenous iron supplementation to erythropoiesis-stimulating agent treatment in patients with cancer- or chemotherapy-induced anemia

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (i.v.) iron supplementation significantly improves the response to erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA)-based therapies in patients with cancer- or chemotherapy-induced anemia. The economic implications of adding i.v. iron to ESA treatment are less well investigated. Published randomized controlled trials do not provide sufficient data for a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS

Preliminary cost calculations from the Swiss health care system perspective based on a meta-analysis and published results of eight randomized controlled trials without correction for decreased ESA need provide a conservative cost-effectiveness estimate.

RESULTS

The additional total cost of i.v. iron supplementation ranged from EUR 417 to EUR 901 per patient depending on the evaluated iron-carbohydrate complex. Considering a 24% absolute increase in the proportion of ESA responders, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per additional responder are EUR 1,704-3,686. In routine practice, better values may be achieved due to ESA dose savings.

CONCLUSION

Supplementation of ESAs with i.v. iron appears to be an economically viable treatment option in anemic cancer patients. Additional research on ESA dose savings and cost-effectiveness is required.

Controlling the cost of breast cancer

Breast cancer management is an important part of the health-care system. In the current harsh economic climate, these costs have to be controlled, and achieving this without compromising quality of care is a daunting challenge. This article discusses the need to find effective and well-targeted chemotherapeutic regimens, which, when combined with appropriate implementation of novel strategies, will provide the optimum treatment for patients while maintaining economic viability.

Cost effectiveness of TAC versus FAC in adjuvant treatment of node-positive breast cancer

Background

This economic analysis aimed to determine, from the perspective of a Canadian provincial government payer, the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel (Taxotere: Sanofi–Aventis, Laval, QC) in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (tac) compared with 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (fac) following primary surgery for breast cancer in women with operable, axillary lymph node–positive breast cancer.

Methods

A Markov model looking at two time phases—5-year treatment and long-term follow-up—was constructed. Clinical events included clinical response (based on disease-free survival and overall survival) and rates of febrile neutropenia, stomatitis, diarrhea, and infections. Health states were “no recurrence,” “locoregional recurrence,” “distant recurrence,” and “death.” Costs were based on published sources and are presented in 2006 Canadian dollars. Model inputs included chemotherapy drug acquisition costs, chemotherapy administration costs, relapse and follow-up costs, costs for management of adverse events, and costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (g-csf) prophylaxis. A 5% discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes alike. Health utilities were obtained from published sources.

Results

For tac as compared with fac, the incremental cost was $6921 per life-year (ly) gained and $6,848 per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained. The model was robust to changes in input variables (for example, febrile neutropenia rate, utility). When g-csf and antibiotics were given prophylactically before every cycle, the incremental ratios increased to $13,183 and $13,044 respectively.

Conclusions

Compared with fac, tac offered improved response at a higher cost. The cost-effectiveness ratios were low, indicating good economic value in the adjuvant setting of node-positive breast cancer patients.

A Canadian economic analysis of U.S. Oncology Adjuvant Trial 9735

OBJECTIVES

Recent results of the U.S. Oncology Adjuvant Trial 9735 demonstrated significant disease-free survival and overall survival benefits for docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (tc) compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ac) in the adjuvant treatment of operable invasive breast cancer. Based on clinical data from the 9735 study, we evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of tc compared with ac from the perspective of the Canadian publicly funded health care system.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained and per life-year gained. Monthly survival and risk of disease recurrence up to 7 years were obtained directly from the overall survival and disease-free survival curves in the 9735 study; life-years beyond 7 years were estimated using the average life expectancy of age-matched women in the general Canadian population. Canadian-specific resource utilization and unit costs (in 2008 Canadian dollars) were applied to estimate costs for chemotherapy administration, chemotherapy-related toxicities, recurrence, and adverse events. Health-utility scores and decrements used in the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years were derived from the literature.

RESULTS

The lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $8,251 for tc compared with ac, and the cost per life-year gained was $6,842. The results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness, combined with efficacy and an acceptable safety profile, support the adoption of tc as an alternative to ac in Canadian clinical practice for the adjuvant treatment of operable early breast cancer.

Health-state utility values in breast cancer

Health-related quality of life is an important issue in the treatment of breast cancer and health-state utility values are essential for cost-utility analysis. A literature review was conducted to identify published values for common health states for breast cancer. In total, 13 databases were searched and 49 articles were identified providing 476 unique utility values. Where possible mean utility estimates were pooled using ordinary least squares with utilities clustered within study group and weighted by both number of respondents and inverse of the variance of each utility. Regressions included controls for disease state, utility assessment method and other features of study design. Utility values found in the review were summarized for six categories: screening-related states; preventative states; adverse events in breast cancer and its treatment; nonspecific breast cancer; metastatic breast cancer states; and early breast cancer states. The large number of values identified for metastatic breast cancer and early breast cancer states enabled data to be synthesized by meta-regression. Utilities were found to vary significantly between valuation methods and depending on who conducted the valuation. For metastatic breast cancer, values significantly varied by severity of condition, treatment and side-effects. Despite the numerous studies it is not feasible to generate a definitive list of health-state utility values that can be used in future economic evaluations owing to the complexity of the health states involved and the variety of methods used to obtain values. Future research into quality of life in breast cancer should make greater use of validated generic preference-based measures for which public preferences exist.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer from a Chinese perspective: doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide versus docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide

An oncology trial compared four cycles of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) with four cycles of docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) in operable breast cancer patients (71% were diagnosed with hormone receptor positive and 48% with node-negative breast cancer). The objective of this study was to estimate the lifetime cost effectiveness of AC versus TC, from a Chinese healthcare provider perspective, based on a clinical trial. A lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a Markov model. Events rates and utilities in the Markov model were derived from published papers. Data on cost of breast cancer care were obtained from the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, PR China. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Cost estimates were valued in Chinese yuan (Y), year 2008 values. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Patients receiving TC gained 14.45 QALYs, 0.41 QALYs more than patients receiving AC. The lifetime costs of patients receiving TC were Y93 511, Y10 116 more than that of AC patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were Y26 742 per life-year gained ( pound 2719.8 per year) and Y24 305 per QALY gained ( pound2471.9 per QALY). The most sensitive parameter in the model was the cost of primary cancer treatments in the TC arm. At a threshold willingness to pay of Y86 514 per QALY, the probability of TC being cost effective was 90%. Our model suggests that TC may be considered cost effective from a Chinese healthcare provider perspective, according to the threshold defined by the WHO.

Economic evaluations of medical care interventions for cancer patients: how, why, and what does it mean?

While the past decade has seen the development of multiple new interventions to diagnose and treat cancer, as well as to improve the quality of life for cancer patients, many of these interventions have substantial costs. This has resulted in increased scrutiny of the costs of care for cancer, as well as the costs relative to the benefits for cancer treatments. It is important for oncologists and other members of the cancer community to consider and understand how economic evaluations of cancer interventions are performed and to be able to use and critique these evaluations. This review discusses the components, main types, and analytic issues of health economic evaluations using studies of cancer interventions as examples. We also highlight limitations of these economic evaluations and discuss why members of the cancer community should care about economic analyses.