A cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine maintenance therapy versus routine follow-up for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer patients after standard treatment from a perspective of Chinese society

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine maintenance therapy is safe and efficacious for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients, but the cost-effectiveness of its long-term use has not been investigated. Here, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of capecitabine maintenance therapy, compared with routine follow-up, in early-stage TNBC patients after standard treatment from a perspective of Chinese society.

METHODS

A three-state Markov model based on the data from the SYSUCC-001 trial was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of capecitabine maintenance therapy in a month cycle over a period of 30-year time horizon. A 5% annual discount rate was set for all costs and benefits. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the model uncertainties. The main outcomes include quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one additional event.

RESULTS

Compared with routine follow-up, 1-year capecitabine maintenance therapy yielded an additional 1.29 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of $3391.70, with an ICER of $2630.53 (95% CI: $1159.81-$5090.12) per QALY gained. The ICER was considerably lower than the recommended willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (i.e., $28,130.00 per QALY). The results were sensitive to the discount rate, drug cost, and treatment cost after relapse. Further, the NNT to prevent one additional relapse case was 29.2 (95% CI: 13.2-196.6), 16.7 (95% CI: 8.4-111.6), and 12.0 (95% CI: 5.7-82.6) at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

One-year capecitabine maintenance therapy for early-stage TNBC after standard treatment, compared with routine follow-up, was found to be highly cost-effective with promising clinical benefits and acceptable increased costs. Real-world studies are warranted to validate our findings in the future.

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.

Efficacy of utidelone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine for heavily pretreated, anthracycline- and taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer: final analysis of overall survival in a phase III randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Primary analysis of the phase III trial BG01-1323L demonstrated that utidelone plus capecitabine significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) versus capecitabine alone in heavily-pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Here, we report the final overall survival (OS) analysis and updates of other endpoints.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 405 patients were randomised 2:1 to receive utidelone (30 mg/m² IV daily, days 1-5, over 90 min) plus capecitabine (1000 mg/m² orally b.i.d., days 1-14) or capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m² orally b.i.d., days 1-14) every 21 days. The secondary endpoint, OS, was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit approach at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 after the prespecified 310 death events had been reached. Exploratory analyses of the primary endpoint, PFS, and the secondary endpoint, ORR, were also done. Safety was analysed in patients who had at least one dose of study drug.

RESULTS

At the final OS analysis, the median duration of follow-up was 19.6 months in the utidelone plus capecitabine group and 15.4 months in the capecitabine alone group. In the intention-to-treat population, 313 deaths had occurred at data cut-off, 203 of 270 patients in the combination group and 110 of 135 in the monotherapy group. Median OS in the combination group was 19.8 months compared with 16.0 months in the monotherapy group [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.75, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.59-0.94, P = 0.0142]. The updated analysis of PFS and ORR showed that the combination therapy remained superior to monotherapy. Safety results were similar to those previously reported with respect to incidence, severity and specificity. No late-emerging toxicities or new safety concerns occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

For heavily-pretreated, anthracycline- and taxane-resistant MBC patients, utidelone plus capecitabine significantly improved OS versus capecitabine alone. These results support the use of utidelone plus capecitabine as a novel therapeutic regimen for patients with MBC.

Reassembly of the Biosynthetic Gene Cluster Enables High Epothilone Yield in Engineered Schlegelella brevitalea

Epothilones, as a new class of microtubule-stabilizing anticancer drugs, exhibit strong bioactivity against taxane-resistant cells and show clinical activity for the treatment of advanced breast cancer. Additionally, they also show great potential for a central nervous system injury and Alzheimer's disease. However, due to the long fermentation period of the original producer and challenges of genetic engineering of nonribosomal peptide/polyketide (NRP/PK) megasynthase genes, the application of epothilones is severely limited. Here, we addressed these problems by reassembling a novel 56-kb epothilone biosynthetic gene cluster, optimizing the promoter of each gene based on RNA-seq profiling, and completing precursor synthetic pathways in engineered Schlegella brevitalea. Furthermore, we debottlenecked the cell autolysis by optimizing culture conditions. Finally, the yield of epothilones in shake flasks was improved to 82 mg/L in six-day fermentation. Overall, we not only constructed epothilone overproducers for further drug development but also provided a rational strategy for high-level NRP/PK compound production.

Economic evaluations of oral medications for breast cancer treatment in the U.S.: a systematic review with a focus on cost-effectiveness threshold

Introduction: With the advent of targeted therapy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently approved several oral anticancer medications (OAMs) for breast cancer (BC). Despite the improved effectiveness of those OAMs, the high financial burden is an issue. Evidence from cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can provide valuable information for decision-makers when deciding whether to use these high-priced medications. Many CEAs on OAMs have been conducted using various analytical approaches and cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs). However, there is no comprehensive systematic review of CEAs across all OAMs.Area covered: PubMed and Cochrane library were used to select for CEAs of OAM for BC in the U.S. published by May 2019. Among the 25 included studies, studies published between 1993 and 2011 analyzed either early BC (n = 11) or advanced/metastatic BC (n = 5), those between 2012-2019 analyzed advanced/metastatic BC (n = 9). Studies including targeted therapies were published after 2009. The CETs tended to increase over time and were higher in the studies for advanced/metastatic BC (median = $125,000) than those for early BC (median = $50,000).Expert commentary: The target population and medications of interest have changed and the methods of articles have evolved. The range of CETs tends to differ by study setting with an increase over time.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer☆

OBJECTIVE

Nivolumab is the first drug to demonstrate a survival benefit for platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer. We performed a cost-utility analysis to assess the economic value of nivolumab as compared to alternative standard agents in this context.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using data from the CheckMate 141 trial, we constructed a Markov simulation model from the US payer's perspective to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared to physician choice of either cetuximab, methotrexate or docetaxel. Alternative strategies considered included: single-agent cetuximab, methotrexate or docetaxel, or first testing for PD-L1 to select for nivolumab. Costs were extracted from Medicare and utilities from the literature and CheckMate. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to evaluate parameter uncertainty. $100,000/QALY was the primary threshold for cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

When comparing nivolumab to the standard arm of CheckMate, nivolumab demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $140,672/QALY. When comparing standard therapies, methotrexate was the most cost-effective with similar results for docetaxel. Nivolumab was cost-effective compared to single-agent cetuximab (ICER $89,786/QALY). Treatment selection by PD-L1 immunohistochemistry did not markedly improve the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab. Factors likely to positively impact the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab include better baseline quality-of-life, poor tolerability of standard treatments and/or a lower cost of nivolumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab is preferred to single-agent cetuximab but requires a willingness-to-pay of at least $150,000/QALY to be considered cost-effective when compared to docetaxel or methotrexate. Selection by PD-L1 does not markedly improve the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab. This informs patient selection and clinical care-path development.

Reviewing the quality, health benefit and value for money of chemotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic breast cancer

Purpose

To provide an overview of model characteristics and outcomes of model-based economic evaluations concerning chemotherapy and targeted therapy (TT) for metastatic breast cancer (MBC); to assess the quality of the studies; to analyse the association between model characteristics and study quality and outcomes.

Methods

PubMED and NHS EED were systematically searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: English or Dutch language, model-based economic evaluation, chemotherapy or TT as intervention, population diagnosed with MBC, published between 2000 and 2014, reporting life years (LY) or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. General characteristics, model characteristics and outcomes of the studies were extracted. Quality of the studies was assessed through a checklist.

Results

24 studies were included, considering 50 comparisons (20 concerning chemotherapy and 30 TT). Seven comparisons were represented in multiple studies. A health state-transition model including the following health states: stable/progression-free disease, progression and death was used in 18 studies. Studies fulfilled on average 14 out of the 26 items of the quality checklist, mostly due to a lack of transparency in reporting. Thirty-one per cent of the incremental net monetary benefit was positive. TT led to higher iQALY gained, and industry-sponsored studies reported more favourable cost-effectiveness outcomes.

Conclusions

The development of a disease-specific reference model would improve the transparency and quality of model-based cost-effectiveness assessments for MBC treatments. Incremental health benefits increased over time, but were outweighed by the increased treatment costs. Consequently, increased health benefits led to lower value for money.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4374-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Use of Intermediate Endpoints in the Economic Evaluation of New Treatments for Advanced Cancer and Methods Adopted When Suitable Overall Survival Data are Not Available

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the use of intermediate endpoints in the economic evaluation of new treatments for advanced cancer and the methodological approaches adopted when overall survival (OS) data are unavailable or of limited use.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of treatments for advanced cancer published between 2003 and 2013. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses expressed in cost per life-year gained and cost per quality-adjusted life-year using an intermediate endpoint as an outcome measure were eligible. Characteristics of selected studies were extracted and comprised population, treatment of interest, comparator, line of treatment, study perspective, and time horizon. Use of intermediate endpoints and methods adopted when OS data were lacking were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 7219 studies were identified and 100 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Intermediate endpoints mostly used were progression-free survival and time to progression, accounting for 92 % of included studies. OS data were unavailable for analysis in nearly 25 % of economic evaluations. In the absence of OS data, studies most commonly assumed an equal risk of death for all treatment groups. Other methods included use of indirect comparison based on numerous assumptions, use of a proxy for OS, consultation with clinical experts, and use of published external information from different treatment settings.

CONCLUSION

Intermediate endpoints are widely used in the economic evaluation of new treatments for advanced cancer in order to estimate OS. Currently, different methods are used in the absence of suitable OS data and the choice of an appropriate method depends on many factors including the data availability.

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.

Decisions on Further Research for Predictive Biomarkers of High-Dose Alkylating Chemotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Value of Information Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To inform decisions about the design and priority of further studies of emerging predictive biomarkers of high-dose alkylating chemotherapy (HDAC) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) using value-of-information analysis.

METHODS

A state transition model compared treating women with TNBC with current clinical practice and four biomarker strategies to personalize HDAC: 1) BRCA1-like profile by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) testing; 2) BRCA1-like profile by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) testing; 3) strategy 1 followed by X-inactive specific transcript gene (XIST) and tumor suppressor p53 binding protein (53BP1) testing; and 4) strategy 2 followed by XIST and 53BP1 testing, from a Dutch societal perspective and a 20-year time horizon. Input data came from literature and expert opinions. We assessed the expected value of partial perfect information, the expected value of sample information, and the expected net benefit of sampling for potential ancillary studies of an ongoing randomized controlled trial (RCT; NCT01057069).

RESULTS

The expected value of partial perfect information indicated that further research should be prioritized to the parameter group including "biomarkers' prevalence, positive predictive value (PPV), and treatment response rates (TRRs) in biomarker-negative patients and patients with TNBC" (€639 million), followed by utilities (€48 million), costs (€40 million), and transition probabilities (TPs) (€30 million). By setting up four ancillary studies to the ongoing RCT, data on 1) TP and MLPA prevalence, PPV, and TRR; 2) aCGH and aCGH/MLPA plus XIST and 53BP1 prevalence, PPV, and TRR; 3) utilities; and 4) costs could be simultaneously collected (optimal size = 3000).

CONCLUSIONS

Further research on predictive biomarkers for HDAC should focus on gathering data on TPs, prevalence, PPV, TRRs, utilities, and costs from the four ancillary studies to the ongoing RCT.

Cost effectiveness of personalized treatment in women with early breast cancer: the application of OncotypeDX and Adjuvant! Online to guide adjuvant chemotherapy in Austria

A Breast Cancer Outcomes model was developed at the ONCOTYROL research center to evaluate personalized test-treatment strategies in Austria. The goal was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a new 21-gene assay (ODX) when used in conjunction with the Adjuvant! Online (AO) decision aid to support personalized decisions about use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer patients in Austria. We applied a validated discrete-event-simulation model to a hypothetical cohort of 50 years old women over a lifetime horizon. The test-treatment strategies of interest were defined using three-letter acronyms. The first (second, third) letter indicates whether patients with a low (intermediate, high) risk according to AO were tested using ODX (Y yes, N no). The main outcomes were life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs and cost effectiveness. Robustness of the results was tested in sensitivity analyses. Results were compared to a Canadian analysis conducted by the Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA). Five of eight strategies were dominated (i.e., more costly and less effective: NNY, NYN, YNN, YNY, YYN). The base-case analysis shows that YYY (ODX provided to all patients) is the most effective strategy and is cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 15,700 EUR per QALY gained. These results are sensitive to changes in the probabilities of distant recurrence, age and costs of chemotherapy. The results of the base-case analysis were comparable to the THETA results. Based on our analyses, using ODX in addition to AO is effective and cost effective in all women in Austria. The development of future genetic tests may require alternative or additional test-treatment strategies to be evaluated.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treating Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia Patients With Arsenic Trioxide and Retinoic Acid in the United States

INTRODUCTION

This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of arsenic trioxide (ATO) added to all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) when used in first-line acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov cohort model was developed with 3 states: stable disease (during first- or second-line treatment), disease event, and death. Newly diagnosed patients with low- to intermediate-risk APL were included and each month could remain in their current health state or move to another. Treatment consisted of ATO + ATRA, ATRA + idarubicin (IDA), or ATRA + cytarabine (AraC) + additional chemotherapy. After an initial disease event, patients discontinued first-line therapy and switched to a second-line ATO regimen. Efficacy and safety data were obtained from published trials; quality of life/utility estimates were obtained from the literature; costs were obtained from US data sources. Costs and outcomes over time were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Compared to ATRA + AraC + additional chemotherapy, ATRA + IDA treatment had ICERs of $2933 per life-year (LY) saved and $3122 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Compared to the ATRA + IDA regimen, first-line ATO + ATRA treatment had ICERs of $4512 per LY saved and $5614 per QALY gained. Results were sensitive to changes in pharmacy costs of the ATO + ATRA regimen during consolidation.

CONCLUSION

The ATO + ATRA regimen is highly cost-effective compared to ATRA + AraC + additional chemotherapy or ATRA + IDA in the treatment of newly diagnosed low- to intermediate-risk APL patients.

What does breast cancer treatment cost and what is it worth?

The costs of breast cancer care are substantial and growing, and they extend across the spectrum of care. Medical therapies and hospitalizations account for a significant proportion of these costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is the preferred method for assessing the health benefits of medical interventions relative to their costs. Although many CEAs have been conducted for a wide range of breast cancer treatments, these analyses are not used routinely to guide coverage or utilization decisions in the United States. Currently, patients and providers may not consider costs when making most treatment decisions; this is likely to change as payment reform spreads.

Modeling hard clinical end-point data in economic analyses

OBJECTIVE

The availability of hard clinical end-point data, such as that on cardiovascular (CV) events among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, is increasing, and as a result there is growing interest in using hard end-point data of this type in economic analyses. This study investigated published approaches for modeling hard end-points from clinical trials and evaluated their applicability in health economic models with different disease features.

METHODS

A review of cost-effectiveness models of interventions in clinically significant therapeutic areas (CV diseases, cancer, and chronic lower respiratory diseases) was conducted in PubMed and Embase using a defined search strategy. Only studies integrating hard end-point data from randomized clinical trials were considered. For each study included, clinical input characteristics and modeling approach were summarized and evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 33 articles (23 CV, eight cancer, two respiratory) were accepted for detailed analysis. Decision trees, Markov models, discrete event simulations, and hybrids were used. Event rates were incorporated either as constant rates, time-dependent risks, or risk equations based on patient characteristics. Risks dependent on time and/or patient characteristics were used where major event rates were >1%/year in models with fewer health states (<7). Models of infrequent events or with numerous health states generally preferred constant event rates.

LIMITATIONS

The detailed modeling information and terminology varied, sometimes requiring interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

Key considerations for cost-effectiveness models incorporating hard end-point data include the frequency and characteristics of the relevant clinical events and how the trial data is reported. When event risk is low, simplification of both the model structure and event rate modeling is recommended. When event risk is common, such as in high risk populations, more detailed modeling approaches, including individual simulations or explicitly time-dependent event rates, are more appropriate to accurately reflect the trial data.

Optimal strategies for the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer with currently approved agents

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive histological subtype with limited treatment options and very poor prognosis following progression after standard chemotherapeutic regimens. Resistance to current standard therapies such as anthracyclines or taxanes limits the available options for previously treated patients with metastatic TNBC to a small number of non-cross-resistant regimens, and there is currently no preferred standard chemotherapy. Duration of response is usually short, with rapid relapse very common and median survival of just 13 months. The newly approved agent eribulin has shown a survival benefit in patients who had previously been treated with anthracycline- or taxane-containing regimens, including in patients with TNBC. Platinum-based regimens are an emerging option for patients with BRCA1 mutation, and newer targeted agents such as anti-angiogenic treatment with bevacizumab or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor treatment with cetuximab, have shown some benefit in combination therapy. However, there remains an urgent unmet need for improved targeted agents for this patient population. Improved treatment may be facilitated by biomarker-led understanding of subgroup molecular targets, which may predict benefit from currently approved agents, as well as newer targeted drugs.

A cost effectiveness study of eribulin versus standard single-agent cytotoxic chemotherapy for women with previously treated metastatic breast cancer

Eribulin was FDA approved in 2012 as a treatment for patients with MBC who have previously received at least two prior chemotherapy regimens. The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of eribulin versus the three most commonly utilized drugs (TPC) in the EMBRACE trial: vinorelbine, gemcitabine, and capecitabine (X); and to other branded FDA approved drugs: ixabepilone (I), liposomal-doxorubicin (D), and nab-paclitaxel. We created a decision-analytical and a Markov model using clinical data from the EMBRACE trial. Health utilities were derived from the published literature. Costs for drug acquisition, physician visits, and laboratory tests were obtained from Medicare Services Drug Payment Table and Physician Fee Schedule and are represented in 2012 USD. Life-years saved (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Eribulin added 0.208 LY and 0.119 QALY with an incremental cost over TPC of $25,458, and therefore an ICER of $213,742 per QALY. The main drivers of the model were drug cost, PFS, OS, and health utility values. The results of the model were robust in sensitivity analyses. Relative to I, D, A, and X, the ICER for eribulin was $76,823, $109,283, $129,773, and $167,267, respectively. Even with a more contemporary willingness-to-pay threshold of approximately $120,000 per QALY, eribulin was not found to be cost effective in the treatment of MBC relative to TPC; relative to some more expensive branded drugs, eribulin appears to be cost effective.

Proposal for a novel methodology to screen and score cost versus survival for anticancer drugs in metastatic disease: could cost weigh in evaluation?

PURPOSE

Rising costs of anticancer drugs prompt concerns about their approval, use, and affordability. A methodology was developed to evaluate cost versus survival for anticancer drugs in metastatic breast cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Costs of evaluated drugs were calculated by using average wholesale prices in US dollars. Ratios of cost to day of survival (cost/survival/d) were obtained by dividing costs of the entire treatment by reported median survival gain in days. A crude score of 100% was assigned to a cost/survival/d of less than $25, and 0% to a cost/survival/d of more than $750. A strategy was designed to correct for overall survival (OS) versus progression-free survival (PFS), adverse effects, and quality of life.

RESULTS

In breast cancer, PFS scores of bevacizumab varied between 0% and 60%. In NSCLC, OS scores of bevacizumab improved from 0% to 50%, as a result of histology, lower prices, and extended therapy. Gefitinib and erlotinib PFS scores were 80% and 70%, respectively. Correction for longer survival with erlotinib resulted in similar scores. In maintenance therapy, the OS score for pemetrexed was 70% as compared with 25% for erlotinib. Generic drugs scored 70% to 90%.

CONCLUSION

Cost/survival varied with the number of cycles. In breast cancer, bevacizumab scores failed to justify its use. In NSCLC, 10 cycles of bevacizumab scored 0%. Scores improved with extended treatment and lower prices. Scores for gefitinib and erlotinib would support their approval. Erlotinib was preferred because of longer PFS. Results tended to endorse maintenance pemetrexed but not erlotinib. Generic drugs demonstrated high scores. Cost/survival could weigh in drug evaluation.

Breast Cancer 2012 - New Aspects

Treatment options as well as the characteristics for therapeutic decisions in patients with primary and advanced breast cancer are increasing in number and variety. New targeted therapies in combination with established chemotherapy schemes are broadening the spectrum, however potentially promising combinations do not always achieve a better result. New data from the field of pharmacogenomics point to prognostic and predictive factors that take not only the properties of the tumour but also inherited genetic properties of the patient into consideration. Current therapeutic decision-making is thus based on a combination of classical clinical and modern molecular biomarkers. Also health-economic aspects are more frequently being taken into consideration so that health-economic considerations may also play a part. This review is based on information from the recent annual congresses. The latest of these are the 34th San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2011 and the ASCO Annual Meeting 2012. Among their highlights are the clinically significant results from the CLEOPATRA, BOLERO-2, EMILIA and SWOG S0226 trials on the therapy for metastatic breast cancer as well as further state-of-the-art data on the adjuvant use of bisphosphonates within the framework of the ABCSG-12, ZO-FAST, NSABP-B34 and GAIN trials.

Efficacy of the CMFVP regimen in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracycline and taxane

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the relatively old lowcost CMFVP regimen (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, vincristine, prednisolone) as compared to newer and more costly chemotherapeutic agents.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An analysis of the medical records of female patients with metastatic breast cancers treated with a CMFVP combination at the Shaare Zedek Medical Center (SZMC) was performed. 32 patients with measurable metastatic disease were included in the analysis. The median age was 59.9 years (range 36-102 years). 20 of the patients had previously been treated with both anthracyclines and taxanes.

RESULTS

Therapy was generally well tolerated and toxicity manageable. Median time to disease progression was 20.97 weeks (range 2-103 weeks). 6 patients (19%) demonstrated a partial response, and 7 patients (22%) had stable disease lasting 3 or more months for an overall clinical benefit of 41%. 4 of the 20 patients previously treated with both anthracyclines and taxanes had a partial response, and 4 patients had stable disease lasting 3 or more months for a clinical benefit of 40%.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of this small retrospective survey, we conclude that CMFVP combination chemotherapy is both effective and safe in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with both taxanes and anthracyclines.

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.

Chemotherapy resistance in metastatic breast cancer: the evolving role of ixabepilone

Resistance to chemotherapy is a major obstacle to the effective treatment of many tumor types. Although many anticancer therapies can alter tumor growth, in most cases the effect is not long lasting. Consequently, there is a significant need for new agents with low susceptibility to common drug resistance mechanisms in order to improve response rates and potentially extend survival. Approximately 30% of the women diagnosed with early-stage disease in turn progress to metastatic breast cancer, for which therapeutic options are limited. Current recommendations for first-line chemotherapy include anthracycline-based regimens and taxanes (paclitaxel and docetaxel). They typically give response rates of 30 to 70% but the responses are often not durable, with a time to progression of 6 to 10 months. Patients with progression or resistance may be administered capecitabine, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, albumin-bound paclitaxel, or ixabepilone, while other drugs are being evaluated. Response rates in this setting tend to be low (20 to 30%); the median duration of responses is <6 months and the results do not always translate into improved long-term outcomes. The present article reviews treatment options in taxane-resistant metastatic breast cancer and the role of ixabepilone in this setting.

Cost effectiveness of cytotoxic and targeted therapy for metastatic breast cancer: a critical and systematic review

Breast cancer is the leading cancer type diagnosed among women in Western countries. Despite great advances in cancer therapies, many of these patients develop non-curable metastases. The objective of cancer treatment in the metastatic setting is mainly to control symptoms and to prolong survival. The selection of the optimal chemotherapeutic regimen is affected by performance status, tumour biology, site and extent of the disease and the exposure to prior therapies. Recent developments in new kinds of cancer drugs have contributed not only to immense progress in clinical outcomes but also to dramatically increased treatment-related health costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis is a type of economic evaluation that compares costs and health outcomes of alternative intervention strategies in a systematic way. In this review, a systematic literature search was performed and the evidence on the cost effectiveness of conventional chemotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic breast cancer was explored. Cost-effectiveness/-utility analysis of treatment regimens for metastatic breast cancer were identified using literature and reference searches (MEDLINE). Published reports on conventional and targeted cancer therapies were scrutinized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were abstracted. Furthermore, the quality of reporting, as well as methodological and modeling issues, were extensively discussed. From full-text article reviews, six cost-effectiveness analyses on conventional therapies and seven studies on targeted therapies were included. Eight analyses were conducted in European countries, three in the US and two in Canada. The economic models were primarily (69%) based on clinical trial data. Results from sensitivity analyses and study perspectives were reported by all studies. Discount rates were mentioned in five articles (39%). The methods of reporting costs and effects varied considerably, as did trial design across conventional chemotherapies, which made it difficult to compare those analyses. The pharmacoeconomic studies came to different conclusions. The actual clinical evidence does not suggest one conventional chemotherapy regimen as superior. Studies on cytotoxic agents showed mainly favourable cost-effectiveness ratios. Targeted therapies indicated both favourable and non-favourable ratios. Currently, trastuzumab is the only antibody-based targeted therapy that is established in the clinic for the metastatic setting.

Ixabepilone: in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer

Ixabepilone, an analogue of the natural product epothilone B, stabilizes microtubules resulting in cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. It is indicated for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US. Ixabepilone has shown antitumour activity in tumour cell lines in vitro and in several animal tumour models, including those that display key mechanisms of resistance to other anticancer agents. In a randomized, nonblind, multicentre, phase III trial in women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that was pretreated with, or resistant to, anthracyclines and resistant to taxanes, progression-free survival was significantly longer in ixabepilone plus capecitabine recipients compared with recipients of capecitabine monotherapy (median 5.8 vs 4.2 months). The response rate to ixabepilone monotherapy was 11.5% in a noncomparative, multicentre, phase II trial in women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer resistant to anthracyclines, taxanes and capecitabine. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events in both trials were myelosuppression and peripheral sensory neuropathy.