Impact of uncertainty on cost-effectiveness analysis of medical strategies: The case of high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer patients

Deterioration of quality of life of high-risk breast cancer patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy: the PEGASE 01 Quality of Life Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the quality of life (QOL) of high-risk breast cancer patients included in a randomized clinical trial (PEGASE 01) comparing conventional chemotherapy versus adding an additional high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) cycle with blood stem cell support.

METHODS

A total of 314 patients were included in the clinical trial. QOL evaluations were available for 199 patients. QOL was assessed over a 1-year follow-up period, using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30. The results were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Toxicity of HDC has a strong negative impact on patients' QOL during the treatment phase. This negative impact tended to last longer in the HDC group, as for most of the QLQ-C30 scales, the QOL scores of HDC patients tend to improve at a slower rate than that of patients receiving standard chemotherapy. In particular, physical functioning remains deteriorated 1 year after inclusion for HDC patients comparatively to conventional chemotherapy patients (85.99 vs. 76.65, P = 0.021), and the pain score was still higher in the HDC group at that time (28.32 vs. 15.97, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

HDC has a negative impact on QOL even after treatment phase. In the absence of an overall survival benefit of using HDC for high-risk breast cancer patients, QOL studies with a longer follow-up play an important role in informing the complex trade-off implied by HDC between higher toxicity, reduced risk of relapse, and QOL decrease after the active phase of treatment.

Public health services and cost-effectiveness analysis

Cost-effectiveness analysis as an aid to decision making has been increasingly publicized and discussed during the past two to three decades. However, the total body of cost-effectiveness analyses in health care is actually rather small, and high-quality studies are rather rare. Furthermore, the applications of economic analysis to health policy have been hampered by a number of problems, including those that are methodological and contextual. We consider a number of areas of public health policy but pay special attention to a growing area of inquiry and application: the overall coverage of health services. Cost-effectiveness analysis has played a relatively small role in general coverage decisions, but in recent years, it has been applied increasingly to decisions concerning pharmaceutical coverage. We speculate on concerning reasons for this particular focus in cost-effectiveness analysis. Future progress will depend heavily on discussion and consensus building.