A new decision model for cost-utility comparisons of chemotherapy in recurrent metastatic breast cancer

Cost-utility analysis of genomic profiling in early breast cancer in Colombia

BACKGROUND

In Colombia, the best strategy to establish indication for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer (EBC) remains unknown. This study aimed to identify the cost-utility of Oncotype DX™ (ODX) or Mammaprint™ (MMP) tests to establish the necessity of adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

This study used an adapted decision-analytic model to compare cost and outcomes of care between ODX or MMP tests and routine care without ODX or MMP tests (adjuvant chemotherapy for all patients) over a 5-year time horizon from the perspective of the Colombian National Health System (NHS; payer). Inputs were obtained from national unit cost tariffs, published literature, and clinical trial database. The study population comprised women with hormone-receptor-positive (HR +), HER2-negative, lymph-node-negative (LN0) EBC with high-risk clinical criteria for recurrence. The outcome measures were discounted incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR; 2021 United States dollar per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) and net monetary benefit (NMB). Probabilistic (PSA) and deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) were performed.

RESULTS

ODX increases QALYs by 0.05 and MMP by 0.03 with savings of $2374 and $554 compared with the standard strategy, respectively, and were cost-saving in cost-utility plane. NMB for ODX was $2203 and for MMP was $416. Both tests dominate the standard strategy. Sensitivity analysis revealed that with a threshold of 1 gross domestic product per capita, ODX will be cost-effective in 95.5% of the cases compared with 70.2% cases involving MMP.DSA showed that the variable with significant influence was the monthly cost of adjuvant chemotherapy. PSA revealed that ODX was a consistently superior strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Genomic profiling using ODX or MMP tests to define the need of adjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with HR + and HER2 -EBC is a cost-effective strategy that allows Colombian NHS to maintain budget.

A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients' Experience

To summarize utility estimates of breast cancer and to assess the relative impacts of study characteristics on predicting breast cancer utilities. We searched Medline, Embase, RISS, and KoreaMed from January 1996 to April 2019 to find literature reporting utilities for breast cancer. Thirty-five articles were identified, reporting 224 utilities. A hierarchical linear model was used to conduct a meta-regression that included disease stages, assessment methods, respondent type, age of the respondents, and scale bounds as explanatory variables. The utility for early and late-stage breast cancer, as estimated by using the time-tradeoff with the scales anchored by death to perfect health with non-patients, were 0.742 and 0.525, respectively. The severity of breast cancer, assessment method, and respondent type were significant predictors of utilities, but the age of the respondents and bounds of the scale were not. Patients who experienced the health states valued 0.142 higher than did non-patients (P <0.001). Besides the disease stage, the respondent type had the highest impact on breast cancer utility.

Does Methodological Guidance Produce Consistency? A Review of Methodological Consistency in Breast Cancer Utility Value Measurement in NICE Single Technology Appraisals

Since 2004, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) methodological guidance for technology appraisals has emphasised a strong preference for using the validated EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) quality-of-life instrument, measuring patient health status from patients or carers, and using the general public's preference-based valuation of different health states when assessing health benefits in economic evaluations. The aim of this study was to review all NICE single technology appraisals (STAs) for breast cancer treatments to explore consistency in the use of utility scores in light of NICE methodological guidance. A review of all published breast cancer STAs was undertaken using all publicly available STA documents for each included assessment. Utility scores were assessed for consistency with NICE-preferred methods and original data sources. Furthermore, academic assessment group work undertaken during the STA process was examined to evaluate the emphasis of NICE-preferred quality-of-life measurement methods. Twelve breast cancer STAs were identified, and many STAs used evidence that did not follow NICE's preferred utility score measurement methods. Recent STA submissions show companies using EQ-5D and mapping. Academic assessment groups rarely emphasized NICE-preferred methods, and queries about preferred methods were rare. While there appears to be a trend in recent STA submissions towards following NICE methodological guidance, historically STA guidance in breast cancer has generally not used NICE's preferred methods. Future STAs in breast cancer and reviews of older guidance should ensure that utility measurement methods are consistent with the NICE reference case to help produce consistent, equitable decision making.

Cost-Effectiveness Models in Breast Cancer Screening in the General Population: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Many Western countries have long-established population-based mammography screening programs. Prior to implementing these programs, decision-analytic modeling was widely used to inform decisions.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness models in breast cancer screening in the general population to analyze their structural and methodological approaches.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for health economic models was performed in the electronic databases MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CRD Databases, Cochrane Library, and EconLit in August 2011 with updates in June 2013, April 2015, and November 2016. To assess studies systematically, a standardized form was applied to extract relevant information that was then summarized in evidence tables.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were included; 27 state-transition models were analyzed using cohort (n = 12) and individual-level simulation (n = 15). Twenty-one studies modeled the natural history of breast cancer and predicted mortality as a function of the early detection modality. The models employed different assumptions regarding ductal carcinoma in situ. Thirteen studies performed cost-utility analyses with different sources for utility values, but assumptions were often made about utility weights. Twenty-two models did not report any validation.

CONCLUSION

State-transition modeling was the most frequently applied analytic approach. Different methods in modeling the progression of ductal carcinoma in situ to invasive cancer were identified because there is currently no agreement on the biological behavior of noninvasive breast cancer. Main weaknesses were the lack of precise utility estimates and insufficient reporting of validation. Sensitivity analyses of assumptions regarding ductal carcinoma in situ and in particular adequate validation are critical to minimize the risk of biased model outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

In Canada and elsewhere, pazopanib and sunitinib-tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors-are recommended as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc). A large randomized noninferiority trial of pazopanib versus sunitinib (comparz) demonstrated that the two drugs have similar efficacy; however, patients randomized to pazopanib experienced better health-related quality of life (hrqol) and nominally lower rates of non-study medical resource utilization.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care system perspective was evaluated using a partitioned-survival model that incorporated data from comparz and other secondary sources. The time horizon of 5 years was based on the maximum duration of follow-up in the final analysis of overall survival from the comparz trial. Analyses were conducted first using list prices for pazopanib and sunitinib and then by assuming that the prices of sunitinib and pazopanib would be equivalent.

RESULTS

Based on list prices, expected costs were CA$10,293 less with pazopanib than with sunitinib. Pazopanib was estimated to yield 0.059 more quality-adjusted life-years (qalys). Pazopanib was therefore dominant (more qalys and lower costs) compared with sunitinib in the base case. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in 79% of simulations and was cost-effective in 90%-100% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000. Assuming equivalent pricing, pazopanib yielded CA$917 in savings in the base case, was dominant in 36% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations, and was cost-effective in 89% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with sunitinib, pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care perspective.

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.

A global economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments for advanced breast cancer in Canada

Objective Considering the increasing number of treatment options for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), it is important to develop high-quality methods to assess the cost-effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs. This study aims to develop a global economic model that could be used as a benchmark for the economic evaluation of new therapies for MBC. Methods The Global Pharmacoeconomics of Metastatic Breast Cancer (GPMBC) model is a Markov model that was constructed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of new treatments for MBC from a Canadian healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon. Specific parameters included in the model are cost of drug treatment, survival outcomes, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Global parameters are patient characteristics, health states utilities, disutilities, and costs associated with treatment-related AEs, as well as costs associated with drug administration, medical follow-up, and end-of-life care. The GPMBC model was tested and validated in a specific context, by assessing the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole compared with other widely used first-line therapies for post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) MBC. Results When tested, the GPMBC model led to incremental cost-utility ratios of CA$131 811 per QALY, CA$56 211 per QALY, and CA$102 477 per QALY for the comparison of lapatinib plus letrozole vs letrozole alone, trastuzumab plus anastrozole, and anastrozole alone, respectively. Results of the model testing were quite similar to those obtained by Delea et al., who also assessed the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in HR+/HER2 + MBC in Canada, thus suggesting that the GPMBC model can replicate results of well-conducted economic evaluations. Conclusions The GPMBC model can be very valuable as it allows a quick and valid assessment of the cost-effectiveness of any new treatments for MBC in a Canadian context.

Structural Uncertainty of Markov Models for Advanced Breast Cancer

Objective. To examine the impact of structural uncertainty of Markov models in modeling cost-effectiveness for the treatment of advanced breast cancer (ABC). Methods. Four common Markov models for ABC were identified and examined. Markov models 1 and 2 have 4 health states (stable-disease, responding-to-therapy, disease-progressing, and death), and Markov models 3 and 4 only have 3 health states (stable-disease, disease-progressing, and death). In models 1 and 3, the possibility of death can occur in any health state, while in models 2 and 4, the chance of dying can only occur in the disease-progressing health state. A simulation was conducted to examine the impact of using different model structures on cost-effectiveness results in the context of a combination therapy of lapatinib and capecitabine for the treatment of HER2-positive ABC. Model averaging with an assumption of equal weights in all 4 models was used to account for structural uncertainty. Results. Markov model 3 yielded the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $303,909 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), while Markov model 1 produced the highest ICER ($495,800/QALY). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, the probabilities that the combination therapy is considered to be cost-effective for Markov models 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 14.5%, 14.1%, 21.6%, and 17.0%, respectively. When using model averaging to synthesize different model structures, the resulting ICER was $389,270/QALY. Conclusions. Our study shows that modeling ABC with different Markov model structures yielded a wide range of cost-effectiveness results, suggesting the need to investigate structural uncertainty in health economic evaluation. When applied in the context of HER2-positive ABC treatment, the combination therapy with lapatinib is not cost-effective, regardless of which model was used and whether uncertainties were accounted for.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pertuzumab in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

The Clinical Evaluation of Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab (CLEOPATRA) study showed a 15.7-month survival benefit with the addition of pertuzumab to docetaxel and trastuzumab (THP) as first-line treatment for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the value of adding pertuzumab.

PATIENT AND METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic Markov model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of docetaxel plus trastuzumab (TH) with or without pertuzumab in US patients with metastatic breast cancer. The model followed patients weekly over their remaining lifetimes. Health states included stable disease, progressing disease, hospice, and death. Transition probabilities were based on the CLEOPATRA study. Costs reflected the 2014 Medicare rates. Health state utilities were the same as those used in other recent cost-effectiveness studies of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. Outcomes included health benefits expressed as discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs in US dollars, and cost effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. One- and multiway deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the effects of specific assumptions.

RESULTS

Modeled median survival was 39.4 months for TH and 56.9 months for THP. The addition of pertuzumab resulted in an additional 1.81 life-years gained, or 0.62 QALYs, at a cost of $472,668 per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that THP is unlikely to be cost effective even under the most favorable assumptions, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted 0% chance of cost effectiveness at a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

THP in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer is unlikely to be cost effective in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of single fraction of stereotactic body radiation therapy compared with single fraction of external beam radiation therapy for palliation of vertebral bone metastases

PURPOSE

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been proposed for the palliation of painful vertebral bone metastases because higher radiation doses may result in superior and more durable pain control. A phase III clinical trial (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0631) comparing single fraction SBRT with single fraction external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in palliative treatment of painful vertebral bone metastases is now ongoing. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare these strategies.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A Markov model, using a 1-month cycle over a lifetime horizon, was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of SBRT (16 or 18 Gy in 1 fraction) with that of 8 Gy in 1 fraction of EBRT. Transition probabilities, quality of life utilities, and costs associated with SBRT and EBRT were captured in the model. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement in 2014. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). To account for uncertainty, 1-way, 2-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Strategies were evaluated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

Base case pain relief after the treatment was assumed as 20% higher in SBRT. Base case treatment costs for SBRT and EBRT were $9000 and $1087, respectively. In the base case analysis, SBRT resulted in an ICER of $124,552 per QALY gained. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to variation of the utility of unrelieved pain; the utility of relieved pain after initial treatment and median survival were also sensitive to variation. If median survival is ≥11 months, SBRT cost <$100,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

SBRT for palliation of vertebral bone metastases is not cost-effective compared with EBRT at a $100,000 per QALY gained WTP threshold. However, if median survival is ≥11 months, SBRT costs ≤$100,000 per QALY gained, suggesting that selective SBRT use in patients with longer expected survival may be the most cost-effective approach.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer: Current evidence and future challenges

Gastric cancer still represents one of the major causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Patients survival is mainly related to stage, with a high proportion of patients with metastatic disease at presentation. Thus, the cure rate largely depend upon surgical resection. Despite the additional, albeit small, benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy has been clearly demonstrated, no general consensus has been reached on the best treatment option. Moreover, the narrow therapeutic index of adjuvant chemotherapy (i.e., limited survival benefit with considerable toxicity) requires a careful assessment of expected risks and benefits for individual patients. Treatment choices vary widely based on the different geographic areas, with chemotherapy alone more often preferred in Europe or Asia and chemoradiotherapy in the United States. In the present review we discuss the current evidence and future challenges regarding adjuvant chemotherapy in curatively resected gastric cancer with particular emphasis on the recently completed landmark studies and meta-analyses. The most recent patient-level meta-analysis demonstrated the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy over curative surgery; the same Authors also showed that disease-free survival may be used as a surrogate end-point for overall survival. We finally discuss future research issues such as the need of economic evaluations, development of prognostic or predictive biomarkers, and the unmet clinical need of trials comparing perioperative chemotherapy with adjuvant treatment.

Economic evaluations of trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and critique

BACKGROUND

Published economic evaluations of trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer have arrived at different conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab, despite comparative efficacy being demonstrated by a small set of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to provide insight into the quality of the evaluations and explore the possible drivers of the conflicting conclusions.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify all published economic evaluations that compared the incremental costs and outcomes of trastuzumab versus a comparator.

RESULTS

Fifteen economic evaluations were identified. In the evaluations that estimated efficacy using an RCT, the key drivers of the conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness were: the approach used to estimate overall survival in the control group given crossover to trastuzumab following progression in the trials; the inclusion of treatment beyond progression; inclusion of wastage due to unused vial portions, adverse events, and the cost of HER2 testing. Four evaluations used non-randomised approaches to estimate efficacy, thus introducing the potential for confounding. As a result these evaluations reported relatively optimistic estimates of comparative effectiveness. Finally the evaluations used different thresholds to determine whether treatment with trastuzumab was cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

There were numerous drivers of the different conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab, many of which are due to judgements made by the authors when translating data from RCTs. Many of the potential drivers were not identified by the published systematic reviews of economic evaluations and perhaps more remain unidentified because of inconsistent and limited reporting.

A systematic review of utility values for chemotherapy-related adverse events

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy offers cancer patients the potential benefits of improved mortality and morbidity but may cause detrimental outcomes due to adverse drug events (ADEs), some of which requiring time-consuming, resource-intensive and costly clinical management. To appropriately assess chemotherapy agents in an economic evaluation, ADE-related parameters such as the incidence, (dis)utility and cost of ADEs should be reflected within the model parameters. To date, there has been no systematic summary of the existing literature that quantifies the utilities of ADEs due to healthcare interventions in general and chemotherapy treatments in particular.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to summarize the current evidence base of reported utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs.

METHODS

A structured electronic search combining terms for utility, utility valuation methods and generic terms for cancer treatment was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE in June 2011. Inclusion criteria were: (1) elicitation of utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs and (2) primary data. Two reviewers identified studies and extracted data independently. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria from the 853 abstracts initially identified, collectively reporting 218 utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs. All 18 studies used short descriptions (vignettes) to obtain the utility values, with nine studies presenting the vignettes used in the valuation exercises. Of the 218 utility values, 178 were elicited using standard gamble (SG) or time trade-off (TTO) approaches, while 40 were elicited using visual analogue scales (VAS). There were 169 utility values of specific chemotherapy-related ADEs (with the top ten being anaemia [34 values], nausea and/or vomiting [32 values], neuropathy [21 values], neutropenia [12 values], diarrhoea [12 values], stomatitis [10 values], fatigue [8 values], alopecia [7 values], hand-foot syndrome [5 values] and skin reaction [5 values]) and 49 of non-specific chemotherapy-related adverse events. In most cases, it was difficult to directly compare the utility values as various definitions and study-specific vignettes were used for the ADEs of interest.

LIMITATIONS

This review was designed to provide an overall description of existing literature reporting utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs. The findings were not exhaustive and were limited to publications that could be identified using the search strategy employed and those reported in the English language.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified wide ranges in the utility values reported for broad categories of specific chemotherapy-related ADEs. There were difficulties in comparing the values directly as various study-specific definitions were used for these ADEs and most studies did not make the vignettes used in the valuation exercises available. It is recommended that a basic minimum requirement be developed for the transparent reporting of study designs eliciting utility values, incorporating key criteria such as reporting how the vignettes were developed and presenting the vignettes used in the valuation tasks as well as valuing and reporting the utility values of the ADE-free base states. It is also recommended, in the future, for studies valuing the utilities of chemotherapy-related ADEs to define the ADEs according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) definitions for chemotherapy-related ADEs as the use of the same definition across studies would ease the comparison and selection of utility values and make the overall inclusion of adverse events within economic models of chemotherapy agents much more straightforward.

Assessing the real-world cost-effectiveness of adjuvant trastuzumab in HER-2/neu positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Among women with surgically removed, high-risk HER-2/neu-positive breast cancer, trastuzumab has demonstrated significant improvements in disease-free and overall survival. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the currently recommended 12-month adjuvant protocol of trastuzumab using a Markov modeling approach and real-world cost data.

METHODS

A 10-health-state Markov model tracked patients' quarterly transitions between health states in the local and advanced states of breast cancer. Clinical data were obtained from the joint analysis of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and North Central Cancer Treatment Group, as well as from the metastatic study conducted by Norum et al. Clinical outcomes were adjusted for quality of life using utility estimates published in a systematic review. Real cost data were obtained from the British Columbia Cancer Agency and were evaluated from a payer perspective. Costs and utilities were discounted at 5% per year, respectively, for a 28-year time horizon.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, treatment with a 12-month adjuvant trastuzumab regimen resulted in a gain of 1.38 quality-adjusted life years or 1.17 life years gained at a cost of $18,133 per patient. Thus, the cost per QALY gained for the base case is $13,095. Cost per LYG is $15,492.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the long term, treatment of HER-2/neu mutation positive breast cancer with a 12-month protocol of trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting is predicted to be cost-effective in a Canadian context.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Canada

OBJECTIVE

Denosumab is a novel biologic agent approved in Canada for treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis (PMO) in women at high risk for fracture or who have failed or are intolerant to other osteoporosis therapies. This study estimated cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs usual care from the perspective of the Ontario public payer.

METHODS

A previously published PMO Markov cohort model was adapted for Canada to estimate cost-effectiveness of denosumab. The primary analysis included women with demographic characteristics similar to those from the pivotal phase III denosumab PMO trial (FREEDOM; age 72 years, femoral neck BMD T-score -2.16 SD, vertebral fracture prevalence 23.6%). Three additional scenario sub-groups were examined including women: (1) at high fracture risk, defined in FREEDOM as having at least two of three risk factors (age 70+; T-score ≤ -3.0 SD at lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck; prevalent vertebral fracture); (2) age 75+; and (3) intolerant or contraindicated to oral bisphosphonates (BPs). Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon comparing denosumab to usual care ('no therapy', alendronate, risedronate, or raloxifene [sub-group 3 only]). The analysis considered treatment-specific persistence and post-discontinuation residual efficacy, as well as treatment-specific adverse events. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The multi-therapy comparisons resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for denosumab vs alendronate of $60,266 (2010 CDN$) (primary analysis) and $27,287 per quality-adjusted life year gained for scenario sub-group 1. Denosumab dominated all therapies in the remaining scenarios.

LIMITATIONS

Key limitations include a lack of long-term, real-world, Canadian data on persistence with denosumab as well as an absence of head-to-head clinical data, leaving one to rely on meta-analyses based on trials comparing treatment to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab may be cost-effective compared to oral PMO treatments for women at high risk of fractures and those who are intolerant and/or contraindicated to oral BPs.

The cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: A comparison of no chemotherapy and first, second, and third generation regimens for patients with differing prognoses

BACKGROUND

The risk of recurrence following surgery in women with early breast cancer varies, depending upon prognostic factors. Adjuvant chemotherapy reduces this risk; however, increasingly effective regimens are associated with higher costs and toxicity profiles, making it likely that different regimens may be cost-effective for women with differing prognoses. To investigate this we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of four treatment strategies: (1) no chemotherapy, (2) chemotherapy using cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) (a first generation regimen), (3) chemotherapy using Epirubicin-CMF (E-CMF) or fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC60) (a second generation regimens), and (4) chemotherapy with FEC60 followed by docetaxel (FEC-D) (a third generation regimen). These adjuvant chemotherapy regimens were used in three large UK-led randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A Markov model was used to simulate the natural progression of early breast cancer and the impact of chemotherapy on modifying this process. The probability of a first recurrent event within the model was estimated for women with different prognostic risk profiles using a parametric regression-based survival model incorporating established prognostic factors. Other probabilities, treatment effects, costs and quality of life weights were estimated primarily using data from the three UK-led RCTs, a meta-analysis of all relevant RCTs, and other published literature. The model predicted the lifetime costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness of the four strategies for women with differing prognoses. Sensitivity analyses investigated the impact of uncertain parameters and model assumptions.

FINDINGS

For women with an average to high risk of recurrence (based upon prognostic factors and any other adjuvant therapies received), FEC-D appeared most cost-effective assuming a threshold of £20,000 per QALY for the National Health Service (NHS). For younger low risk women, E-CMF/FEC60 tended to be the optimal strategy and, for some older low risk women, the model suggested a policy of no chemotherapy was cost-effective. For no patient group was CMF chemotherapy the preferred option. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated cost-effectiveness results to be particularly sensitive to the treatment effect estimate for FEC-D and the future price of docetaxel.

INTERPRETATION

To our knowledge, this analysis is the first cost-effectiveness comparison of no chemotherapy, and first, second, and third generation adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer patients with differing prognoses. The results demonstrate the potential for different treatment strategies to be cost-effective for different types of patients. These findings may prove useful for policy makers attempting to formulate cost-effective treatment guidelines in the field of 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.

Lapatinib for the treatment of HER2-overexpressing breast cancer

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lapatinib for the treatment of advanced or metastatic HER2overexpressing breast cancer based upon a review of the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The scope included women with advanced, metastatic or recurrent HER2-overexpressing breast cancer who have had previous therapy that includes trastuzumab. Outcomes were time to progression, progression-free survival, response rates, overall survival, health-related quality of life and adverse effects. The submission’s evidence came from one randomised controlled trial (RCT) of reasonable methodological quality, although it was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference in mean overall survival. Median time to progression was longer in the lapatinib plus capecitabine arm than in the capecitabine monotherapy arm {27.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.4 to 49.4] versus 18.6 [95% CI 9.1 to 36.9] weeks; hazard ratio 0.57 [95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; p = 0.00013]}. Median overall survival was very similar between the groups [67.7 (95% CI 58.9 to 91.6) versus 66.6 (95% CI 49.1 to 75.0) weeks; hazard ratio 0.78 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.12; p = 0.177)]. Median progression-free survival was statistically significantly longer in the lapatinib plus capecitabine group than in the capecitabine monotherapy group [27.1 (95% CI 24.1 to 36.9) versus 17.6 (95% CI 13.3 to 20.1) weeks; hazard ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.74); p = 0.000033]. The manufacturer’s economic model to estimate progression-free and overall survival for patients with HER2-positive advanced/metastatic breast cancer who had relapsed following treatment with an anthracycline, a taxane and trastuzumab was appropriate for the disease area. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for lapatinib plus capecitabine compared with capecitabine monotherapy or vinorelbine monotherapy were higher than would conventionally be considered cost-effective. When compared with trastuzumab-containing regimes, lapatinib plus capecitabine dominated. In sensitivity analyses the ICER for lapatinib plus capecitabine compared with capecitabine monotherapy or vinorelbine monotherapy was robust to variation in assumptions. In all sensitivity analyses the ICERs remained higher than would conventionally be considered cost-effective. ICERs for trastuzumab-containing regimes were particularly sensitive to assumptions over the frequency of treatment, which had a large effect on the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus capecitabine. In conclusion, there was a general lack of evidence on the effectiveness of comparators included in the model and on key parameters such as dose adjustments and the model outputs need to be interpreted in the light of this uncertainty. At the time of writing, NICE were still considering the available evidence for this appraisal.

Cost-effectiveness of hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms in the UK

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of five-year treatment of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) compared with no treatment for women with menopausal symptoms in the UK.

METHOD

A Markov cohort simulation model with tunnel techniques was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of HRT in women aged 50 years. For the clinical effects of HRT we used, where possible, results taken from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI). The model had a life-time horizon with cycle lengths of one year and contained the following disease states: hip fracture, vertebral fracture, wrist fracture, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke and venous thromboembolic events. An intervention was modelled by its impact on the disease risks during and after stopping treatment. The model was populated with UK-specific data on risks, mortality rates, quality-of-life weights and costs. The main outcome of the model was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of HRT compared with no treatment.

RESULTS

The results indicated that it was cost-effective to treat women with menopausal symptoms with HRT in the UK. The severity of menopausal symptoms was the single most important determinant of cost-effectiveness, but HRT remained cost-effective even where symptoms were mild or effects on symptom relief were small.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of women with menopausal symptoms with HRT is cost-effective.

Cost-utility analysis of the cyberknife system for metastatic spinal tumors

OBJECTIVE

Using decision analysis, a cost-utility study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CyberKnife (Accuray, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in comparison to external beam radiation therapy in the treatment of metastatic spinal malignancies.

METHODS

The published literature provided evidence on the effectiveness of the comparator interventions in the absence of primary outcomes data. Costs of care were derived from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services fee schedules. A Markov model was constructed from the payer perspective to simulate the outcomes of patients undergoing nonchemotherapeutic interventions for metastatic spinal tumors. Because cancer therapies bear significant health and economic consequences, the impact of treatment-related toxicities was integrated into the model. Given the terminal nature of these conditions and the limited life expectancy of the patient population, the time horizon for the analysis was limited to 12 months.

RESULTS

Patients treated with CyberKnife SRS gained an additional net health benefit of 0.08 quality-adjusted life year; the calculated cost of CyberKnife SRS was $1933 less than external beam radiation therapy for comparable effectiveness. The incremental cost per benefit for this strategy ($41 500 per quality-adjusted life year) met payers' willingness-to-pay criteria.

CONCLUSION

Cost-utility analysis demonstrated that CyberKnife SRS was a superior, cost-effective primary intervention for patients with metastatic spinal tumors compared with conventional external beam radiation therapy.

An economic evaluation of docetaxel and paclitaxel regimens in metastatic breast cancer in the UK

Paclitaxel and docetaxel have been available for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) since the 1990s. However, until very recently, comparisons between these two drugs have been difficult due to lack of direct comparative clinical evidence and differences in trial patient populations. To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing docetaxel with paclitaxel regimens in the treatment of MBC previously treated with an anthracycline from the perspective of the UK NHS. A cost-utility analysis was performed using a Markov model to compare taxanes in MBC patients who had progressed after treatment with an anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimen: docetaxel 100 mg/m2 1-hour intravenous (IV) infusion every 21 days versus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 3-hour IV infusion every 21 days (Pac3w). In parallel, additional analyses were performed versus paclitaxel administered in 1-weekly cycles (Pac1w), and a nano albumin-bound form of paclitaxel (Nab-P) given every 3 weeks. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events used in the model were derived from a randomized trial directly comparing docetaxel with Pac3w; the comparisons of docetaxel versus the other two paclitaxel regimens were indirect, using patient-level data from a trial comparing Pac3w with Pac1w, and from the published literature comparing Pac3w with Nab-P. Utility values for response, progression and adverse events were derived from the literature. Direct treatment costs related to progression, best supportive care and adverse events were estimated using clinical trials data, published literature, NHS reference costs and published drug prices. The estimated costs of growth colony-stimulating factors and blood transfusion were also included in the model. The model was used to predict the expected total costs ( pound, year 2005-6 values), QALYs gained, incremental cost/life-year gained (LY) and cost/QALY over a 10-year time period. In the base-case analysis, docetaxel improved QALYs by 0.33, 0.29 and 0.22 compared with Pac3w, Pac1w and Nab-P, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for docetaxel were pound 12 032/QALY versus Pac3w, pound 4583/QALY versus Pac1w and pound 14 ,694/QALY versus Nab-P. The ICER was sensitive to the hazard ratios for PFS and OS between the comparators, the drug cost of initial treatment and the treatment costs after progression. Taking into account parameter uncertainty, and comparing all four treatments simultaneously, at a willingness to pay of pound 20,000 per QALY gained, the probability of docetaxel being the most cost-effective treatment was around 70%. In the base-case scenario, docetaxel compared with Pac3w is estimated to have a cost-effectiveness ratio that falls within the acceptable threshold in the UK. The study also suggests that docetaxel may be cost effective versus Pac1w and Nab-P, although there is more uncertainty around these findings.

Economic evaluation of fulvestrant as an extra step in the treatment sequence for ER-positive advanced breast cancer

Drug therapies for advanced breast cancer in hormone-receptor-positive disease include both hormonal and chemotherapies. Current UK practice is to minimise toxicity by using sequential hormonal agents for as long as clinically appropriate. A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost effectiveness of different sequences of therapies, particularly exploring the effects of adding an additional hormonal agent, fulvestrant, to the treatment pathway. A systematic review was undertaken and a panel of seven UK oncologists validated assumptions used for treatment efficacy, treatment pathways and resources used. Fulvestrant was found to be a cost-effective treatment option when added to the treatment sequence as a second- or third-line hormonal therapy for advanced disease. For a cohort of 1000 patients, fulvestrant as a second-line hormone therapy provided an additional 47 life years and 41 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at an additional cost of pound 301 359. This equated to pound 6500 per life years gained and pound 7500 per QALY. When used as a third-line option, the fulvestrant arm was dominant providing an increase in health benefit of 27 QALYs for the whole cohort, at a mean overall cost reduction of pound 430 per patient. Sensitivity analyses showed these results to be robust, demonstrating that fulvestrant is an economically viable additional endocrine option in the United Kingdom for the treatment of hormone responsive advanced breast cancer.

Health state utilities for non small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Existing reports of utility values for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) vary quite widely and are not all suitable for use in submissions in the UK. The aim of this study was to elicit UK societal based utility values for different stages of NSCLC and different grade III-IV toxicities commonly associated with chemotherapy treatments. Toxicities included neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, fatigue, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, rash and hair loss.

METHODS

Existing health state descriptions of metastatic breast cancer were revised to make them suitable as descriptions of metastatic NSCLC patients on second-line treatment. The existing health states were used in cognitive debrief interviews with oncologists (n = 5) and oncology specialist nurses (n = 5). Changes were made as suggested by the clinical experts. The resulting health states (n = 17) were piloted and used in a societal based valuation study (n = 100). Participants rated half of the total health states in a standard gamble interview to derive health state utility scores. Data were analysed using a mixed model analysis.

RESULTS

Each health state described the symptom burden of disease and impact on different levels of functioning (physical, emotional, sexual, and social). The disutility related to each disease state and toxicity was estimated and were combined to give health state values. All disease states and toxicities were independent significant predictors of utility (p < 0.001). Stable disease with no toxicity (our base state) had a utility value of 0.653. Utility scores ranged from 0.673 (responding disease with no toxicity) to 0.473 for progressive disease.

CONCLUSION

This study reflects the value that society place on the avoidance of disease progression and severe toxicities in NSCLC.

The cost-effectiveness of sentinel node biopsy in patients with intermediate thickness primary cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of wide excision (WEX) + sentinel node biopsy (SNB) compared with WEX only in patients with primary melanomas >/=1 mm in thickness.

METHODS

A Markov model was populated with probabilities of disease progression and survival from the published literature. Costs were obtained from diagnostic-related group weightings and health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Base case analyses suggested that, over a 20-year timeframe, the mean total cost per patient receiving WEX only was AU $23,182 with 10.45 life years (LY) and 9.90 QALYs. The mean cost per patient for WEX + SNB was AU $24,045 with 10.77 LY and 10.34 QALYs. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for WEX + SNB was AU $2,770 per LY and AU $1,983 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

WEX + SNB appears to offer an improvement in health outcomes (in both LYs and QALYs) with only a slight increase in cost.

Probabilistic cost-effectiveness modeling of different breast cancer screening policies in Slovenia

OBJECTIVES

To determine the most cost-effective screening policy for population-based mammography breast cancer screening in Slovenia using probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

METHODS

A time-dependent Markov model for breast cancer was constructed. General principles of cost-effectiveness analysis with multiple strategies were used to compare the costs and effects of 36 different screening policies. Using probability distributions for model parameters, the true effect of uncertainty across model input parameters on expected costs and effects was explored. The results from probabilistic simulation analysis are presented in a form of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves with cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier.

RESULTS

With the presented analysis, it was shown that a 1-year screening interval in population breast cancer screening would produce less benefits at higher costs than less intensive screening and that a 2-year interval would be cost-effective only at high values of society's willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Therefore, the optimal screening policy should be chosen among 3-year-interval policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on commonly quoted thresholds of society's willingness to pay per QALY of $50,000, the optimal approach in the Slovenian population would be screening women aged from 40 to 80 years every 3 years.

Cost effectiveness of hormone therapy in women at high risks of fracture in Sweden, the US and the UK--results based on the Women's Health Initiative randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to assess the cost effectiveness of hormone therapy (HT) for postmenopausal women without menopausal symptoms at an increased risk of fracture in Sweden, the UK and the US.

METHODS

Using a state-transition model, the cost effectiveness of 50 year old women was assessed based on a societal perspective and the medical evidence found in the Women Health Initiative (WHI) trials. The model had a lifetime horizon divided into cycle lengths of 1 year and comprised the following disease states: hip fracture, vertebral fracture, wrist fracture, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke and venous thromboembolic events. An intervention was modelled by its impact on the disease risks during and after the cessation of treatment. The model required data on clinical effects, risks, mortality rates, quality of life weights and costs valid for Sweden, the UK and the US. The main outcome of the model was cost per QALY gained of HT compared to no treatment.

RESULTS

The results indicated that HT compared to no treatment was cost-effective for most sub-groups of hysterectomised women, whereas for women with an intact uterus without a previous fracture, HT was commonly dominated by no treatment. Fracture risks were the single most important determinant of the cost effectiveness results.

CONCLUSIONS

HT is cost-effective in women with a hysterectomy irrespective of prior fracture status. In women with an intact uterus, opposed HT was cost-effective in those with a prior vertebral fracture, but cost-ineffective in women without a prior vertebral fracture. Even though HT is found cost-effective for a selection of osteoporotic women, it is unlikely to be considered for first-line therapy for osteoporosis because bisphosphonates have shown a similar reduction in fracture risks but without an increased risk of adverse events.

Evaluating the total costs of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: results from a pilot study with community oncology cancer patients

PURPOSE

While cancer chemotherapy-related febrile neutropenia affects patients' activities and medical expenditures, few studies have reported on the total costs of this condition. Here, we evaluate the feasibility of obtaining detailed and comprehensive cost information on patients who experience febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy treatment.

METHODS

Community oncology cancer patients who experienced chemotherapy-associated febrile neutropenia recorded information about use of medical care, tests, devices, medications, and lost productivity. Direct cost estimates were derived from Medicare Physician Fee Schedules and cost-to-charge ratios. Indirect cost estimates were based on modified Labor Force, Employment, and Earnings data for employed patients and wages earned by paid caregivers. Multivariate regression models evaluated predictors of higher direct, indirect, and total costs.

RESULTS

Outpatients' mean direct and indirect costs were 5,704 dollars and 1,201 dollars (lymphoma), 1,094 dollars and 1,530 dollars (breast cancer), and 1,329 dollars and 1,325 dollars (lung cancer and myeloma), respectively. The mean direct and indirect costs were three- to tenfold and 1.5- to threefold greater for inpatients, respectively. Factors associated with higher direct costs of care included diagnosis of lymphoma and inpatient care; higher indirect costs, male versus female gender; higher total costs, lymphoma diagnosis and inpatient care.

CONCLUSION

Estimation of the total costs of cancer-related neutropenia is feasible. Indirect costs appear to account for as much as half of the total supportive care costs when febrile neutropenia is managed in the outpatient setting and about one fifth of the total supportive care costs in the inpatient setting.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Trastuzumab Regimens in Early HER2/neu–Positive Breast Cancer

Purpose

One-year adjuvant trastuzumab (AT) therapy, with or without anthracyclines, increases disease-free and overall survival in early-stage HER2/neu-positive breast cancer. We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of these regimens, which are expensive and potentially toxic.

Methods

We used a Markov health-state transition model to simulate three adjuvant therapy options for a cohort of 49-year-old women with HER2/neu-positive early-stage breast cancer: conventional chemotherapy without trastuzumab; anthracycline-based AT regimens used in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-31 and North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 trials; and the nonanthracycline AT regimen used in the Breast Cancer International Research group 006 trial. The base case used treatment efficacy measures reported in the randomized clinical trials of AT. We measured health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in 2005 United States dollars (US$) and subjected results to probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results

In the base case, the anthracycline-based AT arm has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $39,982/QALY, whereas the nonanthracycline AT arm is more expensive and less effective; this result is insensitive to changes in recurrence rates, but if there is no benefit after 4 years, ICERs exceed $100,000/QALY for both AT arms. Results are moderately sensitive to variation in breast cancer survival rates and trastuzumab cost, and less sensitive to variations in cardiac toxicity.

Conclusion

AT has an ICER comparable to those for other widely used interventions. Longer clinical follow-up is warranted to evaluate the long-term efficacy and toxicity of different AT regimens.

Cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments for women with osteoporosis in Canada

BACKGROUND

During the years following menopause, estrogen levels decline leading to accelerated bone loss and an increased risk of osteoporosis and osteoporosis-related fractures.

METHODS

Using a Markov model and decision analytic techniques, the long-term costs and outcomes of five treatment and secondary prevention strategies for osteoporosis were compared: 'no intervention', alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, and raloxifene. The base case analysis examined postmenopausal (65 year old) osteoporotic women without prior fracture. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to incorporate the impact of parameter uncertainty, and deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) was used to compare alternative patient populations and modeling assumptions. Life years and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were used as measures of effectiveness.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, risedronate was dominated by etidronate and alendronate. Alendronate and etidronate were projected to have similar costs and QALYs, and the efficiency frontier was represented by 'no intervention', etidronate, alendronate, and raloxifene (Can$32 571, Can$38 623 and Can$114 070 per QALY respectively). Alternative assumptions of raloxifene's impact on CHD and breast cancer, alternative discount rates and alternative patient risk factors (e.g., starting age of therapy, CHD risk, and prior fracture risk) had significant impacts on the overall cost-effectiveness results for both the bisphosphonates and raloxifene.

DISCUSSION

Using conventionally quoted benchmarks and compared to no therapy, alendronate, etidronate, and raloxifene would all be considered cost-effective alternatives for treating women with osteoporosis. Potential limitations of this study include the usual caveats and cautions associated with long-term projection models and the fact that not all inputs into the model are Canadian data sources.

Analyzing oncology clinical trial data using the Q-TWiST method: clinical importance and sources for health state preference data

PURPOSE

The Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease and Toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis method is frequently applied to evaluating outcomes in cancer clinical trials, but there is little information on what constitutes a clinically important difference (CID). We reviewed the Q-TWiST, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and utility measurement literature to develop recommendations for CID for the Q-TWiST. We also provide recommendations for measuring health utilities and for the design of Q-TWiST studies.

METHODS

The English language literature was searched between 1986 and 2003 for Q-TWiST studies in oncology. We estimated the percent differences between treatments based on median follow-up duration for overall, progression-free and quality-adjusted survival. We also reviewed the relevant HRQL and utility literature on clinical importance.

RESULTS

The overall differences between treatments for most (56%) of the observed, published values for Q-TWiST analyses ranged between 12% and 19%. Three-fourths of the Q-TWiST studies had gains in survival of 12%-17%, while differences in progression-free survival ranged from 12% to 26%. Studies that have evaluated the clinical importance of changes in HRQL scores suggest that changes of 5%-10% are clinically meaningful, and other research suggests that 0.5 standard deviation is a reasonable threshold for changes in HRQL for chronic diseases. Similarly, one guideline from the health state utility literature is that a 5%-10% difference in standard gamble utility scores is clinically important. Various sources are available for health utilities for Q-TWiST studies and the most valid are derived from patients or the general public, although most studies rely on sensitivity analyses with no collection of utilities.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend that the CID for Q-TWiST is 10% of overall survival in a study, and differences of 15% are clearly clinically important. If less is known about a specific treatment and/or disease area, the CID should be greater than 5% but not more than 10% in planning sample size and statistical power. These CID estimates should be interpreted with caution, pending confirmation in future studies by direct patient assessment of the clinically relevant health states for Q-TWiST.

An unadjusted NNT was a moderately good predictor of health benefit

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Whether the number needed to treat (NNT) is sufficiently precise to use in clinical practice remains unclear. We compared unadjusted NNTs to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, a more comprehensive measures of health benefit.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

From a subset (n = 65) of a dataset of 228 cost-effectiveness analyses, we compared how well NNTs predicted clinically important QALY gains using correlation analysis, multivariable models and receiver-operator curve (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

NNT was inversely correlated with QALY gains (P < .001); this relationship was affected by quality of life and life-expectancy gains of treatment (P <or= .04). The NNT is a moderately accurate predictor of treatments that provide large health benefits (area under ROC 0.74-0.81). For ruling out therapies with low QALY gains (threshold <or=0.125 to <or=0.5 QALYs), an NNT >15 had a sensitivity of 82% to 100%. For ruling in therapies with high QALY gains (threshold >or=0.125 to >or=0.5 QALYs), an NNT <or=5 had a specificity of 77%.

CONCLUSION

Using NNT thresholds of <or=5 and >15 to rule in and out therapies with large QALY gains may provide general guidance regarding the magnitude of health benefit.

Can economic evaluations be made more transferable?

Several commentators have identified the lack of generalisability and transferability of economic evaluation results. The aims of this study were: (a) to develop a checklist to assess the level of generalisability and transferability of economic evaluations; (b) to assess the generalisability and transferability of economic evaluations between the UK and France using the checklist; (c) to identify reasons for any lack of transferability and generalisability; (d) to assess how the transferability and generalisability of economic evaluations can be improved; and (e) to outline ways in which databases of economic evaluations and journals can assist in this area. The checklist was developed using previous work and the templates of the NHS EED and CODECS databases. A sub-checklist of essential items was then derived. Validation of the two checklists was undertaken with Health Economists participating in the EURONHEED project. Economic evaluations involving the UK and France were then located and assessed using the checklist. A summary score for each study was calculated based on the percentage of correctly reported (applicable) points, and the results in the empirical analysis compared to identify differences. The extended checklist includes 42 items, and the sub-checklist 16 items. Twenty-five economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria for the empirical analysis. In the extended checklist the mean score was 66.9+/-13.6%. The results for the sub-checklist were very similar. The analysis revealed that costing, assessments of generalisability by the author(s), assessment of data variability, discounting, study population, and the reporting of effectiveness are areas that need more attention. Differences in cost-effectiveness results are often accounted for by price or organisational differences. The developed checklists are useful in assessing the generalisability and transferability of economic evaluations. In order to improve the generalisability and transferability of economic evaluations authors need to be more explicit and detailed in describing and reporting their studies. If they are to provide added value to their users, international databases of economic evaluations should systematically assess the generalisability and transferability of studies. Further research is in progress on producing a weighted version of the checklist.

Comparing cost/utility of giving an aromatase inhibitor as monotherapy for 5 years versus sequential administration following 2-3 or 5 years of tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for postmenopausal breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Several studies have shown aromatase inhibitors administered as monotherapy or sequentially to tamoxifen to improve relapse-free survival in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. Any difference in cost/utility between the strategies may be of importance to therapy selection.

METHODS

Cost/utility was compared between the different regimens based on the theoretical assumption that costs, benefits and side-effects were similar for each drug and independent of whether it was administered as monotherapy or sequentially.

RESULTS

Tamoxifen for 2-3 years followed by an aromatase inhibitor for 3 or 2 years provided the lowest cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) estimates, while administration of an aromatase inhibitor subsequent to 5 years on tamoxifen provided the highest values. The difference between strategies increased with patient age. Cost/QALY estimates were sensitive to an increase in hip fracture risk and to cost reductions due to relapse prevention. Adding oral bisphosphonates increased costs moderately.

CONCLUSIONS

While tamoxifen for 2-3 years followed by an aromatase inhibitor provided the lowest cost/QALY estimates, a further improvement of relapse-free survival of 1% if the aromatase inhibitor is given up front provides an acceptable cost/QALY. In contrast, additional benefits achieved by administering an aromatase inhibitor subsequent to 5 years of tamoxifen provided unacceptable costs.

Gene expression profiling and breast cancer care: What are the potential benefits and policy implications?

PURPOSE

Gene expression profiling has been proposed as an alternative to clinical guidelines to identify high-risk patients for adjuvant chemotherapy. However, the outcomes associated with gene expression profiling are not clear, and guidelines for the appropriate use of genomic technologies have not been established.

METHODS

We developed a decision analytic model to evaluate the incremental cost and quality-adjusted life years of gene expression profiling versus NIH clinical guidelines in a hypothetical cohort of premenopausal early stage breast cancer patients 44 years of age. We conducted empirical analyses and identified literature-based data to inform the model, and performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate uncertainty in the results. We interpreted the implications of our findings for treatment guidelines and policies.

RESULTS

Use of gene expression profiling resulted in an absolute 5% decrease in the proportion of cases of distant recurrence prevented, 0.21 fewer quality-adjusted life years, and a cost savings of USD 2882. The chosen test cutoff value to identify a tumor as poor prognosis and the cost of adjuvant chemotherapy were the most influential parameters in the analysis, but our findings did not change substantially in sensitivity analyses. Regardless of the test cutoff used to identify a poor prognosis tumor, the gene expression profiling assay studied in our analysis, at its current level of performance, did not attain the threshold sensitivity (95%) necessary to produce equal or greater quality-adjusted life years than NIH guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Although the use of gene expression profiling in breast cancer care holds great promise, our analysis suggests additional refinement and validation are needed before use in clinical practice.

Cost-effectiveness of raloxifene in the UK: an economic evaluation based on the MORE study

Raloxifene treatment has been shown to reduce the risk of vertebral fractures and breast cancer in postmenopausal women. The long-term economic implications of treatment with raloxifene have not yet been investigated. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of treating postmenopausal women in the UK with raloxifene. A previously developed computer simulation model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of osteoporotic treatments with extra skeletal benefits. The model was populated with epidemiological data and cost data relevant for a UK female population. Data on the effect of treatment were taken from the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene (MORE) study, which recruited women with low bone mineral density or with a prior vertebral fracture. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and life years gained as primary outcome measures. The cost per QALY gained of treating postmenopausal women without prior vertebral fractures was 18,000 pounds, 23,000 pounds , 18,000 pounds and 21,000 pounds at 50, 60, 70 and 80 years of age. Corresponding estimates for women with prior vertebral fractures were 10,000 pounds, 24,000 pounds, 18,000 pounds and 20,000 pounds. In relation to threshold values that are recommended in the UK, the analysis suggests that raloxifene is cost-effective in the treatment of postmenopausal women at an increased risk of vertebral fractures.

Variability of cost-effectiveness estimates for pharmaceuticals in Western Europe: lessons for inferring generalizability

OBJECTIVES

It has long been suggested that, whereas the results of clinical studies of pharmaceuticals are generalizable from one jurisdiction to another, the results of economic evaluations are location dependent. There has been, however, little study of the causes of variation, whether differences in study results among countries are systematic, or whether they are important for decision making.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals conducted in two or more European countries. The studies identified were then classified by methodological type and analyzed to assess their level of variability and to identify the main causes of variation. Assessments were also made of the extent to which differences in study results among countries were systematic and whether they would lead to a different decision, assuming a range of values of the threshold willingness-to-pay for a life-year or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS

In total 46 intercountry drug comparisons were identified, 29 in multicountry studies and 17 in comparable single country studies that were considered to be sufficiently similar in terms of methodology. The type of study (i.e., trial-based or modeling study) had some impact on variability, but the most important factor was the extent of variation across countries in effectiveness, resource use or unit costs, allowed by the researcher's chosen methodology. There were few systematic differences in study results among countries, so a decision maker in country B, on seeing a recent economic evaluation of a new drug in country A, would have little basis on which to predict whether the drug, if evaluated, would be more or less cost-effective in his or her country. Given the extent of variation in cost-effectiveness estimates among countries, the importance of this for decision making depends on decision makers' thresholds in willingness-to-pay for a QALY or life-year. If a cost-effectiveness threshold (i.e., willingness-to-pay) for a life-year or QALY of dollar 50,000 were assumed, the same conclusion regarding cost-effectiveness would be reached in most cases.

CONCLUSION

This review shows that cost-effectiveness results for pharmaceuticals vary from country to country in Western Europe and that these variations are not systematic. In addition, constraints imposed by analysts may reduce apparent variability in the estimates. The lessons for inferring generalizability are not straightforward, although the implications of variation for decision making depend critically on the cost-effectiveness thresholds applying in Western Europe.

Capecitabine plus docetaxel combination therapy

BACKGROUND

For patients with anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast carcinoma, capecitabine plus docetaxel significantly increased overall survival compared with docetaxel alone. The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the capecitabine/docetaxel combination versus docetaxel monotherapy, comparing the gain in quality-adjusted survival with associated health care costs.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive 21-day cycles of oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 twice daily, on Days 1-14, plus docetaxel 75 mg/m2 Day 1 (n = 255), or docetaxel 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 (n = 256). Health and cost outcomes in the two arms were compared, and cost-effectiveness was estimated. Data on survival time and medical care resource use were prospectively collected in the trial. Costs associated with medical care resource use and quality-of-life adjustments were obtained from the published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Capecitabine/docetaxel increased the median overall survival by 3 months compared with docetaxel alone (14.5 vs. 11.5 months). The mean quality-adjusted survival was increased by 1.8 months in the capecitabine/docetaxel group. The total medical-resource utilization cost per patient was 8.9% higher with the combination: 24,475 dollars for combination therapy versus 22,477 dollars for single-agent docetaxel. The mean cost per QALY gained with combination therapy was 13,558 dollars (standard deviation, 6742 dollars). Cost savings due to reduced docetaxel dose and hospital use were the major cost offsets with the combination. Sensitivity analyses showed that varying the mean hospital cost per day from the 5th to the 95th percentile resulted in cost-utility ratios ranging from 20,326 dollars to as low as 6360 dollars.

CONCLUSIONS

Capecitabine/docetaxel was a cost-effective treatment in patients with anthracycline-pretreated advanced breast carcinoma, and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio that compares very favorably with that of many other oncology therapies.

Evaluation of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Techniques: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Objective: Assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using biomarkers and risk assessment tools to stratify women for breast cancer preventive interventions.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare risk management strategies for high-risk women considering chemoprevention. Annual screening is compared to the use of chemoprevention for all women and the use of risk assessment technologies to stratify patients for chemoprevention. The biomarker atypia was used to stratify women by risk. Random fine-needle aspiration (rFNA) and ductal lavage (DL) were evaluated and compared as the risk assessment tools used to discover atypia. Sensitivity analyses explore assumptions regarding the prognostic and predictive characteristics of atypia, both the relative breast cancer risk and benefit from chemoprevention women with atypia incur.

Results: Risk assessment strategies using rFNA or DL in combination with chemoprevention are found to be cost-effective (&lt;$50,000 per life year saved) in high-risk groups under most scenarios. Both strategies were more effective and less costly in younger cohorts. Effectiveness of the risk assessment strategies increased when higher risk and increased benefit from chemoprevention were associated with atypia. Within the scenarios tested, rFNA is less costly than DL.

Conclusion: rFNA and DL appear to be cost-effective in high-risk women, assuming women with detected atypia choose tamoxifen. The tools are largely effective for women who are not motivated to take tamoxifen but would be if atypia were found. As biomarker risk assessment tools better predict the risk of breast cancer and or benefit of interventions, their cost-effectiveness increases.

Population-based pharmacoeconomic model for adopting capecitabine/docetaxel combination treatment for anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

To model the cost-effectiveness of adopting capecitabine/docetaxel combination therapy in place of single-agent taxane therapy for women in the province of Ontario, Canada, receiving treatment for anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness and economic data were combined in a population model, from the perspective of a universal health care system. Estimates of clinical effectiveness and medical resource utilization were derived prospectively during a phase III randomized controlled trial comparing single-agent docetaxel with capecitabine/docetaxel combination therapy. Population data were obtained from the Cancer Care Ontario Registry and provincial prescription claims data.

RESULTS

During 1999-2000, 542 patients were eligible for taxane monotherapy. As capecitabine/docetaxel treatment confers a median 3-month survival benefit compared with docetaxel monotherapy, the projected survival gain in these patients was 136 life-years. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrate that the survival benefit provided by the addition of capecitabine to single-agent docetaxel is afforded at a small incremental cost of Canadian $3,691 per life-year gained. Hospitalization costs for treatment of adverse events were less for patients receiving capecitabine/docetaxel combination therapy than for those receiving docetaxel monotherapy. The results were robust for adjustments in treatment costs and adverse effects costs.

CONCLUSION

Due to its 3-month survival gain and small incremental treatment cost, capecitabine/docetaxel is judged to be a highly cost-effective treatment in anthracycline-pretreated advanced breast cancer. From the perspective of the Ontario health care system, the addition of capecitabine to docetaxel in this patient population is a clinically appropriate and economically acceptable treatment strategy.

Is there standard chemotherapy for metastatic bladder cancer? Quality of life and medical resources utilization based on largest to date randomized trial

A large multinational phase III trial performed during the late 1990s compared two systemic chemotherapy regimens gemcitabine plus cisplatin and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, cisplatin (M-VAC) in more than 400 patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. This trial has been discussed to landmark the beginning of a new era following M-VAC polychemotherapy which has dominated treatment of advanced urothelial cancer throughout the previous decade. Despite the fact that gemcitabine/cisplatin combination therapy did not surpass M-VAC therapy in regard to patient survival as initially intended, this combination demonstrated a more favourable toxicity profile with improved tolerability and superior cost effectiveness, rendering this combination an attractive alternative to M-VAC. This review on the largest to date phase III trial for advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer will focus on issues of quality of life including indicators such as performance status and changes in body weight. Furthermore, data on medical resources utilization as accounted during systemic polychemotherapy and related toxic events will be reconsidered, particularly under the impression of decreasing health care resources worldwide.

Prospective exploratory analysis of the association between tumor response, quality of life, and expenditures among patients receiving paclitaxel monotherapy for refractory metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate the association between tumor response, change in quality of life (QoL), and hospital expenditures in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving single-agent paclitaxel.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients had bidimensionally measurable MBC and any number of previous therapies, excluding taxane chemotherapy. Paclitaxel was administered by various different infusion schedules. QoL measures were evaluated for each patient at baseline and serially using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS)-Global Distress Index (GDI) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) instruments. Patients were assessed for early (first 6 weeks) and ever changes in QoL parameters. Charges were monitored through the hospital's centralized computer billing system and converted to cost ratios for the analysis. Correlations between response and improvement in QoL were assessed by Fisher's exact test statistic. Associations between improvements in QoL with cost ratios were assessed by logistic regression and likewise between response and cost ratios.

RESULTS

Of the 59 patients treated, 50 had sufficient data for comparative analyses. The overall response rate was 24% (all partial responses). Minor responses were observed in 17% of patients, 25% had stable disease, and 29% had progression. Responding patients had significant improvement in QoL as assessed by MSAS-GDI (P =.004) and FACT-B (P =.028). The mean total cost/month ratios for patients experiencing improved GDI QoL scores was 1.31 versus 1.56 for those without QoL benefit (P =.52) and 1.05 versus 1.76 for responders versus nonresponders, respectively (P =.07).

CONCLUSION

Patients with evidence of tumor response on paclitaxel had a QoL benefit not observed in nonresponders, and this response was associated with a trend for lower overall costs.

Decision-analytic model and cost-effectiveness evaluation of postmastectomy radiation therapy in high-risk premenopausal breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

To present a decision model that describes the clinical and economic outcomes of node-positive breast cancer with and without postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT).

METHODS

A Markov process was constructed to project the natural history of breast cancer following mastectomy in premenopausal node-positive women. Biannual hazards of local and distant recurrence without PMRT were derived from a large meta-analysis of adjuvant systemic therapy trials for breast cancer. The addition of PMRT reduced the risk of disease relapse by an odds ratio of 0.69. Costs of PMRT ($11,600) and recurrent breast cancer ($4,250 to 16,200/year) were estimated from available literature. The model projected number of recurrences, relapse-free and overall survival, and costs to 15 years, using a discount rate of 3%. Cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated per incremental year of life and quality-adjusted year of life gained. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the sensitivity of results to clinical and economic assumptions.

RESULTS

The model projected 15-year relapse-free survival of 52% and 43% with and without PMRT, respectively. Overall survival was increased from 48% to 55% with PMRT, resulting in an incremental 0.29 years of life gained per subject. PMRT increased 15-year costs from $40,800 to $48,100. Cost per year of life gained was $24,900, or $22,600 when survival was adjusted for quality of life. Results of the model were relatively sensitive to radiation therapy cost and breast cancer relapse risk.

CONCLUSION

This analysis suggests that PMRT offers substantial clinical benefits achieved in a cost-effective manner, with an average cost per year of life gained of $24,900. Results of the model were robust under a wide range of clinical and economic parameters.

Evaluating the total costs of chemotherapy-induced toxicity: results from a pilot study with ovarian cancer patients

PURPOSE

While chemotherapy-related toxicities affect cancer patients' activities of daily living and result in large expenditures of medical care for treatment, few studies have assessed the out-of-pocket and indirect costs incurred by patients who experience toxicity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of obtaining detailed and comprehensive cost information from patients who experienced neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, or neurotoxicity during treatment.

METHODS

Ovarian cancer patients who experienced chemotherapy-associated hematologic or neurologic toxicities were asked to record detailed information about hospitalization, laboratories, physician visits, phone calls, home visits, medication, medical devices, lost productivity, and caregivers. Resource estimates were converted into cost units, with direct medical cost estimates based on hospital cost-accounting data and indirect costs (i.e., productivity loss) on modified labor force, employment, and earnings data.

RESULTS

Direct medical costs were highest for neutropenia (mean of $7,546/episode), intermediate for thrombocytopenia (mean of $3,268/episode), and lowest for neurotoxicity (mean of $688/episode). Indirect costs relating to patient and caregiver work loss and payments for caregiver support were substantial, accounting for $4,220, $3,834, and $4,282 for patients who developed neurotoxicity, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia, respectively. The total costs of chemotherapy-related neurotoxicity, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were $4,908, $11,830, and $7,550.

CONCLUSION

Our study has shown that, with the assistance of patients who are experiencing toxicity, estimation of the total costs of cancer-related toxicities is feasible. Indirect costs, while not included in prior estimates of the costs of toxicity studies, accounted for 34% to 86% of the total costs of cancer supportive care.

A cost--utility analysis comparing second-line chemotherapy schemes in patients with metastatic breast cancer

A cost-utility analysis has been performed comparing taxanes, vinorelbine and standard therapy for metastatic breast cancer considering clinical efficacy, quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) and costs. A decision model has been built. Clinical efficacy data were collected by literature review. Utility data and cost data were collected from previous studies and Dutch wholesale prices. Except for the MV standard therapy, VM has the lowest C/E ratio of $17,114/QALY, followed by paclitaxel ($30,270/QALY) and docetaxel ($49,739/QALY). VM yields the highest number of QALYs (0.47), compared to paclitaxel (0.35), docetaxel (0.34) and MV (0.29). Compared to the MV standard therapy, the incremental C/E of VM is $23,046/QALY, which is the lowest of all alternatives. We conclude that compared to paclitaxel, docetaxel and MV standard chemotherapy, VM is the most cost-effective second-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer patients. There is a considerable variation in utility scores, depending on the methods or the data sources used. The C/E ratios were influenced most strongly by drug prices, utility and efficacy (in descending order of importance).

Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology

PURPOSE

Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) present the value of an intervention as the ratio of its incremental cost divided by its incremental survival benefit, with survival weighted by utilities to produce quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We critically reviewed the CUA literature and its role in informing clinical oncology practice, research priorities, and policy.

METHODS

The English-language literature was searched between 1975 and1997 for CUAs. Two readers abstracted from each article descriptions of the clinical situation and patients, the methods used, study perspective, the measures of effectiveness, costs included, discounting, and whether sensitivity analyses were performed. The readers then made subjective quality assessments. We also extracted utility values from the reviewed papers, along with information on how and from whom utilities were measured.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 40 studies, which described 263 health states and presented 89 cost-utility ratios. Both the number and quality of studies increased over time. However, many studies are at variance with current standards. Only 20% of studies took a societal perspective, more than a third failed to discount both the costs and QALYs, and utilities were often simply estimates from the investigators or other physicians.

CONCLUSION

The cost-utility literature in oncology is not large but is rapidly expanding. There remains much room for improvement in the methodological rigor with which utilities are measured. Considering quality-of-life effects by incorporating utilities into economic studies is particularly important in oncology, where many therapies obtain modest improvements in response or survival at the expense of nontrivial toxicity.

Economic evaluation of letrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of initiation of second-line hormone therapy with letrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women in Canada, compared to megestrol acetate.

METHODS

A modified Markov model, incorporating seven health states, was designed to simulate the treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer from second-line hormone therapy to death. The model was constructed with data from a clinical trial, literature sources, and interviews with breast cancer treatment experts. Canadian experts provided information on resource utilization patterns and local costs were attached to these resources. The model was used to calculate mean survival time, time without progression, and total direct medical costs for patients initiating treatment with letrozole 2.5 mg or megestrol acetate 160 mg.

RESULTS

The mean survival time and time without progression for letrozole 2.5 mg patients were 28.3 months and 19.0 months, respectively, compared to 25.7 months and 16.5 months for megestrol acetate 160 mg patients. Total treatment costs for both groups were similar with the letrozole 2.5 mg group costing dollar 20,068 per patient, dollar 1061 more than the megestrol acetate 160 mg group (dollar CAN, 1996). The cost-effectiveness ratio for letrozole 2.5 mg with respect to megestrol was dollar 5051 per year of life gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that this ratio was sensitive to variations in the probabilities governing disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced breast cancer patients initiating second-line hormone therapy with letrozole 2.5 mg have better clinical outcomes than patients receiving megestrol acetate 160 mg. Furthermore, this benefit comes at an acceptable cost to the Canadian health care system.

Pharmacoeconomics of Cancer Therapy

BACKGROUND: In 1990, annual costs of the diagnosis and treatment of cancer reached nearly $100 billion and currently constitutes approximately 10% of health care expenditures in the United States. As new and often more expensive therapies for cancer treatment become available, the health care decision-maker must consider the cost effectiveness of the therapy. METHODS: Key principles of economic analyses and the inherent differences among these analyses are reviewed. Results: While pharmacoeconomic analyses are increasingly being used in treatment decision-making, several issues relating to study design, data collection, and research methods are controversial. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacoeconomics analyses are necessary in the current health care environment, but the assumptions used within the analyses warrant careful evaluation.