Advertisement

Cost-effectiveness analysis of palbociclib or ribociclib in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer

  • Bingnan ZhangEmail author
  • Elisa F. Long
Brief Report

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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).

Results

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%.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Cost-effective analysis Palbociclib Ribociclib Letrozole Advanced breast cancer Hormone receptor positive 

Notes

Funding

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.

Supplementary material

10549_2019_5190_MOESM1_ESM.docx (111 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 111 KB)

References

  1. 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. 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
  3. 3.
    Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA et al (2016) Ribociclib as first-line therapy for HR-positive, advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 375(18):1738–1748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    Delea TE, Hawkes C, Amonkar MM, Lykopoulos K, Johnston SR (2013) Cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole in post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Breast Care (Basel) 8(6):429–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lloyd A, Nafees B, Narewska J, Dewilde S, Watkins J (2006) Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer 95(6):683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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(1):12–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Tengs TO, Wallace A (2000) One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 38(6):583–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xie J, Hao Y, Zhou ZY, Qi CZ, De G, Gluck 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–e276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mamiya H, Tahara RK, Tolaney SM, Choudhry NK, Najafzadeh M (2017) Cost-effectiveness of palbociclib in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 28(8):1825–1831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 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
  14. 14.
    Patnaik A, Rosen LS, Tolaney SM et al (2016) Efficacy and safety of abemaciclib, an inhibitor of CDK4 and CDK6, for patients with breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and other solid tumors. Cancer Discov 6(7):740–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mariotto AB, Etzioni R, Hurlbert M, Penberthy L, Mayer M (2017) Estimation of the number of women living with metastatic breast cancer in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 26(6):809–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of California, Los AngelesSanta MonicaUSA
  2. 2.Anderson School of ManagementUniversity of California, Los AngelesSanta MonicaUSA

Personalised recommendations