Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 117, Issue 2, pp 305–317 | Cite as

Cost-utility analysis for advanced breast cancer therapy in Germany: results of the fulvestrant sequencing model

  • Michael Patrick Lux
  • M. Hartmann
  • C. Jackisch
  • G. Raab
  • A. Schneeweiß
  • K. Possinger
  • J. Oyee
  • N. Harbeck
Clinical Trial

Abstract

Therapy decisions in advanced breast cancer (ABC) increasingly require assessment not only of treatment efficacy but also of cost-effectiveness. To this end, we performed a cost-utility analysis by comparing treatment sequences including/omitting fulvestrant in a hypothetical population of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) postmenopausal women with ABC. The analysis was performed from the German health care perspective. Using a first-order sequential Markov model, expected costs and utilities were calculated over a time horizon of 10 years for cohorts of patients with HR+ ABC, previously treated for at least 5 years using adjuvant endocrine therapies. Utilities were primarily quantified in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALY). “Base-case” estimates of state transition rates, resource utilization, and other model parameters were derived from published evidence and expert assessment. The impacts of uncertainties in all key model parameters were evaluated by sensitivity analysis. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Including second-line fulvestrant in the treatment sequence led to greater estimated health gains (0.021 QALY) and cost savings of €564 ($745, £380) per patient, i.e. the fulvestrant-containing sequence was “dominant”. The prediction of a cost savings was robust with respect to variations in all key parameters. The probability of acceptable cost-effectiveness for the fulvestrant sequence was 72% at a willingness to pay (WTP) of €30,000/QALY ($39,621/QALY, £20,198/QALY); the probability was even higher at lower WTP and substantially exceeded 50% for any realistic WTP. In a representative population of women with HR+ advanced breast cancer, inclusion of fulvestrant in the treatment sequence provides a cost-effective alternative from the German health care perspective. A high probability of cost-effectiveness is maintained under variations in all key parameters. The results reflect a tendency for patients receiving fulvestrant at an early stage to maintain high quality of life for a longer interval.

Keywords

Breast cancer Cost-effectiveness Fulvestrant 

Supplementary material

References

  1. 1.
    Porzsolt F, Klinische Ökonomik (2003) Die ökonomische Bewertung von Gesundheitsleistungen aus der Sicht des Patienten. In: Porzsolt F, Williams AR, Kaplan RM, Klinische Ökonomik (eds) Effektivität und Effizienz von Gesundheitsleistungen. Ecomed, Landsberg, pp 17–40Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Health and Health Care 2010 (2000) The forecast, the challenge by the Institute for the Future. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, ISBN 0-7879-5348-2Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2008) http://www.nice.org.uk
  4. 4.
    Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) (2008) http://www.iqwig.de/index.2.en.html
  5. 5.
    Federal Ministry of Health (Bundesgesundheitsministerium, BMG FHM (2008) http://www.bmg.bund.de/cln_041/DE/Home/homepage_node.html_nnn=true
  6. 6.
    Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein H, Cocquyt V, Gnant M, Goodwin P et al (2007) Second consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 18(2):215–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Simons WR, Jones D, Buzdar A (2003) Cost-effectiveness of anastrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Clin Ther 25(11):2972–2985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schackman BR, Gold HT, Stone PW, Neumann PJ (2004) How often do sensitivity analyses for economic parameters change cost-utility analysis conclusions? Pharmacoeconomics 22(5):293–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Briggs A, Sculpher M (1998) An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 13(4):397–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR (1993) Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 13:322–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rose C, Vtoraya O, Pluzanska A, Davidson N, Gershanovich M, Thomas R et al (2003) An open randomised trial of second-line endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer comparison of the aromatase inhibitors letrozole and anastrozole. Eur J Cancer 39(16):2318–2327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nabholtz JM, Falkson C, Campos D, Szanto J, Martin M, Chan S et al (2003) Docetaxel and doxorubicin compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: results of a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 21(6):968–975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chia S, Gradishar W, Mauriac L, Bines J, Amant F, Federico M, Fein L, Romieu G, Buzdar A, Robertson JF, Brufsky A, Possinger K, Rennie P, Sapunar F, Lowe E, Piccart M (2008) Double-blind, randomized placebo controlled trial of fulvestrant compared with exemestane after prior nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer: results from EFECT. J Clin Oncol 26(10):1664–1670Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lønning PE, Bajetta E, Murray R, Tubiana-Hulin M, Eisenberg PD, Mickiewicz E, Celio L, Pitt P, Mita M, Aaronson NK, Fowst C, Arkhipov A, di Salle E, Polli A, Massimini G (2000) Activity of exemestane in metastatic breast cancer after failure of nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors: a phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 18(11):2234–2244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thurlimann B, Hess D, Koberle D, Senn I, Ballabeni P, Pagani O et al (2004) Anastrozole (‘Arimidex’) versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of the double-blind cross-over SAKK trial 21/95—a sub-study of the TARGET (Tamoxifen or ‘Arimidex’ Randomized Group Efficacy and Tolerability). Breast Cancer Res Treat 85(3):247–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buzdar A, Hayes D, El-Khoudary A, Yan S, Lønning P, Lichinitser M et al (2001) Phase III, multicenter, double-blind, randomized study of letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, for advanced breast cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:3357–3366Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tominaga T, Adachi I, Sasaki Y, Tabei T, Ikeda T, Takatsuka Y et al (2002) Double-blind randomised trial comparing the non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors letrozole and fadrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 14:62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robertson JF, Osborne CK, Howell A, Jones SE, Mauriac L, Ellis M et al (2003) Fulvestrant versus anastrozole for the treatment of advanced breast carcinoma in postmenopausal women: a prospective combined analysis of two multicenter trials. Cancer 98(2):229–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Howell A, Robertson JF, Quaresma AJ, Aschermannova A, Mauriac L, Kleeberg UR et al (2002) Fulvestrant, formerly ICI 182, 780, is as effective as anastrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing after prior endocrine treatment. J Clin Oncol 20(16):3396–3403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Osborne CK, Pippen J, Jones SE, Parker LM, Ellis M, Come S et al (2002) Double-blind, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing on prior endocrine therapy: results of a North American trial. J Clin Oncol 20(16):3386–3395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Buzdar A, Jonat W, Howell A, Jones SE, Blomqvist CP, Vogel CL et al (1998) Anastrozole versus megestrol acetate in the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast carcinoma. Am Cancer Soc 83:1142–1152Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buzdar A, Jones SE, Vogel CL, Wolter J, Plourde P, Webster A (1997) A phase III trial comparing anastrozole (1 and 10 milligrams), a potent and selective aromatase inhibitor, with megestrol acetate in postmenopausal women with advanced breast carcinoma. Am Cancer Soc 79:730–739Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ingle JN, Suman VJ, Rowland KM, Mirchandani D, Bernath AM, Camoriano JK et al (2006) Fulvestrant in women with advanced breast cancer after progression on prior aromatase inhibitor therapy: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trial N0032. J Clin Oncol 24(7):1052–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Shaughnessy J, Miles D, Vukelja S, Moiseyenko V, Ayoub JP, Cervantes G et al (2002) Superior survival with capecitabine plus docetaxel combination therapy in anthracycline-pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer: phase III trial results. J Clin Oncol 20(12):2812–2823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Blum JL, Dieras V, Lo Russo PM, Horton J, Rutman O, Buzdar A et al (2001) Multicenter, Phase II study of capecitabine in taxane-pretreated metastatic breast carcinoma patients. Cancer 92(7):1759–1768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    ROTE LISTE® (2007) German drug list (including EU approvals and specific medicinal products). www.rote-liste.de/
  29. 29.
    Einheitlicher Bewertungsmaßstab (2007) http://www.ebm2000plus.d
  30. 30.
    Albert U-S et al (2008) Stufe-3-Leitlinie Brustkrebs-Früherkennung in Deutschland. 1. Aktualisierung 2008. W Zuckschwerdt Verlag, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gold MR (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cameron DA, Camidge DR, Gait CF, Hirsch M (2006) Fulvestrant in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer—a cost-effective addition to the treatment sequence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 100(Supplement 1, S231)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Drummond MF et al (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Cost-effectiveness analysis, 3rd edn. OUP, Oxford, pp 103–136Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Uyl-de Groot CA (2006) Economic evaluation of cancer therapies: more and better studies will lead to better choices in cancer care. Eur J Cancer 42(17):2862–2866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bevölkerungsbezogener Krebsregister (2008) http://www.krebsgesellschaft.de/krebsregister,11268.html
  36. 36.
    Howell A, Robertson JF, Abram P, Lichinitser MR, Elledge R, Bajetta E et al (2004) Comparison of fulvestrant versus tamoxifen for the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women previously untreated with endocrine therapy: a multinational, double-blind, randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 22(9):1605–1613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Howell A, Pippen J, Elledge RM, Mauriac L, Vergote I, Jones SE et al (2005) Fulvestrant versus anastrozole for the treatment of advanced breast carcinoma: a prospectively planned combined survival analysis of two multicenter trials. Cancer 104(2):236–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Howell A (2007) Development of endocrine therapy of breast cancer 1896–2006. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 67:595–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    DeFriend DJ, Howell A, Nicholson RI, Anderson E, Dowsett M, Mansel RE et al (1994) Investigation of a new pure antiestrogen (ICI 182780) in women with primary breast cancer. Cancer Res 54(2):408–414PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Howell A (1996) New endocrine treatment strategies. Eur J Cancer 5(3):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Warm M, Kates R, Overkamp F, Zaun SG, Harbeck N (2009) Results of the German fulvestrant in practice evaluation programme to evaluate the efficacy, safety, tolerability and acceptance of fulvestrant under daily routine conditions. Cancer Res 69(Suppl):399sGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cameron DA, Camidge DR, Gait CF, Hirsch M (2006) Fulvestrant in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer—a cost-effective addition to the treatment sequence. 29th Annual San Antonio breast cancer symposium, San Antonio, Texas, 14th–17th December 2006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Patrick Lux
    • 1
  • M. Hartmann
    • 2
  • C. Jackisch
    • 3
  • G. Raab
    • 4
  • A. Schneeweiß
    • 5
  • K. Possinger
    • 6
  • J. Oyee
    • 7
  • N. Harbeck
    • 8
  1. 1.Universitäts-Brustzentrum Franken (UBF), FrauenklinikUniversitätsklinikum ErlangenErlangenGermany
  2. 2.ApothekeUniversitätsklinikum JenaJenaGermany
  3. 3.Klinik für Gynäkologie und GeburtshilfeKlinikum Offenbach GmbHOffenbachGermany
  4. 4.Frauenarztpaxis mit Schwerpunkt Gynäkologische Operationen und BrustkrebschirurgieMunichGermany
  5. 5.Klinik für Allgemeine Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe mit PoliklinikUniversitätsklinikum HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  6. 6.Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Hämatologie und Onkologie (CCM)Freie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  7. 7.Mapi ValuesBollingtonUK
  8. 8.Frauenklinik und PoliklinikTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations