Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 151, Issue 1, pp 27–40 | Cite as

A review of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer

  • Vakaramoko Diaby
  • Rima Tawk
  • Vassiki Sanogo
  • Hong Xiao
  • Alberto J. Montero
Review
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Breast cancer is a global health concern. In fact, breast cancer is the primary cause of death among women worldwide and constitutes the most expensive malignancy to treat. As health care resources are finite, decisions regarding the adoption and coverage of breast cancer treatments are increasingly being based on “value for money,” i.e., cost-effectiveness. As the evidence about the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments is abundant, therefore difficult to navigate, systematic reviews of published systematic reviews offer the advantage of bringing together the results of separate systematic reviews in a single report. As a consequence, this paper presents an overview of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer to inform policy and reimbursement decision-making. A systematic review was conducted of published systematic reviews documenting cost-effectiveness analyses of breast cancer treatments from 2000 to 2014. Systematic reviews identified through a literature search of health and economic databases were independently assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Systematic reviews of original evaluations were included only if they targeted breast cancer patients and specific breast cancer treatments (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy only), documented incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and were reported in the English language. The search strategy used a combination of these key words: “breast cancer,” “systematic review/meta-analysis,” and “cost-effectiveness/economics.” Data were extracted using predefined extraction forms and qualitatively appraised using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool. The literature search resulted in 511 bibliographic records, of which ten met our inclusion criteria. Five reviews were conducted in the early-stage breast cancer setting and five reviews in the metastatic setting. In early-stage breast cancer, evidence about trastuzumab value differed by age. Trastuzumab was cost-effective only in women with HER2-positive breast cancer younger than 65 years and over a life-time horizon. The cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer yielded conflicting results. The same conclusions were reached in comparisons between vinorelbine and taxanes. In both early stage and advanced/metastatic breast cancer, newer aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have proved cost-effective compared to older treatments. This overview of systematic reviews shows that there is heterogeneity in the evidence concerning the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer. The cost-effectiveness of these treatments depends not only on the comparators but the context, i.e., adjuvant or metastatic setting, subtype of patient population, and perspective adopted. Decisions involving the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments could be made easier and more transparent by better harmonizing the reporting of economic evaluations assessing the value of these treatments.

Keywords

Breast cancer Hormone therapy Chemotherapy Targeted therapy Economic evaluation Cost-effectiveness Systematic review 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Julian Renaine, data research librarian at Florida State University, for his help in accessing some databases as part of our literature search. Janet P. Barber, Ph.D., helped edit the final version of the paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    National Cancer Institute. (2014) Cancer topics: Breast cancer. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/breast. Accessed 5 Jan 2015. 2015:1–1
  2. 2.
    Benson JR, Jatoi I (2012) The global breast cancer burden. Future Oncol 8:697–702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sullivan R, Peppercorn J, Sikora K et al (2011) Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol 12:933–980CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arash R, Barfar E, Hosseini H et al (2013) Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening using mammography; a systematic review. Iran J Public Health 42:347–357Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zelle SG, Baltussen RM (2013) Economic analyses of breast cancer control in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Syst Rev 2:20CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mandelblatt J, Saha S, Teutsch S et al (2003) The cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond Age 65 years a systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 139:835–842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Okonkwo QL, Draisma G, der Kinderen A et al (2008) Breast cancer screening policies in developing countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis for India. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:1290–1300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Younis T, Skedgel C (2008) Is trastuzumab a cost-effective treatment for breast cancer? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 8(5):433–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Becker LA, Oxman AD (2008) Overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JP (ed) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley, Chichester, pp 607–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM et al (2011) Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:15CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2011) Grey matters: a practical search tool for evidence-based medicine. Information Services, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA et al (2009) AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1013–1020CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gerard K, Seymour J, Smoker I (2000) A tool to improve quality of reporting published economic analyses. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16:100–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferrusi IL, Leighl NB, Kulin NA et al (2011) Do economic evaluations of targeted therapy provide support for decision makers? Am J Manag Care 17(Suppl 5 Developing):SP61–SP70PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parkinson B, Pearson SA, Viney R (2014) Economic evaluations of trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and critique. Eur J Health Econ 15:93–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis R, Bagnall AM, King S et al (2002) The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vinorelbine for breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 6:1–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    John-Baptiste AA, Wu W, Rochon P et al (2013) A systematic review and methodological evaluation of published cost-effectiveness analyses of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early stage breast cancer. PLoS One 8:e62614CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chan AL, Leung HW, Lu CL et al (2009) Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer: a systematic review. Ann Pharmacother 43:296–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frederix GW, Severens JL, Hovels AM et al (2012) Reviewing the cost-effectiveness of endocrine early breast cancer therapies: influence of differences in modeling methods on outcomes. Value Health 15:94–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Foster TS, Miller JD, Boye ME et al (2011) The economic burden of metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of literature from developed countries. Cancer Treat Rev 37:405–415PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benedict A, Brown RE (2005) Review of cost-effectiveness analyses in hormonal therapies in advanced breast cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother 6:1789–1801CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blank PR, Dedes KJ, Szucs TD (2010) Cost effectiveness of cytotoxic and targeted therapy for metastatic breast cancer: a critical and systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics 28:629–647CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Norum J (2006) The cost-effectiveness issue of adjuvant trastuzumab in early breast cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother 7:1617–1625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vakaramoko Diaby
    • 1
  • Rima Tawk
    • 2
  • Vassiki Sanogo
    • 3
    • 4
  • Hong Xiao
    • 5
  • Alberto J. Montero
    • 6
  1. 1.Division of Economic, Social and Administrative Pharmacy College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesFlorida A&M UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Public Health, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesFlorida A&M UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.Unité de Formation et de Recherche (UFR) Sciences Economiques et DéveloppementUniversité Alassane OuattaraBouakéCôte d’Ivoire
  4. 4.Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis (CEFA)Florida State University (FSU)TallahasseeUSA
  5. 5.College of PharmacyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  6. 6.Taussig Cancer Center Department of Solid Tumor OncologyClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations