Cost-effectiveness analysis of 1st through 3rd line sequential targeted therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the United States
- 940 Downloads
Based on available phase III trial data, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different treatment strategies that can be used in patients with newly diagnosed HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC).
Patients and methods
We constructed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of four different HER2 targeted treatment sequences in patients with HER2-positive mBC treated in the U.S. The model followed patients weekly over their remaining life expectancies. Health states considered were progression-free survival (PFS) 1st to 3rd lines, and death. Transitional probabilities were based on published phase III trials. Cost data (2015 US dollars) were captured from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) drug payment table and physician fee schedule. Health utility data were extracted from published studies. The outcomes considered were PFS, OS, costs, QALYs, the incremental cost per QALY gained ratio, and the net monetary benefit. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the uncertainty around key model parameters and their joint impact on the base-case results.
The combination of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and docetaxel (THP) as first-line therapy, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) as second-line therapy, and lapatinib/capecitabine third-line resulted in 1.81 QALYs, at a cost of $335,231.35. The combination of trastuzumab/docetaxel as first line without subsequent T-DM1 or pertuzumab yielded 1.41 QALYs, at a cost of $175,240.69. The least clinically effective sequence (1.27 QALYs), but most cost-effective at a total cost of $149,250.19, was trastuzumab/docetaxel as first-line therapy, T-DM1 as second-line therapy, and trastuzumab/lapatinib as third-line therapy.
Our results suggest that THP as first-line therapy, followed by T-DM1 as second-line therapy, would require at least a 50 % reduction in the total drug acquisition cost for it to be considered a cost-effective strategy.
Keywordscost-effectiveness analysis breast cancer Markov HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer Trastuzumab sequential therapy pertuzumab lapatinib T-DM1
The authors would like to thank Andrew Munzer (Director of Training & Support, TreeAge) and Dr. Vassiki Sanogo (Senior researcher, Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis at Florida State University) for their technical assistance.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study was funded in part by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health under Award No. G12MD007582 (to V.D.), and by National Cancer Institute Grant No. 5R25CA093423-10 Virginia Commonwealth University/Massey Cancer Center (to G.A.).
Conflict of Interest
Vakaramoko Diaby declares that he has no conflict of interest. Georges Adunlin declares that he has no conflict of interest. Askal Ayalew Ali declares that she has no conflict of interest. Simon B. Zeichner declares that he has no conflict of interest. Gilberto de Lima Lopes declares that he has no conflict of interest. Christine G. Kohn declares that she has no conflict of interest. Alberto J. Montero declares that he has no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 6.Swain S, Kim S, Cortes J (2014) Final overall survival (OS) analysis from the CLEOPATRA study of first-line (1L) pertuzumab (Ptz), trastuzumab (T), and docetaxel (D) in patients (pts) with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). 350Google Scholar
- 7.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2015) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer. Version 3.Google Scholar
- 8.Durkee BY, Qian Y, Pollom EL et al (2015) Cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015(62):9105Google Scholar
- 14.Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL et al (2010) Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 20.Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJ et al (2012) Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol 12:9-2288-12-9Google Scholar
- 22.Medicare ASP Drug Pricing Files (2015). http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Part-BDrugs/McrPartBDrugAvgSalesPrice/2015ASPFiles.html. Accessed 22 Oct 2015
- 23.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2015) Physician fee schedule search. https://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-results.aspx?Y=1&T=0&HT=1&CT=0&H1=80053&H2=85025&M=5. Accessed 22 Sept 2015
- 27.Sharpe D (2011) Treatment-related toxicities add substantially to cost burden of treating cancer patients. http://www.obroncology.com/blog/2011/09/treatment-related-toxicities-add-substantially-to-cost-burden-oftreating-cancer-patients/. Accessed 20 Sept 2015
- 33.Gold M (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 34.Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K (2006) Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 35.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2015) Final appraisal determination. Trastuzumab emtansine for treating HER2- positive, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer after treatment with trastuzumab and a taxane. 2015Google Scholar