The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 589–603

Cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus capecitabine in women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer who have received prior therapy with trastuzumab

  • Thomas E. Delea
  • Paul Tappenden
  • Oleg Sofrygin
  • Dominy Browning
  • Mayur M. Amonkar
  • Jon Karnon
  • Mel D. Walker
  • David Cameron
Original Paper



In a phase III trial of women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with trastuzumab, an anthracycline, and taxanes (EGF100151), lapatinib plus capecitabine (L + C) improved time to progression (TTP) versus capecitabine monotherapy (C-only). In a trial including HER2+ MBC patients who had received at least one prior course of trastuzumab and no more than one prior course of palliative chemotherapy (GBG 26/BIG 03-05), continued trastuzumab plus capecitabine (T + C) also improved TTP.


An economic model using patient-level data from EGF100151 and published results of GBG 26/BIG 03-05 as well as other literature were used to evaluate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained with L + C versus C-only and versus T + C in women with HER2+ MBC previously treated with trastuzumab from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.


Expected costs were £28,816 with L + C, £13,985 with C-only and £28,924 with T + C. Corresponding QALYs were 0.927, 0.737 and 0.896. In the base case, L + C was estimated to provide more QALYs at a lower cost compared with T + C; cost per QALY gained was £77,993 with L + C versus C-only. In pairwise probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probability that L + C is preferred to C-only was 0.03 given a threshold of £30,000. The probability that L + C is preferred to T + C was 0.54 regardless of the threshold.


When compared against capecitabine alone, the addition of lapatinib has a cost-effectiveness ratio exceeding the threshold normally used by NICE. Compared with T + C, L + C is dominant in the base case and approximately equally likely to be cost-effective in probabilistic sensitivity analyses over a wide range of threshold values.


Breast neoplasms, secondary Economics Cost and cost analysis Lapatinib 

JEL Classification



  1. 1.
    Hung, M.-C., Lau, Y.-K.: Basic science of HER-2/neu: a review. Semin. Oncol. 26(Suppl 12), 51–59 (1999)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Woodburn, J.R.: The epidermal growth factor receptor and its inhibition in cancer therapy. Pharmacol. Ther. 82(2–3), 241–250 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nicholson, R.I., Gee, J.M.W., Harper, M.E.: EGFR & cancer prognosis. Eur. J. Cancer 37(Suppl 4), 9–15 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mackey, J., McLeod, D., Ragaz, J., Gelmon, K., Verma, S., Pritchard, K., Laing, K., Provencher, L., Charbonneau, L.F.: Adjuvant targeted therapy in early breast cancer. Cancer 115(6), 1154–1168 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jackisch, C.: HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer: optimizing trastuzumab-based therapy. Oncologist 11(Suppl 1), 34–41 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marty, M., Cognetti, F., Maraninchi, D., Snyder, R., Mauriac, L., Tubiana-Hulin, M., Chan, S., Grimes, D., Antón, A., Lluch, A., Kennedy, J., O’Byrne, K., Conte, P., Green, M., Ward, C., Mayne, K., Extra, J.M.: Randomized phase II trial of the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab combined with docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer administered as first-line treatment: the M77001 study group. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 4265–4274 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Slamon, D.J., Leyland-Jones, B., Shak, S., Fuchs, H., Paton, V., Bajamonde, A., Fleming, T., Eiermann, W., Wolter, J., Pegram, M., Baselga, J., Norton, L.: Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 783–792 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Medicines Agency: Herceptin. Summary of product characteristics. Available at: Accessed Feb 2009
  9. 9.
    Fabi, A., Metro, G., Ferretti, G., Giannarelli, D., Di Cosimo, S., Papaldo, P., Mottolesem, M., Carlini, P., Felici, A., Russillo, M., Cognetti, F.: Do HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer patients benefit from the use of trastuzumab beyond disease progression? A mono-institutional experience and systematic review of observational studies. Breast 17(5), 499–505. Epub 1 May 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geyer, C.E., Forster, J., Lindquist, D., Chan, S., Romieu, C., Pienkowski, T., Jagiello-Gruszfeld, A., Crown, J., Chan, A., Kaufman, B., Skarlos, D., Campone, M., Davidson, N., Berger, M., Oliva, C., Rubin, S.D., Stein, S., Cameron, D.: Lapatinib plus capecitabine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 2733–2743 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cameron, D., Casey, M., Press, M., Lindquist, D., Pienkowski, T., Romieu, C.G., Chan, S., Jagiello-Gruszfeld, A., Kaufman, B., Crown, J., Chan, A., Campone, M., Viens, P., Davidson, N., Gorbounova, V., Raats, J.I., Skarlos, D., Newstat, B., Roychowdhury, D., Paoletti, P., Oliva, C., Rubin, S., Stein, S., Geyer, C.E.: A phase III randomized comparison of lapatinib plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in women with advanced breast cancer that has progressed on trastuzumab: updated efficacy and biomarker analyses. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 112(3), 533–543 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cameron, D., Casey, M., Oliva, C., Newstat, B., Imwalle, B., Geyer, C.E.: Lapatinib plus capecitabine in women with HER-2-positive advanced breast cancer: final survival analysis of a phase III randomized trial. Oncologist 15(9), 924–934 (2010)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    von Minckwitz, G., du Bois, A., Schmidt, M., Maass, N., Cufer, T., de Jongh, F.E., Maartense, E., Zielinski, C., Kaufmann, M., Bauer, W., Baumann, K.H., Clemens, M.R., Duerr, R., Uleer, C., Andersson, M., Stein, R.C., Nekljudova, V., Loibl, S.: Trastuzumab beyond progression in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer: a German Breast Group 26/Breast International Group 03–05 Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 27(12), 1999–2006 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Issued: June 2008Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Allison, P.D.: Survival analysis using the SAS® system: a practical guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carroll, K.J.: On the use and utility of the Weibull model in the analysis of survival data. Control. Clin. Trials 24(6), 682–701 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glenny, A.M., Altman, D.G., Song, F., Sakarovitch, C., Deeks, J.J., D’Amico, R., Bradburn, M., Eastwood, A.J.: International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol. Assess. 9(26), 1–134, iii–iv (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coory, M., Jordan, S.: Frequency of treatment-effect modification affecting indirect comparisons: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics 28(9), 723–732 (2010)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and British Medical Association: British national formulary no. 57 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    GlaxoSmithKline: Manufacturer’s submission in response to first appraisal consultation document (GlaxoSmithKline appendices to ACD1). Available at: (28 July 2008)
  21. 21.
    Fasola, G., Aita, M., Marini, L., Follador, A., Tosolini, M., Mattioni, L., Mansutti, M., Piga, A., Brusaferro, S., Aprile, G.: Drug waste minimisation and cost-containment in medical oncology: two-year results of a feasibility study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 8, 70 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tappenden, P., Jones, R., Paisley, S., Carroll, C.: Technology Assessment Report commissioned by the NHS R&D HTA Programme on behalf of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The use of bevacizumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Health Service (NHS): Reference costs (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (A) Antiemesis V.1.2007Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (B) Cancer-Related Fatigue. Version 2.2007, 03/05/07 © 2007 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, IncGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Perugia International Cancer Conference VII: Multinational Association of Supportive care in Cancer Consensus Conference on Antiemetic Therapy Perugia, 29–31 Mar 2004. Latest Update: September 1, 2005. Organizing and Overall Meeting Chairs, Gralla RG, Roila F, Tonato MGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Benson III, A.B., Ajani, J.A., Catalano, R.B., Engelking, C., Kornblau, S.M., Martenson Jr, J.A., McCallum, R., Mitchell, E.P., O’Dorisio, T.M., Vokes, E.E., Wadler, S.: Recommended guidelines for the treatment of cancer treatment-induced diarrhea. J. Clin. Oncol. 22(14), 2918–2926 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lawrence, D.P., Kupelnick, B., Miller, K., Devine, D., Lau, J.: Evidence report on the occurrence, assessment, and treatment of fatigue in cancer patients. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 32, 40–50 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McNeil, C.: Cancer fatigue: one drug fails but more are in the pipeline. JNCI 93(12), 892–893 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Main, C., Bojke, L., Griffin, S., Norman, G., Barbieri, M., Mather, L., Stark, D., Palmer, S., Riemsma, R.: Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 10(9). Available at: (2006)
  31. 31.
    Ward, S., Pilgrim, H., Hind, D.: Trastuzumab for the treatment of primary breast cancer in HER2 positive women: a single technology appraisal. NICE Technology Appraisal Report: University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research. Available from (2006). Accessed Feb 2007
  32. 32.
    Seidman, A.: Cardiac dysfunction in the trastuzumab clinical trials experience. J. Clin. Oncol. 20, 1215–1221 (2002)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Remak, E., Brazil, L.: Cost of managing women presenting with stage IV breast cancer in the United Kingdom. Br. J. Cancer 91, 77–83 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Curtis, L., Netten, A.: Unit costs of health & social care 2008. Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU), University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, UK (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhou, X., Cella, D., Cameron, D., Amonkar, M.M., Segreti, A., Stein, S., Walker, M., Geyer, C.E.: Lapatinib plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone for HER2 + (ErbB2 +) metastatic breast cancer: quality-of-life assessment. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 117(3), 577–589 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johnson, J.A., Luo, N., Shaw, J.W., Kind, P., Coons, S.J.: Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different? Med. Care 43(3), 221–228 (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lloyd, A., Nafees, B., Narewska, J., Dewilde, S., Watkins, J.: Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 95, 683–690 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    De Cock, E., Hutton, J., Canney, P., Body, J.J., Barrett-Lee, P., Neary, M.P., Lewis, G.: Cost-effectiveness of oral ibandronate versus IV zoledronic acid or IV pamidronate for bone metastases in patients receiving oral hormonal therapy for breast cancer in the United Kingdom. Clin. Ther. 27(8), 1295–1310 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Supplementary advice to the Appraisal Committees. Appraising life extending, end of life treatments. Available at: (Jan 2009) (updated July 2009). Accessed 17 Sep 2009
  40. 40.
    Kind, P., Hardman, G., Macran, S.: UK population norms for the EQ-5D. Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper. Centre for Health Economics, York (Nov 1999)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Briggs, A.H.: Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 17(5), 479–500 (2000)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pasta, D.J., Taylor, J.L., Henning, J.M.: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis incorporating the bootstrap: an example comparing treatments for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Med. Decis. Mak. 19(3), 353–363 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lothgren, M., Zethraeus, N.: Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 9(7), 623–630 (2000)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: NICE clinical guideline 81. Advanced breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Available at: (2009)
  45. 45.
    McCabe, C., Claxton, K., Culyer, A.J.: The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 26(9), 733–744 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cookson, R., McCabe, C., Tsuchiya, A.: Public healthcare resource allocation and the rule of rescue. J. Med. Ethics 34(7), 540–544 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: 6 Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance. Available at: (2008)
  48. 48.
    Appleby, J., Maybin, J.: Topping up NHS care. BMJ 337, a2449 (2008)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: NICE technology appraisal guidance 169. Sunitinib for the first-line treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London, UK. Available at: (Mar 2009)
  50. 50.
    WHO. CHOosing Interventions that are Cost Effective (WHO-CHOICE): CHOosing Interventions that are Cost Effective (WHO-CHOICE). Available at:
  51. 51.
    Ubel, P.A., Hirth, R.A., Chernew, M.E., Fendrick, A.M.: What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation. Arch. Intern. Med. 163, 1637–1641 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Le, Q.A., Hay, J.W.: Cost-effectiveness analysis of lapatinib in HER-2-positive advanced breast cancer. Cancer, 115(3), 489–98 (2009)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Claxton, K.: The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 18, 341–364 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    O’Brien, B.J., Briggs, A.H.: Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies: an introduction to statistical issues and methods. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 11(6), 455–468 (2002)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wilkerson, J., Fojo, T.: Progression-free survival is simply a measure of a drug’s effect while administered and is not a surrogate for overall survival. Cancer J. 15, 379–385 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas E. Delea
    • 1
  • Paul Tappenden
    • 2
  • Oleg Sofrygin
    • 1
  • Dominy Browning
    • 3
  • Mayur M. Amonkar
    • 4
  • Jon Karnon
    • 2
    • 5
  • Mel D. Walker
    • 3
  • David Cameron
    • 6
  1. 1.Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI)BrooklineUSA
  2. 2.School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR)University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  3. 3.GlaxoSmithKlineLondonUK
  4. 4.GlaxoSmithKlineCollegevilleUSA
  5. 5.University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  6. 6.Section of Oncology and Clinical ResearchUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations