Cost-effectiveness analysis of palbociclib or ribociclib in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer
Three CDK4/6 inhibitors, palbociclib (PAL), ribociclib (RIB), and abemaciclib, when combined with letrozole (LET), have been approved as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic HR+, HER2− breast cancer. However, an economic evaluation of these newer therapies is currently lacking. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PAL or RIB for the treatment of advanced HR+, HER2− breast cancer in the United States.
A Markov simulation model was constructed using data from published clinical trials evaluating PAL and RIB. Three simulated treatment strategies included PAL + LET, RIB + LET, or LET alone. The main outcome measures were simulated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
Simulated median OS was 38.9 months for PAL + LET and 33.0 months for LET alone. Simulated median OS for RIB + LET was 43.3 months. Compared to LET alone, PAL + LET provided an additional 0.48 QALYs, on average, with an ICER of $634,000 per QALY gained; RIB + LET provided an additional 0.86 QALYs, on average, with an ICER of $440,000 per QALY gained. At current prices, neither PAL nor RIB was cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. To reach such a cost-effectiveness threshold, PAL and RIB prices must decrease by approximately 70%.
Despite significant gains in progression-free survival over letrozole alone, the addition of palbociclib or ribociclib in the treatment of advanced HR+, HER2− breast cancer is not cost-effective in the United States given current drug prices.
KeywordsCost-effective analysis Palbociclib Ribociclib Letrozole Advanced breast cancer Hormone receptor positive
This study was not supported by any pharmaceutical company.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Finn RS, Crown JP, Lang I et al (2015) The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone as first-line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1/TRIO-18): a randomised phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 16(1):25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Finn RS, Crown J, Lang I et al (2017) Overall survival results from the randomized phase II study of palbociclib (P) in combination with letrozole (L) vs letrozole alone for frontline treatment of ER+/HER2– advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1; TRIO-18). J Clin Oncol 35(15_suppl):1001–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA et al (2018) Updated results from MONALEESA-2, a phase III trial of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 29:1541–1547Google Scholar
- 8.Stokes ME, Muehlenbein CE, Marciniak MD et al (2009) Neutropenia-related costs in patients treated with first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Manag Care Pharm 15(8):669–682Google Scholar
- 12.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):51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Mistry R, May JR, Suri G et al (2018) Cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole and letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2− advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a U.S. payer perspective. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 24(6):514–523Google Scholar