The cost-utility of adjuvant chemotherapy using docetaxel and cyclophosphamide compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Therapy Sequence in Advanced Cancer: A Microsimulation Approach with Application to Metastatic Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with advanced cancer may undergo multiple lines of treatment, switching therapies as their disease progresses. We developed a general microsimulation framework to study therapy sequence and applied it to metastatic prostate cancer.

METHODS

We constructed a discrete-time state transition model to study 2 lines of therapy. Using digitized published survival curves (progression-free survival, time to progression, and overall survival [OS]), we inferred event types (progression or death) and estimated transition probabilities using cumulative incidence functions with competing risks. We incorporated within-patient dependence over time; first-line therapy response informed subsequent event probabilities. Parameters governing within-patient dependence calibrated the model-based results to a target clinical trial. We applied these methods to 2 therapy sequences for metastatic prostate cancer, wherein both docetaxel (DCT) and abiraterone acetate (AA) are appropriate for either first- or second-line treatment. We assessed costs and quality-adjusted life-years (5-y QALYs) for 2 treatment strategies: DCT → AA versus AA → DCT.

RESULTS

Models assuming within-patient independence overestimated OS time, which corrected with the calibration approach. With generic pricing, AA → DCT dominated DCT → AA, (higher 5-y QALYs and lower costs), consistent for all values of calibration parameters (including no correction). Model calibration increased the difference in 5-y QALYs between treatment strategies (0.07 uncorrected v. 0.15 with base-case correction). Applying the correction decreased the estimated difference in cost (-$5,360 uncorrected v. -$3,066 corrected). Results were strongly affected by the cost of AA. Under a lifetime horizon, AA → DCT was no longer dominant but still cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $19,463).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate a microsimulation approach to study the cost-effectiveness of therapy sequences for advanced prostate cancer, taking care to account for within-patient dependence.

HIGHLIGHTS

We developed a discrete-time state transition model for studying therapy sequence in advanced cancers.Results are sensitive to dependence within patients.A calibration approach can introduce dependence across lines of therapy and closely match simulation outcomes to target trial outcomes.

Genomic signature to guide adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions for early breast cancer patients in France: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Introduction

Chemotherapy (CT) is commonly used as an adjuvant treatment for women with early breast cancer (BC). However, not all patients benefit from CT, while all are exposed to its short- and long-term toxicity. The Oncotype DX^® test assesses cancer-related gene expression to estimate the risk of BC recurrence and predict the benefit of chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to estimate, from the French National Health Insurance (NHI) perspective, the cost-effectiveness of the Oncotype DX^® test compared to standard of care (SoC; involving clinicopathological risk assessment only) among women with early, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative BC considered at high clinicopathological risk of recurrence.

Methods

Clinical outcomes and costs were estimated over a lifetime horizon based on a two-component model that comprised a short-term decision tree representing the adjuvant treatment choice guided by the therapeutic decision support strategy (Oncotype DX^® test or SoC) and a Markov model to capture long-term outcomes.

Results

In the base case, the Oncotype DX^® test reduced CT use by 55.2% and resulted in 0.337 incremental quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost savings of €3,412 per patient, compared with SoC. Being more effective and less costly than SoC, Oncotype DX^® testing was the dominant strategy.

Discussion

Widespread implementation of Oncotype DX^® testing would improve patient care, provide equitable access to more personalized medicine, and bring cost savings to the health system.

Systematic review of the evidence sources applied to cost-effectiveness analyses for older women with primary breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To appraise the sources of evidence and methods to estimate input parameter values in decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for primary breast cancer (PBC) in older patients (≥ 70 years old).

METHODS

Two electronic databases (Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE) were searched (inception until 5 September-2021) to identify model-based full economic evaluations of treatments for older women with PBC as part of their base-case target population or age-subgroup analysis. Data sources and methods to estimate four types of input parameters including health-related quality of life (HRQoL); natural history; treatment effect; resource use were extracted and appraised. Quality assessment was completed by reference to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.

RESULTS

Seven model-based economic evaluations were included (older patients as part of their base-case (n = 3) or subgroup (n = 4) analysis). Data from younger patients (< 70 years) were used frequently to estimate input parameters. Different methods were adopted to adjust these estimates for an older population (HRQoL: disutility multipliers, additive utility decrements; Natural history: calibration of absolute values, one-way sensitivity analyses; Treatment effect: observational data analysis, age-specific behavioural parameters, plausible scenario analyses; Resource use: matched control observational data analysis, age-dependent follow-up costs).

CONCLUSION

Improving estimated input parameters for older PBC patients will improve estimates of cost-effectiveness, decision uncertainty, and the value of further research. The methods reported in this review can inform future cost-effectiveness analyses to overcome data challenges for this population. A better understanding of the value of treatments for these patients will improve population health outcomes, clinical decision-making, and resource allocation decisions.

Users' Guide to Medical Decision Analysis

Clinicians regularly have to trade benefits and harms to choose between testing and treatment strategies. This process is often done by making global and implicit judgments. A decision analysis is an analytic method that makes this process more explicit, reproducible, and evidence-based. While clinicians are unlikely to conduct their own decision analysis, they will read publications of such analyses or use guidelines based on them. This review outlines the anatomy of a decision tree and provides clinicians with the tools to critically appraise a decision analysis and apply its results to medical decision making. Clinicians reading about a decision analysis can make two judgments. The first judgment is about the credibility of the methods, such as whether the decision analysis addressed a relevant clinical question, included all important outcomes, used the current best evidence to derive variables in the model, and adopted the appropriate time horizon. The second judgment is about rating confidence in the preferred course of action by determining the certainty in the model variables, whether the results are robust in sensitivity analyses and if the results are applicable to a specific patient. Results from a valid and robust decision analysis can inform both guideline panels and the patient-clinician dyad engaged in shared decision-making.

Cost-Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant Treatment Strategies for Women With ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Breast Cancer

IMPORTANCE

The neoadjuvant treatment options for ERBB2-positive (also known as HER2-positive) breast cancer are associated with different rates of pathologic complete response (pCR). The KATHERINE trial showed that adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) can reduce recurrence in patients with residual disease compared with patients treated with trastuzumab; however, T-DM1 and other ERBB2-targeted agents are costly, and understanding the costs and health consequences of various combinations of neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatments in the United States is needed.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the costs and disease outcomes associated with selection of various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer from a health care payer perspective in the United States. The model was informed by the KATHERINE trial, other clinical trials with different regimens from the KATHERINE trial, the Flatiron Health Database, McKesson Corporation data, and other evidence in the published literature. Starting trial median age for KATHERINE patients was 49 years (range, 24-79 years in T-DM1 arm and 23-80 years in trastuzumab arm). The model simulated patients receiving 5 different neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies. Data analyses were performed from March 2019 to August 2020.

EXPOSURE

There were 4 neoadjuvant regimens: (1) HP: trastuzumab (H) plus pertuzumab (P), (2) THP: paclitaxel (T) plus H plus P, (3) DDAC-THP: dose-dense anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (DDAC) plus THP, (4) TCHP: docetaxel (T) plus carboplatin (C) plus HP. All patients with pCR, regardless of neoadjuvant regimen, received adjuvant H. Patients with residual disease received different adjuvant therapies depending on the neoadjuvant regimen according to the 5 following strategies: (1) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant H, (2) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant T-DM1, (3) neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1, (4) neoadjuvant HP followed by adjuvant DDAC/THP plus T-DM1, or (5) neoadjuvant TCHP followed by adjuvant T-DM1.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Lifetime costs in 2020 US dollars and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each treatment strategy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. A strategy was classified as dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, costs ranged from $415 833 (strategy 3) to $518 859 (strategy 4), and QALYs ranged from 9.67 (strategy 1) to 10.73 (strategy 3). Strategy 3 was associated with the highest health benefits (10.73 QALYs) and lowest costs ($415 833) and dominated all other strategies. Probabilistic analysis confirmed that this strategy had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (>70% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0-200,000/QALY) and was associated with the highest net benefit.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These results suggest that neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant H for patients with pCR or followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1 for patients with residual disease was associated with the highest health benefits and lowest costs for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer compared with other treatment strategies considered.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the 70-gene signature compared with clinical assessment in breast cancer based on a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The clinical utility of the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint®) to guide chemotherapy use in T1-3N0-1M0 breast cancer was demonstrated in the Microarray in Node-Negative and 1 to 3 Positive Lymph Node Disease May Avoid Chemotherapy (MINDACT) study. One thousand four ninety seven of 3356 (46.2%) enrolled patients with high clinical risk (in accordance with the modified Adjuvant! Online clinical-pathological assessment) had a low-risk 70-gene signature. Using patient-level data from the MINDACT trial, the cost-effectiveness of using the 70-gene signature to guide adjuvant chemotherapy selection for clinical high risk, estrogen receptor positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HER2-) patients was analysed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A hybrid decision tree-Markov model simulated treatment strategies in accordance with the 70-gene signature with clinical assessment versus clinical assessment alone, over a 10-year time horizon. Primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), country-specific costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for six countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, UK and the US.

RESULTS

Treatment strategies guided by the 70-gene signature result in more QALYs compared with clinical assessment alone. Costs of the 70-gene signature strategy were lower in five of six countries. This led to dominance of the 70-gene signature in Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and the US and to a cost-effective situation in the UK (ICER £22,910/QALY). Annual national cost savings were €4.2M (Belgium), €24.7M (France), €45.1M (Germany), €12.7M (Netherlands) and $244M (US). UK budget increase was £8.4M.

CONCLUSION

Using the 70-gene signature to safely guide chemotherapy de-escalation in clinical high risk patients with ER+/HER2- tumours is cost-effective compared with using clinical assessment alone. Long-term follow-up and outcomes from the MINDACT trial are necessary to address uncertainties in model inputs.

Cost-utility analysis of 21-gene assay for node-positive early breast cancer

Background

For women with lymph node (ln)-positive, estrogen receptor-positive, and her2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2)-negative breast cancer (bca), current guidelines recommend treatment with both hormonal therapy and chemotherapy. The 21-gene Recurrence Score (rs) assay might be helpful in selecting patients with bca who can be spared chemotherapy when they have 1-3 positive lns and a lower risk of recurrence. In the present study, we performed a cost-utility analysis comparing use of the 21-gene rs assay with current practice from the perspective of a Canadian health care payer.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to determine costs and quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) over a patient's lifetime. Patient outcomes in both study groups were examined based on published clinical trials. Costs were derived primarily from published Canadian sources. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually, and costs are reported in 2016 Canadian dollars. A probabilistic analysis was used, and the model parameters were varied in a sensitivity analysis.

Results

The results indicate that use of the 21-gene rs assay was less costly ($432 less) and more effective (0.22 qalys) than current practice. The probabilistic analysis revealed that 70% of the 10,000 simulated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were in the southeast quadrant. The results were sensitive to the probability of a low rs and to the probability of receiving chemotherapy in the low-risk rs category and in current practice.

Conclusions

Use of the 21-gene rs assay could be a cost-effective strategy for Ontario patients with estrogen receptor-positive, her2-negative early bca and 1-3 positive lns.

Cost-effectiveness of abiraterone versus docetaxel in the treatment of metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the US. Since 2015, landmark studies have demonstrated improved survival outcomes with the use of docetaxel (DCT) or abiraterone (AA) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the metastatic hormone-naïve setting. These treatment strategies have not been prospectively compared but have similar overall survival benefits despite differing mechanisms of action, toxicity, and cost. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to provide insight into the value of AA vs. DCT in the first-line treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed Markov models by using a US-payer perspective and a 3-year time horizon to estimate costs (2018 US$) and progression-free quality-adjusted life years (PF-QALYs) for ADT alone, DCT, and AA. Health states were defined as initial state, treatment states according to experience of an adverse event, and progressed disease/death. State transition probabilities were derived from rates for drug discontinuation, frequency of adverse events, disease progression, and death from the randomized phase III trials ChemoHormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED) and LATITUDE. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty.

RESULTS

DCT resulted in an increase of 0.32 PF-QALYs and $16,100 in cost and AA resulted in an increase of 0.52 PF-QALYs and $215,800 in cost compared to ADT alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DCT vs. ADT was $50,500/PF-QALY and for AA vs. DCT was $1,010,000/PF-QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/PF-QALY AA was highly unlikely to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

DCT is substantially more cost-effective than AA in the treatment of metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer.

Effect of Chemotherapeutics and Tocopherols on MCF-7 Breast Adenocarcinoma and KGN Ovarian Carcinoma Cell Lines In Vitro

The combination of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide commonly used to treat breast cancer can cause premature ovarian failure and infertility. α-Tocopherol is a potent antioxidant whereas γ-tocopherol causes apoptosis in a variety of cancer models in vitro including breast cancer. We hypothesised that the combination of doxorubicin (Dox) and 4-hydroperoxycyclophosphamide (4-Cyc) would be more cytotoxic in vitro than each agent alone, and that α-tocopherol would reduce and γ-tocopherol would augment the cytotoxicity of the combined chemotherapeutics. Human MCF-7 breast cancer and KGN ovarian cells were exposed to Dox, 4-Cyc, combined Dox and 4-Cyc, α-tocopherol, γ-tocopherol, or a combination of Dox and 4-Cyc with α-tocopherol or γ–tocopherol. Cell viability was assessed using a crystal violet assay according to four schedules: 24h exposure, 24h exposure + 24h culture in medium, 24h exposure + 48h culture in medium, or 72h continuous exposure. Supernatants from each separate KGN culture experiment (n=3) were examined using an estradiol ELISA. Dox was cytotoxic to both MCF-7 and KGN cells, but 4-Cyc only killed MCF-7 cells. γ-Tocopherol significantly decreased MCF-7 but not KGN cell viability. The combined chemotherapeutics and γ-tocopherol were more cytotoxic to MCF-7 than KGN cells, and α-tocopherol reduced the cytotoxicity of the combined chemotherapeutics towards KGN ovarian cells, but not MCF-7 cells. The addition of both γ-tocopherol and α-tocopherol to the chemotherapeutic combination of Dox and cyclophosphamide has the potential to increase in vitro chemotherapeutic efficacy against breast cancer cells whilst decreasing cytotoxicity towards ovarian granulosa cells.

Disparities in Breast Cancer: Private Patients Have Better Outcomes Than Public Patients

INTRODUCTION

Different outcomes in breast cancer have been reported for low and high socio-economic groups. We present data quantifying disparities between South African public and private patients.

METHODS

Records of 240 consecutive patients treated in 2008 in a public versus 97 patients in a private health facility were reviewed for demographic and oncologic data.

RESULTS

The average of patients was 56.2 versus 51.9 years (p = 0.032). Stage at presentation was 0 in 0.83 versus 25.8%, I in 4.5 versus 15.5%, II in 41.3 versus 37.1%, III in 37.1 versus 18.6% and IV in 16.3 versus 3.1% public versus private patients. Seventy-three percent of patients were symptomatic versus 57.7%. Of patients with stage 0-III disease, 17.9 versus 20% had simple tumour excision and 7.5 versus 14%, oncoplastic tumour excision. The mastectomy rate was similar (52 vs. 60%), but immediate reconstruction was performed in 10 versus 63%. Public patients were less likely to have radiotherapy. The pathology was similar, 27.2 versus 20, 54 versus 52, 87 versus 61% of patients with stage I, II and III disease, respectively, had chemotherapy. Hormonal therapy for premenopausal patients in private was a LHRH agonist in 9.3%, ovarian ablation/BSO in 11.7% of public patients; biologicals were given in 7.2 versus 0% of patients. Overall survival for public versus private was 66 versus 80% (p < 0.001) months. Better per stage survival of private patients 100 versus 100, 72.7 versus 93.3, 84.8 versus 88.9, 57.3 versus 77.8 and 33 versus 33% for stages 0, I, II, III and IV, did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The greatest impact on outcome was stage at presentation, but more aggressive therapy for each stage resulted in a trend to better outcome for private patients.

The cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer: Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide in comparison with paclitaxel and gemcitabine

Background:

A decision analysis model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC) in comparison with paclitaxel and gemcitabine (PG) in women with advanced breast cancer in Iran.

Materials and Methods:

This is a cost-effectiveness analysis performed as a cross-sectional study in Namazi Hospital in Shiraz, Iran. Patients were divided into two groups by random numbers, 32 women in the AC group and 32 women in the PG group. The costs were measured using the societal perspective and effectiveness of 2 regimens were assessed using tumor response. By a decision tree, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. In addition, the robustness of results was examined by sensitivity analysis.

Results:

The estimated total cost of AC and PG per patient was 1565.23 ± 765.31 and 2099.08 ± 926.99, respectively. Response to treatment in AC and PG arm were 84% versus 75% respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results showed AC is a dominate alternative.

Conclusion:

Overall, AC was a simple dominate strategy. In other words, AC was estimated to have a lower cost and greater effectiveness than PG.

Cost-Utility of "Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide" versus "Gemcitabine and Paclitaxel" for Treatment of Patients with Breast Cancer in Iran

PURPOSE

A cost-utility analysis was performed to assess the cost-utility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens containing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) versus paclitaxel and gemcitabine (PG) for locally advanced breast cancer patients in Iran.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study in Namazi hospital in Shiraz, in the south of Iran covered 64 breast cancer patients. According to the random numbers, the patients were divided into two groups, 32 receiving AC and 32 PG. Costs were identified and measured from a community perspective. These items included medical and non-medical direct and indirect costs. In this study, a data collection form was used. To assess the utility of the two regimens, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was applied. Using a decision tree, we calculated the expected costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for both methods; also, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was assessed.

RESULTS

The results of the decision tree showed that in the AC arm, the expected cost was 39,170 US$ and the expected QALY was 3.39 and in the PG arm, the expected cost was 43,336 dollars and the expected QALY was 2.64. Sensitivity analysis showed the cost effectiveness of the AC and ICER=-5535 US$.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the results showed that AC to be superior to PG in treatment of patients with breast cancer, being less costly and more effective.

Unremarked or Unperformed? Systematic Review on Reporting of Validation Efforts of Health Economic Decision Models in Seasonal Influenza and Early Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Transparent reporting of validation efforts of health economic models give stakeholders better insight into the credibility of model outcomes. In this study we reviewed recently published studies on seasonal influenza and early breast cancer in order to gain insight into the reporting of model validation efforts in the overall health economic literature.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in Pubmed and Embase to retrieve health economic modelling studies published between 2008 and 2014. Reporting on model validation was evaluated by checking for the word validation, and by using AdViSHE (Assessment of the Validation Status of Health Economic decision models), a tool containing a structured list of relevant items for validation. Additionally, we contacted corresponding authors to ask whether more validation efforts were performed other than those reported in the manuscripts.

RESULTS

A total of 53 studies on seasonal influenza and 41 studies on early breast cancer were included in our review. The word validation was used in 16 studies (30 %) on seasonal influenza and 23 studies (56 %) on early breast cancer; however, in a minority of studies, this referred to a model validation technique. Fifty-seven percent of seasonal influenza studies and 71 % of early breast cancer studies reported one or more validation techniques. Cross-validation of study outcomes was found most often. A limited number of studies reported on model validation efforts, although good examples were identified. Author comments indicated that more validation techniques were performed than those reported in the manuscripts.

CONCLUSIONS

Although validation is deemed important by many researchers, this is not reflected in the reporting habits of health economic modelling studies. Systematic reporting of validation efforts would be desirable to further enhance decision makers' confidence in health economic models and their outcomes.

Cost-utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review

The economic evaluation (EE) of health care products has become a necessity. Their quality must be high in order to trust the results and make informed decisions. While cost-utility analyses (CUAs) should be preferred to cost-effectiveness analyses in the oncology area, the quality of breast cancer (BC)-related CUA has been given little attention so far. Thus, firstly, a systematic review of published CUA related to drug therapies for BC, gene expression profiling, and HER2 status testing was performed. Secondly, the quality of selected CUA was assessed and the factors associated with a high-quality CUA identified. The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE/EMBASE, and Cochrane to identify published CUA between 2000 and 2014. After screening and data extraction, the quality of each selected CUA was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the checklist proposed by Drummond et al. The analysis of factors associated with a high-quality CUA (defined as a Drummond score ≥7) was performed using a two-step approach. Our systematic review was based on 140 CUAs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including differences in the perspective adopted, the time horizon, measurement of cost and effectiveness, and more specially health-state utility values (HSUVs). The median Drummond score was 7 [range 3-10]. Only one in two of the CUA (n = 74) had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous of "high quality." The statistically significant predictors of a high-quality CUA were article with "gene expression profiling" topic (p = 0.001), consulting or pharmaceutical company as main location of first author (p = 0.004), and articles with both incremental cost-utility ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes of EE (p = 0.02). Our systematic review identified only 140 CUAs published over the past 15 years with one in two of high quality. It showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, especially focused on HSUVs. A critical appraisal of utility values is necessary to better understand one of the main difficulties encountered by authors and propose areas for improvement to increase the quality of CUA. Since the last 5 years, there is a tendency toward an improvement in the quality of these studies, probably coupled with economic context, a better and widely spreading of recommendations and thus appropriation by medical practitioners. That being said, there is an urgent need for mandatory use of European and international recommendations to ensure quality of such approaches and to allow easy comparison.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of prognostic gene expression signature-based stratification of early breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The individual risk of recurrence in hormone receptor-positive primary breast cancer patients determines whether adjuvant endocrine therapy should be combined with chemotherapy. Clinicopathological parameters and molecular tests such as EndoPredict(®) (EPclin) can support decision making in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative cancer.

OBJECTIVE

Using a life-long Markov state transition model, we determined the health economic impact and incremental cost effectiveness of EPclin-based risk stratification in combination with clinical guidelines [German-S3, National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network (NCCN), and St. Gallen] to decide on chemotherapy use.

METHODS

Information on overall and metastasis-free survival came from Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group clinical trials 6/8 (n = 1,619) and published literature. Effectiveness was assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs (2010) were assessed from a German third-party payer perspective.

RESULTS

Lifetime costs per patient ranged from <euro>28,268 (St.Gallen and EPclin) to <euro>33,756 (NCCN). Due to an imperfect prognostic value and differences in chemotherapy use, strategies achieved between 13.165 QALYs (NCCN) and 13.173 QALYs (EPclin alone) per patient. Using German-S3 as reference, three strategies showed dominant results (St. Gallen and EPclin, German-S3 and EPclin, EPclin alone). Compared to German-S3, the addition of EPclin saved <euro>3,388 and gained 0.002 QALYs per patient. Combining guidelines with EPclin remained preferable in sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that molecular markers can be sensibly combined with clinical guidelines to determine the risk profile of adjuvant breast cancer patients. Compared with the current German best practice (German-S3), combinations of EPclin with the St. Gallen, German-S3 or NCCN guideline and EPclin alone were dominant from the perspective of the German healthcare system.

Adjuvant Docetaxel and Cyclophosphamide (DC) with prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) on days 8 &12 in breast cancer patients: a retrospective analysis

Purpose

Four cycles of docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (DC) resulted in superior survival than doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide in the treatment of early breast cancer. The original study reported a 5% incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) recommending prophylactic antibiotics with no granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. The worldwide adoption of this protocol yielded several reports on substantially higher rates of FN events. We explored the use of growth factor (GF) support on days 8 and 12 of the cycle with the original DC protocol.

Methods

Our study included all consecutive patients with stages I–II breast cancer who were treated with the DC protocol at the Institute of Oncology, Davidoff Center (Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel) from April, 2007 to March, 2012. Patient, tumor characteristics, and toxicity were reported. Results: In total, 123 patients received the DC regimen. Median age was 60 years, (range, 25–81 years). Thirty-three patients (26.8%) were aged 65 years and older. Most of the women (87%) adhered to the planned G-CSF protocol (days 8 &12). 96% of the patients completed the 4 planned cycles of chemotherapy. Six patients (5%) had dose reductions, 6 (5%) had treatment delays due to non-medical reasons. Thirteen patients (10.6%) experienced at least one event of FN (3 patients had 2 events), all requiring hospitalization. Eight patients (6.5%) required additional support with G-CSF after the first chemotherapy cycle, 7 because of FN and one due to neutropenia and diarrhea.

In Conclusion

Primary prophylactic G-CSF support on days 8 and 12 of the cycle provides a tolerable option to deliver the DC protocol. Our results are in line with other retrospective protocols using longer schedules of GF support.

Opportunity cost of funding drugs for rare diseases: the cost-effectiveness of eculizumab in paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria

BACKGROUND

Both ethical and economics concerns have been raised with respect to the funding of drugs for rare diseases. This article reports both the cost-effectiveness of eculizumab for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) and its associated opportunity costs.

METHODS

Analysis compared eculizumab plus current standard of care v. current standard of care from a publicly funded health care system perspective. A Markov model covered the major consequences of PNH and treatment. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of the incremental cost per life year and per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Opportunity costs were assessed by the health gains foregone and the alternative uses for the additional resources.

RESULTS

Eculizumab is associated with greater life years (1.13), QALYs (2.45), and costs (CAN$5.24 million). The incremental cost per life year and per QALY gained is CAN$4.62 million and CAN$2.13 million, respectively. Based on established thresholds, the opportunity cost of funding eculizumab is 102.3 discounted QALYs per patient funded. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. If the acquisition cost of eculizumab was reduced by 98.5%, it could be considered cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The nature of rare diseases means that data are often sparse for the conduct of economic evaluations. When data were limited, assumptions were made that biased results in favor of eculizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the feasibility of conducting economic evaluations in the context of rare diseases. Eculizumab may provide substantive benefits to patients with PNH in terms of life expectancy and quality of life but at a high incremental cost and a substantial opportunity cost. Decision makers should fully consider the opportunity costs before making positive reimbursement decisions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of docetaxel versus weekly paclitaxel in adjuvant treatment of regional breast cancer in New Zealand

BACKGROUND

There have been recent important changes to adjuvant regimens and costs of taxanes for the treatment of early breast cancer, requiring a re-evaluation of comparative cost effectiveness. In particular, weekly paclitaxel is now commonly used but has not been subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIM

Our aim was to estimate the cost effectiveness of adjuvant docetaxel and weekly paclitaxel versus each other, and compared with standard 3-weekly paclitaxel, in women aged ≥25 years diagnosed with regional breast cancer in New Zealand.

METHODS

A macrosimulation Markov model was used, with a lifetime horizon and health system perspective. The model compared 3-weekly docetaxel and weekly paclitaxel versus standard 3-weekly paclitaxel (E1199 regimen) in the hospital setting. Data on overall survival and toxicities (febrile neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy) were derived from relevant published clinical trials. Epidemiological and cost data were derived from New Zealand datasets. Health outcomes were measured with health-adjusted life-years (HALYs), similar to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs included intervention and health system costs in year 2011 values, with 3% per annum discounting on costs and HALYs.

RESULTS

The mean HALY gain per patient compared with standard 3-weekly paclitaxel was 0.51 with weekly paclitaxel and 0.21 with docetaxel, while incremental costs were $NZ 12,284 and $NZ 4,021, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of docetaxel versus 3-weekly paclitaxel was $NZ 19,400 (purchasing power parity [PPP]-adjusted $US 13,100) per HALY gained, and the ICER of weekly paclitaxel versus docetaxel was $NZ 27,100 ($US 18,300) per HALY gained. In terms of net monetary benefit, weekly paclitaxel was the optimal strategy for willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds >$NZ 27,000 per HALY gained. However, the model was highly sensitive to uncertainty around survival differences, while toxicity-related morbidity had little impact. Thus, if it was assumed that weekly paclitaxel and docetaxel had the same efficacy, docetaxel would be favoured over weekly paclitaxel.

CONCLUSION

Both weekly paclitaxel and docetaxel are likely to be cost effective compared with standard 3-weekly paclitaxel. Weekly paclitaxel was the optimal choice for WTP thresholds greater than $NZ27,000 per HALY gained (PPP-adjusted $US 18,000). However, uncertainty remains around relative survival benefits, and weekly paclitaxel becomes cost ineffective versus docetaxel if it is assumed that the two regimens have equal effectiveness. Reduced uncertainty about the relative survival benefits may improve decision making for funding.

Feasibility of 4 cycles of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide every 14 days as an adjuvant regimen for breast cancer: a Wisconsin Oncology Network study

INTRODUCTION

Dose-dense therapies have had a major effect on reducing toxicity and improving outcomes in breast cancer. A combination of TC every 3 weeks has emerged as a common chemotherapy regimen used for treatment of node-negative or lower-risk node-positive breast cancer. We tested whether it is feasible to deliver TC on a dose-dense schedule, with therapy completed within 10 weeks.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled women with early stage breast cancer on a single-arm phase II study of adjuvant dose-dense TC through a regional oncology network. All women completed primary surgery before accrual, and subsequent therapy with TC was deemed appropriate by the treating physician. Planned treatment was docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks for 4 cycles with subcutaneous pegfilgrastim 6 mg administered 24 to 48 hours after the administration of each chemotherapy cycle.

RESULTS

Of 42 women enrolled, 41 were evaluable using prespecified criteria. Of these, 37 (90.2%) completed therapy within 10 weeks and 34 (83%) completed therapy at 8 weeks without dose modification. Rates of neuropathy were similar to that reported previously. The rate of neutropenic fever was low (2.5%). Rash and plantar-palmar erythrodythesia were common and reached grade 3 in 4 subjects (9.8%).

CONCLUSION

Dose-dense TC is feasible with tolerability profiles similar to standard TC and a low likelihood of neutropenic fever. This study supports further clinical development of this 8-week adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.

Is adjuvant trastuzumab a cost-effective therapy for HER-2/neu-positive T1bN0 breast cancer?

BACKGROUND

In light of clinical uncertainty and the high acquisition costs of trastuzumab, we examined the value for money associated with concurrent or sequential trastuzumab in women with HER-2/neu-positive breast cancer with small node-negative tumours (T1bN0).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A probabilistic economic model was developed to estimate the likelihood of adjuvant trastuzumab meeting a $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained threshold over a range of 10-year recurrence risks by age. The primary analysis took an incremental approach, comparing trastuzumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone. A secondary analysis took an 'all-or-nothing' approach, comparing trastuzumab plus chemotherapy with neither treatment.

RESULTS

The primary analysis suggested that concurrent trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy was likely to meet the $100 000 threshold at recurrence risks of 29-35%. Sequential trastuzumab was less likely to meet such a threshold. The secondary analysis was more favourable for both trastuzumab strategies, but of limited relevance as clinical benefits were predominantly driven by chemotherapy without trastuzumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy appears to offer favourable value for money at the upper ranges of baseline recurrence risks reported to date, although more precise estimates of underlying risk are required to confirm the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant trastuzumab in T1bN0 breast cancer.

Cost-utility of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in node-negative and node-positive breast cancer

The 21-gene recurrence score (Oncotype DX: RS) appears to augment clinico-pathologic prognostication and is predictive of adjuvant chemotherapy benefit in node-negative (N-) and node-positive (N+), endocrine-sensitive breast cancer. RS is a costly assay that is associated with good 'value for money' in N- disease, while economic evaluations in N+ disease based on most recent data have not been conducted. We examined the cost-utility (CU) of a RS-guided adjuvant strategy, compared to current practice without RS in N- and N+, endocrine-sensitive, breast cancer from a Canadian health care system perspective. A generic state-transition model was developed to compute cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 25-year horizon. Patient outcomes with and without chemotherapy in RS-untested cohorts and in those with low, intermediate and high RS were examined based on the reported prognostic and predictive impact of RS in N- and N+ disease. Chemotherapy utilization (current vs. RS-guided), unit costs and utilities were derived from a Nova Scotia Canadian population-based cohort, local unit costs and the literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually, and costs were reported in 2011 Canadian dollars ($). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for key model parameters. Compared to a non-RS-guided strategy, RS-guided adjuvant therapy was associated with $2,585 and $864 incremental costs, 0.27 and 0.06 QALY gains, and resultant CUs of $9,591 and $14,844 per QALY gained for N- and N+ disease, respectively. CU estimates were robust to key model parameters, and were most sensitive to chemo utilization proportions. RS-guided adjuvant therapy appears to be a cost-effective strategy in both N- and N+, endocrine-sensitive breast cancer with resultant CU ratios well below commonly quoted thresholds.