Eribulin monotherapy in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients in real life

Cost-benefit evaluation of advanced therapy lines in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in Germany

BACKGROUND

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is responsible for 10-20% cases of breast cancer and is resulting in rising healthcare costs. Thus, health-economic evaluations are needed to relate clinical outcomes and costs of treatment options and to provide recommendations of action from a health-economic perspective.

METHODS

We investigated the cost-benefit-ratio of approved treatment options in metastatic TNBC in Germany by applying the efficiency frontier approach. These included sacituzumab-govitecan (SG), eribulin, vinorelbine, and capecitabine. Clinical benefit was measured as (i) median overall survival (mOS) and (ii) health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in terms of time to symptom worsening (TSW). To assess medical benefits, literature was systematically reviewed in PubMed for (i) and (ii), respectively. Treatment costs were calculated considering annual direct outpatient treatment costs from a statutory healthcare payer perspective. It was intended that both, (i) and (ii), yield an efficiency frontier.

RESULTS

Annual direct outpatient treatment costs amounted to EUR 176,415.21 (SG), EUR 47,414.14 (eribulin), EUR 13,711.35 (vinorelbine), and EUR 3,718.84 (capecitabine). Systematic literature review of (i) and statistical analysis resulted in OS values of 14.3, 9.56, 9.44, and 7.46 months, respectively. Capecitabine, vinorelbine, and SG are part of the efficiency frontier including OS. The highest additional benefit per additional cost was determined for vinorelbine, followed by SG. Systematic review of (ii) revealed that no TSW data of TNBC patients receiving vinorelbine were available, preventing the presentation of an efficiency frontier including HRQoL.

CONCLUSIONS

Vinorelbine is most cost-effective, followed by SG. Health-economic evaluations support decision-makers to assess treatment options within one indication area. In Germany, the efficiency frontier can provide decision support for the pricing of innovative interventions. Results of our analysis may thus guide reimbursement determination.

Clinical usefulness of eribulin as first- or second-line chemotherapy for recurrent HER2-negative breast cancer: a randomized phase II study (JBCRG-19)

Background

Anthracycline (A) or taxane T-based regimens are the standard early-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (BC). A previous study has shown a survival benefit of eribulin in heavily pretreated advanced/recurrent BC patients. The present study aimed to compare the benefit of eribulin with treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) as first- or second-line chemotherapy for recurrent HER2-negative BC.

Methods

Patients with recurrent HER2-negative BC previously receiving anthracycline and taxane AT-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant or first-line setting were eligible for this open-label, randomized, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized 1:1 by the minimization method to receive either eribulin (1.4 mg/m² on day one and eight of each 21-day cycle) or TPC (paclitaxel, docetaxel, nab-paclitaxel or vinorelbine) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, and safety (UMIN000009886).

Results

Between May 2013 and January 2017, 58 patients were randomized, 57 of whom (26 eribulin and 31 TPC) were analyzed for efficacy. The median PFS was 6.6 months with eribulin versus 4.2 months with TPC (hazard ratio: 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.40–1.30], p = 0.276). Median TTF was 6.0 months with eribulin versus 3.6 months with TPC (hazard ratio: 0.66 [95% CI, 0.39–1.14], p = 0.136). Other endpoints were also similar between groups. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse event was neutropenia (22.2% with eribulin versus 16.1% with TPC).

Conclusions

Eribulin seemed to improve PFS or TTF compared with TPC without statistical significance. Further validation studies are needed.