Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-effectiveness analysis of everolimus plus exemestane versus exemestane alone for treatment of hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 28 August 2014

Abstract

Everolimus in combination with exemestane significantly improved progression-free survival compared to exemestane alone in patients previously treated with non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in the BOLERO-2 trial. As a result, this combination has been approved by the food and drug administration to treat postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive and HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to determine whether everolimus represents good value for money, utilizing data from BOLERO-2. A decision-analytic model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between treatment arms of the BOLERO-2 trial. Costs were obtained from the Center for Medicare Services drug payment table and physician fee schedule. Benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted progression-free survival weeks (QAPFW) and quality-adjusted progression-free years (QAPFY), with utilities/disutilities derived from the literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A willingness to pay threshold of 1–3 times the per capita gross domestic product was adopted, as per the definition of the World Health Organization. The U.S. per capita gross domestic product in 2013 was $49,965; thus, a threshold varying between $49,965 and $149,895 was considered. Everolimus/exemestane had an incremental benefit of 11.88 QAPFW (0.22 QAPFY) compared to exemestane and an incremental cost of $60,574. This translated into an ICER of $265,498.5/QAPFY. Univariate sensitivity analyses showed important variations of the ICER, ranging between $189,836.4 and $530,947/QAPFY. A tornado analysis suggested that the key drivers of our model, by order of importance, included health utility value for stable disease, everolimus acquisition costs, and transition probabilities from the stable to the progression states. The Monte-Carlo simulation showed results that were similar to the base-case analysis. This cost-effectiveness analysis showed that everolimus plus exemestane is not cost-effective compared to exemestane alone. Further research is needed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the drug combination within sub-groups of the population studied in BOLERO-2.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2013) Cancer Facts & Figures 2013. American Cancer Society, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  2. Finn R, Crown J, Boer K et al (2012) Results of a randomized phase 2 study of PD 0332991, a cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor, in combination with letrozole vs letrozole alone for first-line treatment of ER/HER2-advanced breast cancer (BC). Cancer Res 72(24 Suppl):S1–S6

  3. Dees EC, Carey LA (2013) Improving endocrine therapy for breast cancer: it’s not that simple. J Clin Oncol 31:171–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zardavas D, Fumagalli D, Loi S (2012) Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway inhibition: a breakthrough in the management of luminal (ER/HER2−) breast cancers? Curr Opin Oncol 24:623–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Villarreal-Garza C, Cortes J, Andre F et al (2012) mTOR inhibitors in the management of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: the latest evidence and future directions. Ann Oncol 23:2526–2535

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Baselga J, Semiglazov V, van Dam P et al (2009) Phase II randomized study of neoadjuvant everolimus plus letrozole compared with placebo plus letrozole in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:2630–2637

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Baselga J, Campone M, Piccart M et al (2012) Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 366:520–529

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Piccart M, Baselga J, Noguchi S et al (2012) Final progression-free survival analysis of BOLERO-2: a phase III trial of everolimus for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Chemotherapy 42:59

    Google Scholar 

  9. Diaby V, Adunlin G, Montero AJ (2013) Survival modeling for the estimation of transition probabilities in model-based economic evaluations in the absence of individual patient data: a tutorial. Pharmacoeconomics 32:101–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Liou S, Stephens J, Carpiuc K et al (2007) Economic burden of haematological adverse effects in cancer patients. Clin Drug Invest 27:381–396

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Evans DB, Hurley SF (1995) The application of economic evaluation techniques in the health sector: the state of the art. J Int Dev 7:503–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gold MR (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2013) Everolimus in combination with exemestane for treating advanced HER2-negative hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer after endocrine therapy

  14. Burke MJ, Garrett Z, George E et al (2013) NICE guidance on everolimus in combination with exemestane for treatment of advanced HER2-negative, hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer after endocrine therapy. Lancet Oncol 14:1049–1050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Piccart M, Hortobagyi GN, Campone M et al (2014) Everolimus plus exemestane for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2–) advanced breast cancer (BC): overall survival results from BOLERO-2. Oral Presentation Abstract #LBA1. European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC-9), 2014, Glasgow, Scotland

  16. Loi S, Michiels S, Baselga J et al (2013) PIK3CA genotype and a PIK3CA mutation-related gene signature and response to everolimus and letrozole in estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. PLoS One 8:e53292

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. André F, Bachelot T, Commo F et al (2014) Comparative genomic hybridisation array and DNA sequencing to direct treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a multicentre, prospective trial (SAFIR01/UNICANCER). Lancet Oncol 15:267–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2014) Medicare physician fee schedule (MPFS)

  19. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2013) Payment allowance limits for medicare, Part B. Drugs

  20. Xie J, Diener M, De G et al (2012) Budget impact analysis of everolimus for the treatment of hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer in the United States. J Med Econ 16:278–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pfuntner A, Wier LM, Steiner C (2013) Costs for hospital stays in the United States, 2011. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (US)

  22. Lloyd A, Nafees B, Narewska J et al (2006) Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer 95:683–690

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Gordon Blackhouse (Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada), Askal Ali, Dr. Janet Barber, and Dr. Ellen Campbell (Division of Economic, Social and Administrative Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Florida A&M University (FAMU), Tallahassee, FL, United States) for their insightful comments on earlier versions of the paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that they have no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Economic, Social and Administrative Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Florida A&M University (FAMU), Tallahassee, FL, USA

    Vakaramoko Diaby & Georges Adunlin

  2. Department of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL, USA

    Simon B. Zeichner

  3. Hartford Healthcare Cancer Institute, Hartford, CT, USA

    Kiran Avancha

  4. HCor Onco, São Paulo, Brazil

    Gilberto Lopes

  5. Centro Paulista de Oncologia, São Paulo, Brazil

    Gilberto Lopes

  6. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Gilberto Lopes

  7. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

    Stefan Gluck

  8. Department of Solid Tumor Oncology, Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Alberto J. Montero

Authors
  1. Vakaramoko Diaby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georges Adunlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon B. Zeichner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kiran Avancha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gilberto Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stefan Gluck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alberto J. Montero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vakaramoko Diaby.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Diaby, V., Adunlin, G., Zeichner, S.B. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of everolimus plus exemestane versus exemestane alone for treatment of hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 147, 433–441 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3042-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3042-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation