Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 147, Issue 2, pp 433–441 | Cite as

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

  • Vakaramoko Diaby
  • Georges Adunlin
  • Simon B. Zeichner
  • Kiran Avancha
  • Gilberto Lopes
  • Stefan Gluck
  • Alberto J. Montero
Brief Report

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.

Keywords

Metastatic breast cancer Aromatase inhibitor therapy Everolimus Exemestane Health-related quality of life Progression-free survival BOLERO-2 Cost-effectiveness Analysis 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society (2013) Cancer Facts & Figures 2013. American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  2. 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–S6Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dees EC, Carey LA (2013) Improving endocrine therapy for breast cancer: it’s not that simple. J Clin Oncol 31:171–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 24:623–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 23:2526–2535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 27:2630–2637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baselga J, Campone M, Piccart M et al (2012) Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 366:520–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 42:59Google Scholar
  9. 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 32:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liou S, Stephens J, Carpiuc K et al (2007) Economic burden of haematological adverse effects in cancer patients. Clin Drug Invest 27:381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Evans DB, Hurley SF (1995) The application of economic evaluation techniques in the health sector: the state of the art. J Int Dev 7:503–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gold MR (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 therapyGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 14:1049–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  16. 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:e53292PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 15:267–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2014) Medicare physician fee schedule (MPFS)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2013) Payment allowance limits for medicare, Part B. DrugsGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 16:278–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lloyd A, Nafees B, Narewska J et al (2006) Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer 95:683–690PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vakaramoko Diaby
    • 1
  • Georges Adunlin
    • 1
  • Simon B. Zeichner
    • 2
  • Kiran Avancha
    • 3
  • Gilberto Lopes
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Stefan Gluck
    • 7
  • Alberto J. Montero
    • 8
  1. 1.Division of Economic, Social and Administrative Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesFlorida A&M University (FAMU)TallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Internal MedicineMount Sinai Medical CenterMiami BeachUSA
  3. 3.Hartford Healthcare Cancer InstituteHartfordUSA
  4. 4.HCor OncoSão PauloBrazil
  5. 5.Centro Paulista de OncologiaSão PauloBrazil
  6. 6.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  7. 7.Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Leonard M. Miller School of MedicineUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  8. 8.Department of Solid Tumor OncologyTaussig Cancer CenterClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations