Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 101, Issue 1, pp 37–49 | Cite as

Cost-Effectiveness of Letrozole in the Extended Adjuvant Treatment of Women with Early Breast Cancer

  • Khalid El Ouagari
  • Jon Karnon
  • Thomas Delea
  • Willena Talbot
  • Jane Brandman
Clinical Trial

Abstract

Adjuvant tamoxifen therapy for 5 years reduces recurrence in hormone receptor positive, post-menopausal women with early breast cancer, but offers no advantage when prolonged to another 5 years, during which the risk of recurrence remains high. Treating patients, who remain disease-free after 5 years of tamoxifen, with letrozole significantly reduces recurrence, regardless of nodal status. This study evaluated the life-time cost-utility of extended adjuvant letrozole therapy in 62-year-old patients from a third-party payer perspective. A Markov model incorporated locoregional, contralateral, and metastatic recurrences. The comparator was placebo. Event rates were based on published trials. Utility values were taken from a clinical trial and published literature. Costs were obtained from published literature, provincial payment schedules, cancer agencies, and drug plans formularies. Resource use reflected Canadian treatment patterns. Robustness of the model was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Extended adjuvant letrozole therapy of a cohort consisting of 50% node-negative and 50% node-positive patients prolonged their lives on average by 0.466 years or 0.267 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of Can$8,031 per patient, yielding an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $34,058 per QALY. Letrozole was more cost-effective in node-positive than in node-negative patients (Can$26,553 vs Can$46,049 per QALY). Results were robust to variations in age, healthcare costs, and utilities. The degree of confidence that the cost per QALY would be below Can$50,000 reached 100% for node-positive and 77% for node-negative patients. Extended adjuvant letrozole is cost-effective in both node-negative and node-positive patients having ICURs below Can$50,000/QALY.

Keywords

Adjuvant treatment Breast cancer Cost-utility Letrozole 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for this study came from Novartis Pharma. This article was prepared with the assistance of BioMedCom Consultants inc, Montreal, Canada.

References

  1. 1.
    Shibuya K, Mathers CD, Boschi-Pinto C, Lopez AD, Murray␣CJ (2002) Global and regional estimates of cancer mortality and incidence by site: II. Results for the global burden of disease 2000. BMC Cancer 2:37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bray F, McCarron P, Parkin DM (2004) The changing global patterns of female breast cancer incidence and mortality. Breast Cancer Res 6(6):229–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hewitt M, Breen N, Devesa S (1999) Cancer prevalence and survivorship issues: analyses of the 1992 National Health Interview Survey. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(17):1480–1486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harris JR, Morrow M, Bonadonna G (1993) Cancer of the breast. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA (eds) Cancer: principles and practice of oncology, 4th edn. J.B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, pp 1264–1332Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glick J (1991) Adjuvant therapy for node-negative breast cancer. In: Fowble B, Goodman R, Glick JH, Rosato E (eds) Breast cancer treatment. A comprehensive guide to management. Mosby Year Book, St LouisGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (1998) Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 351(9114):1451–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher B, Dignam J, Bryant J, Wolmark N (2001) Five versus more than five years of tamoxifen for lymph node-negative breast cancer: updated findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-14 randomized trial. J␣Natl Cancer Inst 93(9):684–690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher B, Dignam J, Bryant J, DeCillis A, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N, Costantino J, Redmond C, Fisher ER, Bowman DM, Deschenes L, Dimitrov NV, Margolese RG, Robidoux A, Shibata H, Terz J, Paterson AH, Feldman MI, Farrar W, Evans J, Lickley HL (1996) Five versus more than five years of tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer patients with negative lymph nodes and estrogen receptor-positive tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 88(21):1529–1542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaufmann M, Rody A (2005) Long-term risk of breast cancer recurrence: the need for extended adjuvant therapy. J␣Cancer Res Clin Oncol 131(8):487–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S, Robert NJ, Muss HB, Piccart MJ, Castiglione M, Tu D, Shepherd LE, Pritchard KI, Livingston RB, Davidson NE, Norton L, Perez EA, Abrams JS, Therasse P, Palmer MJ, Pater JL (2003) A randomized trial of letrozole in postmenopausal women after five years of tamoxifen therapy for early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J␣Med 349(19):1793–1802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S, Robert NJ, Muss HB, Piccart MJ, Castiglione M, Tu D, Shepherd LE, Pritchard KI, Livingston RB, Davidson NE, Norton L, Perez EA, Abrams JS, Cameron DA, Palmer MJ, Pater JL (2005) Randomized trial of letrozole following tamoxifen as extended adjuvant therapy in receptor-positive breast cancer: updated findings from NCIC CTG MA.17. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(17):1262–1271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Radice D, Redaelli A (2003) Breast cancer management: quality-of-life and cost considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 21(6):383–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. CCOHTA 1997 November (Nov 1997) Available from: URL: http://www.ccohta.caGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karnon J, Jones T (2003) A stochastic economic evaluation of letrozole versus tamoxifen as a first-line hormonal therapy: for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal patients. Pharmacoeconomics 21(7):513–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Borner M, Bacchi M, Goldhirsch A, Greiner R, Harder F, Castiglione M, Jungi WF, Thurlimann B, Cavalli F, Obrecht JP (1994) Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research: first isolated locoregional recurrence following mastectomy for breast cancer: results of a phase III multicenter study comparing systemic treatment with observation after excision and radiation. J Clin Oncol 12(10):2071–2077PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doyle T, Schultz DJ, Peters C, Harris E, Solin LJ (2001) Long-term results of local recurrence after breast conservation treatment for invasive breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51(1):74–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haylock BJ, Coppin CM, Jackson J, Basco VE, Wilson KS (2000) Locoregional first recurrence after mastectomy: prospective cohort studies with and without immediate chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 46(2):355–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Janjan NA, McNeese MD, Buzdar AU, Montague ED, Oswald MJ (1986) Management of locoregional recurrent breast cancer. Cancer 58(7):1552–1556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kamby C, Sengelov L (1997) Pattern of dissemination and survival following isolated locoregional recurrence of breast cancer: a prospective study with more than 10 years of follow up. Breast Cancer Res Treat 45(2):181–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koning C, Hart G (1998) Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial on adjuvant chemotherapy and hormonal therapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41(2):397–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moran MS, Haffty BG (2002) Local-regional breast cancer recurrence: prognostic groups based on patterns of failure. Breast J 8(2):81–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W, Bastert G, Schumacher M (2000) Role of isolated locoregional recurrence of breast cancer: results of four prospective studies. J Clin Oncol 18(8):1696–1708PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwaibold F, Fowble BL, Solin LJ, Schultz DJ, Goodman RL (1991) The results of radiation therapy for isolated local regional recurrence after mastectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21(2):299–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Toi M, Tanaka S, Bando M, Hayashi K, Tominaga T (1997) Outcome of surgical resection for chest wall recurrence in breast cancer patients. J Surg Oncol 64(1):23–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Toonkel LM, Fix I, Jacobson LH, Wallach CB (1983) The significance of local recurrence of carcinoma of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 9(1):33–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jassem J, Pienkowski T, Pluzanska A, Jelic S, Gorbunova V, Mrsic-Krmpotic Z, Berzins J, Nagykalnai T, Wigler N, Renard J, Munier S, Weil C (2001) Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: final results of a randomized phase III multicenter trial. J␣Clin Oncol 19(6):1707–1715PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mouridsen H, Gershanovich M, Sun Y, Perez-Carrion R, Boni C, Monnier A, Apffelstaedt J, Smith R, Sleeboom HP, Janicke F, Pluzanska A, Dank M, Becquart D, Bapsy PP, Salminen E, Snyder R, Lassus M, Verbeek JA, Staffler B, Chaudri-Ross HA, Dugan M (2001) Superior efficacy of letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of a phase III study of the International Letrozole Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol 19(10):2596–2606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada 2005 Available from: URL: http://www.statisticscanada.com/Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wai ES, Trevisan CH, Taylor SCM, Mates D, Jackson JS, Olivotto IA (2001) Health system costs of metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 65(3):233–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information (2001) Resource Intensity Weights and Expected Length of StayGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Will BP, Berthelot JM, Le Petit C, Tomiak EM, Verma S, Evans WK (2000) Estimates of the lifetime costs of breast cancer treatment in Canada. Eur J Cancer 36(6):724–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cancer Care Ontario (2004) Cancer Care Ontario formulary regimenGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ministry of Health Services Government of British Columbia (2004) Pharmacare Canadian Drug Identity CodeGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Earle C, Coyle D, Smith A, Agboola O, Evans WK (1999) The cost of radiotherapy at an Ontario regional cancer centre: a re-evaluation. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 32(2):87–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Alberta Health & Wellness Government of Alberta (2004) Health Care Insurance Plan & ServicesGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alberta Learning Information Service. Alberta wage and salary survey. Alberta Human resource and employment 2003 [cited 2003]; Available from: URL: http://www.alis.gov.ab.ca/wageinfo/Content/RequestAction.asp?aspAction=GetWageDetail&format=html&RegionID=20&NOC=3131Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ministry of Health Services Government of British Columbia (2003) British Columbia Medical Services PlanGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ministry of health and long term care Ontario (2003) Ontario Health Insurance PlanGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Thomson Healthcare I. Redbook (2003) Pharmacy’s Fundamental Reference. Thomson, Montvale, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Statistics Canada (2002) Consumer Price Index for Health Care, Table 326-0002, Series v737544. OttawaGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    de Haes JC, de Koning HJ, van Oortmarssen GJ, van Agt␣HM, de Bruyn AE, Der Maas PJ (1991) The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years. Int J Cancer 49(4):538–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Briggs AH (2000) Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 17(5):479–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ, Blackhouse G (2002) Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu Rev Public Health 23:377–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Critchfield GC, Willard KE (1986) Probabilistic analysis of decision trees using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Decis Making 6(2):85–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC, Braun P, McNeil BJ (1985) Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. A practical approach. Med Decis Making 5(2):157–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Karnon J, Delea T, Johnston SR, Smith R, Brandman J, Sung J, Goss PE (2006) Cost effectiveness of extended adjuvant letrozole in postmenopausal women after adjuvant tamoxifen therapy: the UK perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 24(3):237–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Marchetti M, Caruggi M, Colombo G (2004) Cost utility and budget impact of third-generation aromatase inhibitors for advanced breast cancer: a literature-based model analysis of costs in the Italian National Health Service. Clin Ther 26(9):1546–1561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Karnon J, Johnston SR, Jones T, Glendenning A (2003) A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of letrozole followed by tamoxifen versus tamoxifen followed by letrozole for postmenopausal advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 14(11):1629–1633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dranitsaris G, Verma S, Trudeau M (2003) Cost utility analysis of first-line hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: comparison of two aromatase inhibitors to tamoxifen. Am J Clin Oncol 26(3):289–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nuijten M, Meester L, Waibel F, Wait S (1999) Cost effectiveness of letrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 16(4):379–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dranitsaris G, Leung P, Mather J, Oza A (2000) Cost-utility analysis of second-line hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: a comparison of two aromatase inhibitors to megestrol acetate. Anticancer Drugs 11(7):591–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Benedict A, Brown RE (2005) Review of cost-effectiveness analyses in hormonal therapies in advanced breast cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother 6(11):1789–1801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gail MH, Costantino JP, Bryant J, Croyle R, Freedman L, Helzlsouer K, Vogel V (1999) Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for preventing breast cancer. J␣Natl Cancer Inst 91(21):1829–1846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hershman D, Sundararajan V, Jacobson JS, Heitjan DF, Neugut AI, Grann VR (2002) Outcomes of tamoxifen chemoprevention for breast cancer in very high-risk women: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol 20(1):9–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cykert S, Phifer N, Hansen C (2004) Tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: a framework for clinical decisions. Obstet Gynecol 104(3):433–442PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Eckermann SD, Martin AJ, Stockler MR, Simes RJ (2003) The benefits and costs of tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention. Aust NZ J Public Health 27(1):34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ravdin PM, Davis GJ (2004) A method for making estimates of the benefit of the late use of letrozole in patients completing 5 years of tamoxifen. Clin Breast Cancer 5(4):313–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, Mavros P, Jonsson B (2004) Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 7(5):518–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Perez DJ, Williams SM, Christensen EA, McGee RO, Campbell AV (2001) A longitudinal study of health related quality of life and utility measures in patients with advanced breast cancer. Qual Life Res 10(7):587–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ganz PA, Desmond KA, Leedham B, Rowland JH, Meyerowitz BE, Belin TR (2002) Quality of life in long-term, disease-free survivors of breast cancer: a follow-up study. J␣Natl Cancer Inst 94(1):39–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Fallowfield L, McGurk R, Dixon M (2004) Same gain, less pain: potential patient preferences for adjuvant treatment in premenopausal women with early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 40(16):2403–2410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Goodwin PJ, Black JT, Bordeleau LJ, Ganz PA (2003) Health-related quality-of-life measurement in randomized clinical trials in breast cancer – taking stock. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(4):263–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Whelan TJ, Goss PE, Ingle JN, Pater JL, Tu D, Pritchard K, Liu S, Shepherd LE, Palmer M, Robert NJ, Martino S, Muss␣HB (2005) Assessment of Quality of Life in MA.17: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of letrozole after 5 years of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women. J Clin Oncol 23(28):6931–6940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Khalid El Ouagari
    • 1
  • Jon Karnon
    • 2
  • Thomas Delea
    • 3
  • Willena Talbot
    • 1
  • Jane Brandman
    • 4
  1. 1.Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.DorvalCanada
  2. 2.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  3. 3.PAIBrooklineUSA
  4. 4.Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.East HanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations