An updated systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of therapies for metastatic breast cancer
The goal of this systematic review is to provide an update to the review by Pouwels et al. by conducting a systematic review and an assessment of the reporting quality of the economic analyses conducted since 2014.
This systematic review identified published articles focused on metastatic breast cancer treatment using the Medline/PubMed and Scopus databases and the following search criteria: (((cost effectiveness[MeSH Terms]) OR (cost effectiveness) OR (cost-effectiveness) OR (cost utility) OR (cost–utility) OR (economic evaluation)) AND ((“metastatic breast cancer”) OR (“advanced breast cancer”))). The reporting quality of the included articles was evaluated using the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.
Of the 256 identified articles, 67 of the articles were published after October 2014 when the prior systematic review stopped its assessment (Pouwels et al. in Breast Cancer Res Treat 165:485–498, 2017). From the 67 articles, we narrowed down to include 17 original health economic analyses specific to metastatic or advanced breast cancer. These articles were diverse with respect to methods employed and interventions included.
Although each of the articles contributed their own analytic strengths and limitations, the overall quality of the studies was moderate. The review demonstrated that the vast majority of the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeded the typically employed willingness to pay thresholds used in each country of analysis. Only three of the reviewed articles studied chemotherapies rather than treatments targeting either HER2 or hormone receptors, demonstrating a gap in the literature.
KeywordsSystematic review Metastatic breast cancer Cost-effectiveness
This work was supported, in part, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute Special Interest Project entitled “Economic Burden of Metastatic Breast Cancer across the Life Course” (3-U48-DP005017-04S4, PIs: Trogdon and Wheeler) and by the Cancer Information and Population Health Resource, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, with funding provided by the University Cancer Research Fund via the state of North Carolina.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
AG held an internship position with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for work external to this study. JT received research funding to his institution from Merck, Inc. for another project. SW receives grant funding to their institution from Pfizer. JR, CB, KRH, and KM do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose.
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
Human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 1.Most Common Statistics Cited for MBC. Metastatic breast cancer network. http://www.mbcn.org/most-common-statistics-cited-for-mbc/
- 2.Tumor Characteristics. Susan G, Komen. http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/TumorCharacteristics.html. Published 2016
- 3.NCCN. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) breast cancer. Version 12016. 2016Google Scholar
- 4.NCCN. NCCN Guidelines® for patients metastatic breast cancer. 2018Google Scholar
- 7.Siegel JE (2005) Cost-effectiveness analysis in US healthcare decision-making: where is it going? Med Care 43(7):II1–II4. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3768423
- 10.Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 17.Diaby V, Ali AA, Williams KJ et al. Economic evaluation of sequencing strategies in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in Mexico: a contrast between public and private payer perspectives. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017:1–13Google Scholar
- 23.Leung HWC, Chan ALF, Muo C-H, Leung JH. Cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab combined with trastuzumab and docetaxel as a first-line treatment for HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2017:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1386559
- 26.Matter-Walstra K, Ruhstaller T, Klingbiel D, Schwenkglenks M, Dedes KJ (2016) Palbociclib as a first-line treatment in oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer not cost-effective with current pricing: a health economic analysis of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK). Breast Cancer Res Treat 158(1):51–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3822-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Squires H, Stevenson M, Simpson E, Harvey R, Stevens J (2016) Trastuzumab emtansine for treating HER2-positive, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer after treatment with trastuzumab and a taxane: an evidence review group perspective of a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics 34(7):673–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0386-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Xie J, Hao Y, Zhou Z-Y, Qi CZ, De G, Glück S (2015) Economic evaluations of everolimus versus other hormonal therapies in the treatment of HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer from a US payer perspective. Clin Breast Cancer 15(5):e263–e276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2015.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S et al (2013) Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)-explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Heal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002 Google Scholar
- 35.Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 38.Naidoo S, Friedman ML, Paly VF, Hansen R, Sidhu MK, Smith I (2017) Targeted literature review of advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer burden of illness. In: ISPOR 22nd annual international meeting, BostonGoogle Scholar