Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 160, Issue 1, pp 187–196 | Cite as

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 1st through 3rd line sequential targeted therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the United States

  • Vakaramoko Diaby
  • Georges Adunlin
  • Askal A. Ali
  • Simon B. Zeichner
  • Gilberto de Lima Lopes
  • Christine G. Kohn
  • Alberto J. Montero
Brief Report

Abstract

Purpose

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.

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

cost-effectiveness analysis breast cancer Markov HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer Trastuzumab sequential therapy pertuzumab lapatinib T-DM1 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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

Funding

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.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10549_2016_3978_MOESM1_ESM.docx (97 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 97 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Arteaga CL, Sliwkowski MX, Osborne CK et al (2012) Treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer: current status and future perspectives. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 9:16–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    John M, Hinke A, Stauch M et al (2012) Weekly paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in metastatic breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines–a phase II multipractice study. BMC Cancer 12:165CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giordano SH, Temin S, Kirshner JJ et al (2014) Systemic therapy for patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 32:2078–2099CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cameron D, Casey M, Oliva C et al (2010) Lapatinib plus capecitabine in women with HER-2-positive advanced breast cancer: final survival analysis of a phase III randomized trial. Oncologist 15:924–934CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S et al (2001) Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med 344:783–792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 7.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2015) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer. Version 3.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Swain SM, Kim S, Cortés J et al (2013) Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (CLEOPATRA study): overall survival results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 14:461–471CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Verma S, Miles D, Gianni L et al (2012) Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 367:1783–1791CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blackwell KL, Burstein HJ, Storniolo AM et al (2010) Randomized study of Lapatinib alone or in combination with trastuzumab in women with ErbB2-positive, trastuzumab-refractory metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:1124–1130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    von Minckwitz G, du Bois A, Schmidt M et al (2009) Trastuzumab beyond progression in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer: a german breast group 26/breast international group 03-05 study. J Clin Oncol 27:1999–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sorensen SV, Goh JW, Pan F et al (2012) Incidence-based cost-of-illness model for metastatic breast cancer in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 28:12–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL et al (2010) Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS et al (1992) How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 146:473–481PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC (2014) Updating cost-effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med 371:796–797CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winkelmayer WC, Weinstein MC, Mittleman MA et al (2002) Health economic evaluations: the special case of end-stage renal disease treatment. Med Decis Making 22:417–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee CP, Chertow GM, Zenios SA (2009) An empiric estimate of the value of life: updating the renal dialysis cost-effectiveness standard. Value in Health 12:80–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Geyer CE, Forster J, Lindquist D et al (2006) Lapatinib plus capecitabine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 355:2733–2743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Diaby V, Ali AA, Adunlin G et al (2016) Parameterization of a disease progression simulation model for sequentially treated metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive breast cancer patients. Curr Med Res Opin 32(6):991–996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 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
  24. 24.
    Schilling MB, Parks C, Deeter RG (2011) Costs and outcomes associated with hospitalized cancer patients with neutropenic complications: a retrospective study. Exp Ther Med 2:859–866PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Niraula S, Amir E, Vera-Badillo F et al (2014) Risk of incremental toxicities and associated costs of new anticancer drugs: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 32:3634–3642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garrison LP, Lubeck D, Lalla D et al (2007) Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting for treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer 110:489–498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 28.
    Lloyd A, Nafees B, Narewska J et al (2006) Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer 95:683–690CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Attard C, Brown S, Alloul K et al (2014) Cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol 21:e41CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nafees B, Stafford M, Gavriel S et al (2008) Health state utilities for non small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 6:84CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Doyle S, Lloyd A, Walker M (2008) Health state utility scores in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 62:374–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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
  33. 33.
    Gold M (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K (2006) Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 36.
    Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC (2010) Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information. N Engl J Med 363:1495–1497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ et al (2012) Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-7. Med Decis Making 32:733–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vakaramoko Diaby
    • 1
  • Georges Adunlin
    • 2
  • Askal A. Ali
    • 1
  • Simon B. Zeichner
    • 3
  • Gilberto de Lima Lopes
    • 4
  • Christine G. Kohn
    • 5
  • Alberto J. Montero
    • 6
  1. 1.Economic, Social & Administrative Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesFlorida A&M UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Behavior and PolicyVirginia Commonwealth University School of MedicineRichmondUSA
  3. 3.Winship Cancer Institute at Emory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.Oncoclinicas GroupSão PauloBrazil
  5. 5.Health Economics and Outcomes ResearchUniversity of Saint Joseph School of Pharmacy, UConn/Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice CenterHartfordUSA
  6. 6.Department of Solid Tumor Oncology, Cleveland ClinicTaussig Cancer InstituteClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations