Cost-Effectiveness of Letrozole in the Extended Adjuvant Treatment of Women with Early Breast Cancer

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.

The value-for-money of adjuvant aromatase inhibitors: time to put the debate to rest?

The adoption of costly treatments in public health care systems, such as exists in Canada, must take into account their “clinical benefit to side effect” profiles and “value for money” in an attempt to maximize health gains within current budget constraints [...]

Economic evaluation of using a genetic test to direct breast cancer chemoprevention in white women with a previous breast biopsy

BACKGROUND

Tamoxifen therapy reduces the risk of breast cancer but increases the risk of serious adverse events including endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events.

OBJECTIVES

The cost effectiveness of using a commercially available breast cancer risk assessment test (BREVAGen™) to inform the decision of which women should undergo chemoprevention by tamoxifen was modeled in a simulated population of women who had undergone biopsies but had no diagnosis of cancer.

METHODS

A continuous time, discrete event, mathematical model was used to simulate a population of white women aged 40-69 years, who were at elevated risk for breast cancer because of a history of benign breast biopsy. Women were assessed for clinical risk of breast cancer using the Gail model and for genetic risk using a panel of seven common single nucleotide polymorphisms. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of using genetic risk together with clinical risk, instead of clinical risk alone, to determine eligibility for 5 years of tamoxifen therapy. In addition to breast cancer, the simulation included health states of endometrial cancer, pulmonary embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, stroke, and cataract. Estimates of costs in 2012 US dollars were based on Medicare reimbursement rates reported in the literature and utilities for modeled health states were calculated as an average of utilities reported in the literature. A 50-year time horizon was used to observe lifetime effects including survival benefits.

RESULTS

For those women at intermediate risk of developing breast cancer (1.2-1.66 % 5-year risk), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the combined genetic and clinical risk assessment strategy over the clinical risk assessment-only strategy was US$47,000, US$44,000, and US$65,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, for women aged 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 years, respectively (assuming a price of US$945 for genetic testing). Results were sensitive to assumptions about patient adherence, utility of life while taking tamoxifen, and cost of genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

From the US payer's perspective, the combined genetic and clinical risk assessment strategy may be a moderately cost-effective alternative to using clinical risk alone to guide chemoprevention recommendations for women at intermediate risk of developing breast cancer.

Extended adjuvant endocrine therapy in hormone dependent breast cancer: the paradigm of the NCIC-CTG MA.17/BIG 1-97 trial

Early hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer is a chronic relapsing disease that can remain clinically silent for many years. The NCIC-CTG MA.17/BIG 1-97 trial randomized disease-free early breast cancer patients who had received five years of adjuvant tamoxifen to either letrozole or placebo and was the first to demonstrate a benefit with extended endocrine therapy. MA.17/BIG 1-97 was stopped at the first interim analysis because disease free survival was strongly prolonged in the letrozole arm. Subsequent subset analyses and longer follow up have shown that this therapy improved survival across all groups, particularly among women with node-positive disease and those that were pre-menopausal at time of study enrolment. The MA.17/BIG 1-97 study should be considered a paradigm for extended adjuvant endocrine therapy in hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in the management of skeletal metastases secondary to breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Denosumab has been approved in the United States for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in metastatic breast cancer. In a Phase III trial in patients with bone-metastatic breast cancer (N = 2033), denosumab was associated with a significantly delayed time to first SRE (by 18%; P < 0.001 noninferiority; P = 0.01 superiority) and time to first and subsequent SREs (by 23%; P = 0.001). Overall survival (HR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.11; P = 0.49) and disease progression (HR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.11; P = 0.93) did not differ significantly between groups. Denosumab was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in serious adverse events (44.4% vs 46.5%).

OBJECTIVES

Given the current ambiguity regarding the cost-effectiveness of these agents in light of these trial outcomes, the present analysis assessed, from a US payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer.

METHODS

A literature-based Markov model was developed to estimate the survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, number and costs of SREs, and drug and administration costs in patients receiving denosumab or zoledronic acid over 27 and 60 months. Clinical inputs reproduced the trial outcomes. SRE-related costs and utilities were literature based. Costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually.

RESULTS

In the 27-month base-case analysis, denosumab was associated with fewer SREs (-0.298), more QALYs (+0.0102), and lower SRE-related costs (-$2016), but higher drug-related (+$9123) and total costs (+$7107) versus zoledronic acid. The cost per QALY gained (ie, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) was $697,499. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER ranged from $192,472 to $1,340,901/QALY, depending on assumptions regarding treatment benefits, drug costs, and analytical horizon. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, denosumab was cost-effective in 2 of 5000 modeled replicates (0.04%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of restricted availability of clinical data and uncertainty regarding the price of generic zoledronic acid, the findings from the present analysis suggest that the use of denosumab is associated with a high ICER compared with zoledronic acid. This finding may raise important questions regarding the economic value of denosumab in bone-metastatic breast cancer.

Reviewing the cost-effectiveness of endocrine early breast cancer therapies: influence of differences in modeling methods on outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic review is primarily to identify published cost-effectiveness analyses and cost-utility analyses of endocrine therapies for the treatment of early breast cancer. A secondary objective is to identify whether differences in seven modeling characteristics are related to differences in outcome of these cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed full economic evaluations of endocrine treatments of early breast cancer published in the English language between 2000 and December 2010. Information from these publications was abstracted regarding outcome, quality, and modeling methods.

RESULTS

We identified 20 economic evaluations comprising 5 different endocrine therapeutic strategies, which are all assessed more then once. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the reported outcomes varied widely for identical therapies. For anastrazole compared to tamoxifen, incremental life-years gained even ranged from 0.16 to 0.550 with an ICER ranging from €3,958 to €75,331. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained ranged from 0.092 to 0.378 with a cost per QALY gained varying from €3,696 to €120,265. These large differences in outcome were related to different modeling methods, with differences in time horizon and use of a carryover effect as most prominent causes.

CONCLUSION

Despite similar comparators and logical differences due to transferability issues, the outcomes of the included studies varied widely. To increase comparability and transparency of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, standardization of modeling methods for different therapeutic groups/diseases and the availability of a detailed and complete description of the model used in the evaluation is advocated. Recommendations for standardization in modeling treatment strategies in early breast cancer are presented.

Cost effectiveness of letrozole versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ early-stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 and Arimidex, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trials demonstrated that, in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive (HR+) early-stage breast cancer, 5 years of initial adjuvant endocrine therapy with letrozole or anastrozole is superior to tamoxifen. With expected generic availability of anastrozole in July 2010 and letrozole in June 2011, there may be financial pressures prior to letrozole's generic availability to start treatment-naïve patients on anastrozole vs. letrozole or to switch patients already receiving letrozole to anastrozole.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to estimate cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with letrozole vs. anastrozole from the US healthcare system perspective. Cost effectiveness was examined separately in treatment-naïve patients and in patients already receiving letrozole. For the latter, cost effectiveness of continued letrozole vs. therapeutic substitution (TS) to generic anastrozole was evaluated separately in cohorts defined on years of endocrine therapy remaining. TS to generic anastrozole was assumed to result in an additional 5% of patients discontinuing endocrine therapy. Probabilities of distant recurrence and death were taken from reports of BIG 1-98, ATAC, the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group meta-analysis of tamoxifen, and other published sources. Carry-over effects of aromatase inhibitors were assumed to be proportional to treatment duration. Costs of aromatase inhibitors were assumed to decline by 75% with generic availability.

RESULTS

In treatment-naïve patients, total expected lifetime costs are $3916 greater with letrozole vs. anastrozole. However, initiation of treatment with letrozole results in a gain of 0.15 QALYs. Cost per QALY gained with letrozole vs. anastrozole is $25,846. In patients already receiving letrozole, the increase in total expected lifetime costs with continued letrozole vs. TS to anastrozole is between $4200 and $4500 in all cohorts. QALYs gained with letrozole range from 0.21 in those with 4 years of endocrine therapy remaining to 0.13 in those with 1 year of therapy remaining. Cost per QALY gained ranges from $20,276 to $34,356.

CONCLUSION

For postmenopausal women with HR+ early-stage breast cancer, letrozole is more likely to be cost effective vs. anastrozole in treatment-naïve patients and in patients already receiving letrozole. Limitations of the study include a lack of direct evidence comparing letrozole and anastrozole and lack of data on rates of discontinuation due to therapeutic substitution with aromatase inhibitors.

Letrozole: a review of its use in the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive early breast cancer

Letrozole (Femara) is a third-generation, nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor. Adjuvant therapy with letrozole is more effective than tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive early breast cancer, and extended adjuvant therapy with letrozole after the completion of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy is more effective than placebo in this patient population; letrozole is generally well tolerated. Ongoing trials will help answer outstanding questions regarding the optimal duration of letrozole therapy in early breast cancer and its efficacy compared with other third-generation aromatase inhibitors such as anastrozole. In the meantime, letrozole should be considered a valuable option in the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive early breast cancer, both as adjuvant and extended adjuvant therapy.

Overcoming recurrence risk: extended adjuvant endocrine therapy

Recurrence risk after initial treatment of breast cancer is a major concern for patients. Although tamoxifen therapy has been shown to be effective in preventing recurrences and cancer-related deaths, recurrences continue to be an issue for patients after the 5-year therapy period. Until recently, there were no therapeutic options available for risk reduction in the period after the first 5 years of tamoxifen (the extended adjuvant setting). The introduction of the aromatase inhibitors (AIs), which have a different mechanism of action than tamoxifen, has provided an option for postmenopausal women seeking to extend their adjuvant hormonal treatment. The Canadian-led MA.17 trial specifically addressed this issue, and the results showed a clear, significant benefit of letrozole, improving disease-free survival over placebo among postmenopausal women who already had 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen treatment. Because of the favorable results observed in the first interim analysis, the trial was unblinded, the patients treated with placebo were offered letrozole, and subsequently, letrozole became approved for the extended adjuvant indication. Recent analyses from MA.17 and other trials, such as the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group 6a and National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-33, confirm the beneficial effect of extending adjuvant hormonal therapy with an AI and identify a large group of patients who could benefit from this therapeutic option. Recent post-unblinding analyses from the MA.17 trial have also shown that there is a benefit for patients to initiate late extended adjuvant letrozole therapy, even after a prolonged period off tamoxifen.

Methodological issues in evaluating cost effectiveness of adjuvant aromatase inhibitors in early breast cancer: a need for improved modelling to aid decision making

The optimal adjuvant hormonal strategy in post-menopausal women with early breast cancer is a subject of ongoing debate. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have been successfully evaluated in clinical trials that have compared them with a standard treatment of 5 years of tamoxifen. However, several options are available in terms of treatment schedule and selected drug. Systematic reviews of clinical trials and health economic evaluations attempt to contribute to the debate. The objective of this paper is to provide a critical review of existing health economic evaluations with a focus on those parameters and assumptions with the largest impact on final outcomes.A wide range of different inputs and assumptions exist, which make a comparison of results difficult, if not impossible. In particular, the modelling of recurrence rates over longer time horizons than those observed in clinical trials, a cornerstone of health economic modelling, is subject to quite different approaches. The practice of indirect comparison of different AIs without sufficiently acknowledging population differences is also bothersome. A list of key features (related to time horizon, clinical data input, patient subtypes, budget impact and model calibration) that an ideal model should have in order to better assist decision makers in this field is proposed.

Beyond tamoxifen: extended and late extended endocrine therapy in postmenopausal early breast cancer

Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide. The majority of cases are oestrogen receptor- or progesterone receptor-positive and, therefore, potentially sensitive to endocrine therapy. A significant risk of recurrence and death persists following initial diagnosis, with over one half of all recurrences and two thirds of breast cancer-related deaths reported to occur following completion of standard adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. There is a need for effective protection against recurrence beyond the initial 5 years of adjuvant treatment for women with hormone-responsive cancer. Extended adjuvant endocrine therapy with letrozole following completion of adjuvant tamoxifen treatment is well tolerated and reduces recurrence risk by 42% and the risk of developing distant metastases by 40% when compared with placebo. Extended adjuvant letrozole therapy confers protection against late relapses and should be considered for women completing adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. The MA.17 trial was unblinded early because of a statistically significant benefit in disease-free survival with letrozole, and patients receiving placebo were allowed to receive letrozole. MA.17 post-unblinding results show that women originally randomised to placebo who then chose to receive letrozole at the time of trial unblinding experienced a significant improvement in all outcomes (disease-free survival and distant disease-free survival), including a significant survival advantage when compared with women in the placebo arm who chose to continue with no further treatment. Physicians should consider late extended adjuvant therapy for women who have been off tamoxifen for some time, as it may offer benefit in outcomes, and this option should be discussed.

Prescribing extended adjuvant letrozole

The efficacy of 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen in preventing disease recurrence in patients with breast cancer has been well established. Once patients have completed tamoxifen therapy, however, recurrence risk remains but treatment options are limited. Aromatase inhibitors such as letrozole are emerging as potential alternatives to tamoxifen therapy and as an option after tamoxifen. The pioneering MA-17 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of letrozole in the extended adjuvant setting in postmenopausal women who remained disease-free after about 5 years of tamoxifen. The trial was unblinded at first interim analysis after letrozole proved more effective than placebo in improving disease-free survival. As such, the optimal duration of extended adjuvant letrozole was left in question. However, recent results from cohort analysis in MA-17 have shown an ongoing and increasing benefit of letrozole for up to 4 years after tamoxifen, suggesting that longer periods of extended adjuvant letrozole are safe and clinically beneficial.

Letrozole: present and future role in the treatment of breast cancer

State of the art hormonal therapy for women with breast cancer has evolved over the last few years. Tamoxifen used to be the gold standard for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive early breast cancer and also for patients with metastatic disease in whom hormonal manipulation was considered, but the introduction of third generation aromatase inhibitors has changed this concept. This article discusses the clinical implications of recent trials with one of the aromatase inhibitors letrozole, including pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data as well as recent data on relative benefits and side effects compared with other available hormonal agents. Relevant ongoing clinical-translational trials evaluating this agent are also discussed.

Comparative economic analysis of aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen in the treatment of hormone-dependent breast cancer

Within the past 2 years three separate groups reported marked improvements in relapse-free survival when trastuzumab was added to adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. Notwithstanding the significance of this molecular target, the discovery of the estrogen receptor (ER) may be of even greater importance. Although tamoxifen has long been considered the hormonal therapy of choice for patients with estrogen-responsive breast cancer, accumulating clinical data suggest the new generation of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) is more effective and less toxic. With the availability of new information, guidelines have been updated and reformulated regarding the use of AIs as first-line hormonal therapy in postmenopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer. This paper, a product of the ongoing advances in oncology, incorporates two distinct, yet important, features of oncology; first, clinical concepts related to hormone-dependent breast cancer and second, pharmacoeconomic evaluation of the antiestrogen tamoxifen and the new generation of antiaromatase agents.

Cost-effectiveness of letrozole versus tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive early breast cancer from a Canadian perspective

BACKGROUND

In the primary core analysis of BIG 1-98, a randomized, double-blind trial comparing 5 years of initial adjuvant therapy with letrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer, letrozole significantly improved disease-free survival by 19% and reduced the risk of breast cancer recurrence by 28% and distant recurrence by 27%.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with 5 years of initial adjuvant therapy with letrozole versus tamoxifen from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. Probabilities of recurrence and side effects for tamoxifen were based on published results of BIG 1-98 and other published population-based studies. Corresponding probabilities for letrozole were calculated by multiplying probabilities for tamoxifen by estimated relative risks for letrozole versus tamoxifen from BIG 1-98. Other probabilities, costs of breast-cancer care and treatment of side effects, and health-state utilities were obtained from published studies. Costs and QALYs were estimated over the lifetime of a cohort of postmenopausal women with HR+ early breast cancer, aged 60 years at initiation of therapy, and discounted at 5% annually.

RESULTS

Compared with tamoxifen, letrozole yields an additional 0.368 life-years (12.453 vs. 12.086) and 0.343 QALYs (11.582 vs. 11.239). These benefits are obtained at an additional cost of Can$ 8,110 (Can$ 30,819 vs. Can$ 22,709). Cost per QALY gained for letrozole versus tamoxifen is Can$ 23,662 (95% CI Can$ 15,667-Can$ 52,014).

CONCLUSION

In postmenopausal women with HR+ early breast cancer, initial adjuvant treatment with letrozole is cost-effective from the Canadian healthcare system perspective.

Continuing with letrozole offers greater benefits

OBJECTIVE

Tamoxifen has been at the foundation of adjuvant treatment to prevent disease recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive early breast cancer. After 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy, however, options for further treatment are limited. Additional tamoxifen is not indicated, as no further benefit in disease-free survival (DFS) has been observed. The aromatase inhibitor letrozole significantly improves DFS over placebo in postmenopausal women who have completed 4.5-6.0 years of adjuvant tamoxifen.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This article reviews the data supporting extended adjuvant letrozole therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended adjuvant letrozole has been shown to be particularly effective in patients with node-positive disease, who are at a higher risk for disease recurrence, improving both DFS and overall survival. Extended adjuvant letrozole is associated with a significant increase in self-reported osteoporosis, but no significant increases in fracture, endometrial malignancies, hypercholesterolemia, or cardiovascular events and no worsening of quality of life, making it suitable for long-term use. The ASCO treatment guidelines recommend at least 2.5 years of extended adjuvant letrozole for patients completing tamoxifen therapy, based upon the MA.17 trial follow-up period. A recent cohort analysis now suggests that extended adjuvant letrozole treatment for at least 48 months is associated with greater benefit. The efficacy of letrozole for up to 10 years following tamoxifen is also being investigated.

Cost-utility of adjuvant hormone therapies with aromatase inhibitors in post-menopausal women with breast cancer: upfront anastrozole, sequential tamoxifen-exemestane and extended tamoxifen-letrozole

This evaluation adapts a previous Canadian analysis of upfront and sequential adjuvant AI strategies in postmenopausal women with breast cancer to a Belgian perspective and includes an extended aromatase inhibitor (AI) strategy. A Markov model calculated monthly costs and outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Baseline event rates and hazard ratios were derived from the Arimidex, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination trial, International Exemestane Study and MA.17 trials. The analysis took a Belgian healthcare payer perspective with a 20-year time horizon. Costs and outcomes were discounted by 3%. Costs are in 2005 Euros. The cost-utility of all three strategies was favourable (<30,000 euros per QALY gained). Based on indirect comparisons using tamoxifen (TAM) alone as a common comparator, sequential TAM-AI was less costly and more effective than upfront or extended strategies. All three AI strategies were cost-effective alternatives to TAM alone, but sequential TAM-AI appears to be the economically preferred strategy.

Cost-effectiveness of switching to exemestane versus continued tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Sequential tamoxifen/exemestane therapy reportedly improves disease-free survival in women with primary breast cancer compared with continued tamoxifen therapy. The objective of the current study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of switching to exemestane after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen versus continued tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer for a total of 5 years of adjuvant therapy.

METHODS

A Markov model based on the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES) population compared switching to exemestane versus continued tamoxifen for 2.5 years of therapy and 5 years of postadjuvant therapy follow-up. Disease progression and hazards ratios (HR) for recurrence and survival were determined from datasets (IES and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program of the National Cancer Institute) and from the published literature. An expert panel validated treatment patterns, outcomes, and resource utilization. Direct medical costs were included based on published sources. Cost-effectiveness ratios were determined, and extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Exemestane was found to be more effective than tamoxifen alone with regard to disease-free survival (2.6% absolute improvement), life-years gained (0.1028 LY), and quality-adjusted life-years gained (0.1195 QALY), at an additional cost of 2,889 Can dollars per person over 7.5 years. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 28,119 Can dollars/LY gained and 24,185 Can dollars/QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to distant recurrence HR but was robust to variations in clinical, cost, and utility parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to adjuvant exemestane after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen is cost-effective in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer.