PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 32, Issue 7, pp 707–724

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Docetaxel Versus Weekly Paclitaxel in Adjuvant Treatment of Regional Breast Cancer in New Zealand

  • Rachel Webber-Foster
  • Giorgi Kvizhinadze
  • Gareth Rivalland
  • Tony Blakely
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

There have been recent important changes to adjuvant regimens and costs of taxanes for the treatment of early breast cancer, requiring a re-evaluation of comparative cost effectiveness. In particular, weekly paclitaxel is now commonly used but has not been subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis.

Aim

Our aim was to estimate the cost effectiveness of adjuvant docetaxel and weekly paclitaxel versus each other, and compared with standard 3-weekly paclitaxel, in women aged ≥25 years diagnosed with regional breast cancer in New Zealand.

Methods

A macrosimulation Markov model was used, with a lifetime horizon and health system perspective. The model compared 3-weekly docetaxel and weekly paclitaxel versus standard 3-weekly paclitaxel (E1199 regimen) in the hospital setting. Data on overall survival and toxicities (febrile neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy) were derived from relevant published clinical trials. Epidemiological and cost data were derived from New Zealand datasets. Health outcomes were measured with health-adjusted life-years (HALYs), similar to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs included intervention and health system costs in year 2011 values, with 3 % per annum discounting on costs and HALYs.

Results

The mean HALY gain per patient compared with standard 3-weekly paclitaxel was 0.51 with weekly paclitaxel and 0.21 with docetaxel, while incremental costs were $NZ12,284 and $NZ4,021, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of docetaxel versus 3-weekly paclitaxel was $NZ19,400 (purchasing power parity [PPP]-adjusted $US13,100) per HALY gained, and the ICER of weekly paclitaxel versus docetaxel was $NZ27,100 ($US18,300) per HALY gained. In terms of net monetary benefit, weekly paclitaxel was the optimal strategy for willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds >$NZ27,000 per HALY gained. However, the model was highly sensitive to uncertainty around survival differences, while toxicity-related morbidity had little impact. Thus, if it was assumed that weekly paclitaxel and docetaxel had the same efficacy, docetaxel would be favoured over weekly paclitaxel.

Conclusion

Both weekly paclitaxel and docetaxel are likely to be cost effective compared with standard 3-weekly paclitaxel. Weekly paclitaxel was the optimal choice for WTP thresholds greater than $NZ27,000 per HALY gained (PPP-adjusted $US18,000). However, uncertainty remains around relative survival benefits, and weekly paclitaxel becomes cost ineffective versus docetaxel if it is assumed that the two regimens have equal effectiveness. Reduced uncertainty about the relative survival benefits may improve decision making for funding.

Supplementary material

40273_2014_154_MOESM1_ESM.docx (62 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 62 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ministry of Health. Cancer: new registrations and deaths 2010. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1687–717. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66544-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Management of breast cancer in women: a national clinical guideline. Edinburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    New Zealand Guidelines Group. Management of early breast cancer: evidence-based best practice guideline. Wellington; 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferguson T, Wilcken N, Vagg R, Ghersi D, Nowak AK. Taxanes for adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (4):CD004421. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004421.pub2.
  6. 6.
    Breast Cancer Disease Site Group. Adjuvant taxane therapy for women with early-stage, invasive breast cancer. Program in Evidence-based Care Evidence-Based Series No. 1–7 Version 2. Toronto (ON): Cancer Care Ontario; 2011.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre. Recommendations for use of taxane-containing chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of early (operable) breast cancer: clinical practice guideline. Sydney (NSW): Cancer Australia; 2008.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2009.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    PHARMAC. Proposal to widen access to docetaxel: consultation letter. Wellington: PHARMAC; 2011.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolowacz SE, Cameron DA, Tate HC, Bagust A. Docetaxel in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant treatment for early node-positive breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(6):925–33. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.10.4190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Au HJ, Golmohammadi K, Younis T, Verma S, Chia S, Fassbender K, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) for node-positive breast cancer: modeling the downstream effects. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114(3):579–87. doi:10.1007/s10549-008-0034-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marino P, Siani C, Roche H, Protiere C, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer patients: results of the PACS 01 economic study. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(7):1448–54. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdp561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Younis T, Rayson D, Sellon M, Skedgel C. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a cost-utility analysis of FEC-D vs. FEC 100. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;111(2):261–7. doi:10.1007/s10549-007-9770-x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Younis T, Rayson D, Skedgel C. The cost-utility of adjuvant chemotherapy using docetaxel and cyclophosphamide compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer. Curr Oncol. 2011;18(6):e288–96.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin-Jimenez M, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Ruiz-Borrego M, Segui-Palmer MA, Brosa-Riestra M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of docetaxel (Taxotere) vs. 5-fluorouracil in combined therapy in the initial phases of breast cancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 2009;11(1):41–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ward S, Simpson E, Davis S, Hind D, Rees A, Wilkinson A. Taxanes for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(40):1–144.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Limwattananon S, Limwattananon C, Maoleekulpairoj S, Soparatanapaisal N. Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential paclitaxel adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with node positive primary breast cancer. J Med Assoc Thail. 2006;89(5):690–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, Jones V, Perez EA, Saphner T, et al. Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(16):1663–71. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0707056.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    PHARMAC. New Zealand pharmaceutical schedule, vol. 18, no. 1. PHARMAC; Wellington; 2011.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    PHARMAC. New Zealand pharmaceutical schedule: vol. 18 , no. 2. PHARMAC; Wellington; 2011.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    PHARMAC. New Zealand pharmaceutical schedule: section H for hospital pharmaceuticals. PHARMAC; Wellington; 2011.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Laurentiis M, Cancello G, D’Agostino D, Giuliano M, Giordano A, Montagna E, et al. Taxane-based combinations as adjuvant chemotherapy of early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(1):44–53. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.11.3787.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qin Y-Y, Li H, Guo X-J, Ye X-F, Wei X, Zhou Y-H, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without taxanes, in early or operable breast cancer: a meta-analysis of 19 randomized trials with 30698 patients. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e26946.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bria E, Nistico C, Cuppone F, Carlini P, Ciccarese M, Milella M, et al. Benefit of taxanes as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: pooled analysis of 15,500 patients. Cancer. 2006;106(11):2337–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Giménez Poderós T, Gaminde Inda I, Iruin Sanz A, Napal Lecumberri V. Taxanos en el tratamiento adyuvante del cáncer de mama con ganglios positivos: metanálisis [Taxanes in the adjuvant therapy of breastcancer with positive nodes: a meta-analysis]. Farm Hosp. 2005;29:75–85.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blakely T, Foster R, Wilson N, Bode3 Team. Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness (BODE3) Study Protocol. Version 2.0. Wellington: Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington; 2012.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Salmond C, Crampton P, Atkinson J. NZDep2006 index of deprivation. Wellington: Department of Public Health, University of Otago; 2007.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH. Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Cancer. 2006;106(10):2258–66. doi:10.1002/cncr.21847.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Costilla R, Atkinson J, Blakely T. Incorporating ethnic and deprivation variation to cancer incidence estimates over 2006–2026 for the ABC-CBA model. Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Programme—Technical Report No. 5. Wellington: Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington; 2011.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Blakely T, Costilla R, Soeberg M. Cancer excess mortality rates over 2006–2026 for ABC-CBA. Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness programme, Technical Report No. 10. Wellington: Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington; 2012.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kvizhinadze G, Blakely T. Projected New Zealand lifetables. Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Programme (BODE3). Technical Report: No. 4. Wellington: Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington; 2011.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roche H, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M, Canon JL, Delozier T, Serin D, et al. Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(36):5664–71. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.07.3916.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Martin M, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Ruiz A, Alba E, Calvo L, Ruiz-Borrego M, et al. Randomized phase 3 trial of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide alone or followed by Paclitaxel for early breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(11):805–14. doi:10.1093/jnci/djn151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Salomon JA, Vos T, Hogan DR, Gagnon M, Naghavi M, Mokdad A, et al. Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2129–43. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61680-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Eiermann W, Pienkowski T, Crown J, Sadeghi S, Martin M, Chan A, et al. Phase III study of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide with concomitant versus sequential docetaxel as adjuvant treatment in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-normal, node-positive breast cancer: BCIRG-005 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(29):3877–84. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.28.5437.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ellis P, Barrett-Lee P, Johnson L, Cameron D, Wardley A, O’Reilly S, et al. Sequential docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (TACT): an open-label, phase III, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9676):1681–92. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60740-6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Hudis C, Winer EP, Gradishar WJ, et al. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(8):1431–9. doi:10.1200/JCO.2003.09.081.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Loesch D, Greco FA, Senzer NN, Burris HA, Hainsworth JD, Jones S, et al. Phase III multicenter trial of doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel compared with doxorubicin plus paclitaxel followed by weekly paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for women with high-risk breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(18):2958–65. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.24.1000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Henderson IC, Berry DA, Demetri GD, Cirrincione CT, Goldstein LJ, Martino S, et al. Improved outcomes from adding sequential paclitaxel but not from escalating doxorubicin dose in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(6):976–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Perez EA, Suman VJ, Davidson NE, Gralow JR, Kaufman PA, Visscher DW, et al. Sequential versus concurrent trastuzumab in adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(34):4491–7. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.36.7045.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Madarnas Y, Dent SF, Husain SF, Robinson A, Alkhayyat S, Hopman WM, et al. Real-world experience with adjuvant fec-d chemotherapy in four Ontario regional cancer centres. Curr Oncol. 2011;18(3):119–25.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hershman DL, Weimer LH, Wang A, Kranwinkel G, Brafman L, Fuentes D, et al. Association between patient reported outcomes and quantitative sensory tests for measuring long-term neurotoxicity in breast cancer survivors treated with adjuvant paclitaxel chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;125(3):767–74. doi:10.1007/s10549-010-1278-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pharmaco (NZ) Limited. Data sheet: paclitaxel ebewe injection concentrate. Auckland; 2011.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Swain SM, Arezzo JC. Neuropathy associated with microtubule inhibitors: diagnosis, incidence, and management. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2008;6(6):455–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Argyriou AA, Koltzenburg M, Polychronopoulos P, Papapetropoulos S, Kalofonos HP. Peripheral nerve damage associated with administration of taxanes in patients with cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2008;66(3):218–28. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2008.01.008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Foster R, Blakely T, Wilson N, O’Dea D. Protocol for direct costing of health sector interventions for economic modelling (including event pathways). Wellington: Department of Public Health, University of Otago; 2012.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    van Baal PH, Feenstra TL, Polder JJ, Hoogenveen RT, Brouwer WB. Economic evaluation and the postponement of health care costs. Health Econ. 2011;20(4):432–45. doi:10.1002/hec.1599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Statistics New Zealand. Gross domestic product. 2013. http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/GDP/GrossDomesticProduct_HOTPDec12qtr/Tables.aspx. Accessed 17 May 2013.
  49. 49.
    World Health Organization. CHOosing Interventions that are Cost Effective (WHO-CHOICE): cost-effectiveness thresholds. 2013. http://www.who.int/choice/costs/CER_thresholds/en/. Accessed 17 May 2013.
  50. 50.
    Lyman GH, Dale DC, Crawford J. Incidence and predictors of low dose-intensity in adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy: a nationwide study of community practices. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(24):4524–31. doi:10.1200/JCO.2003.05.002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Moliterni A, Zambetti M, Brambilla C. Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer: the results of 20 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med. 1995;332(14):901–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM199504063321401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wood WC, Budman DR, Korzun AH, Cooper MR, Younger J, Hart RD, et al. Dose and dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II, node-positive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(18):1253–9. doi:10.1056/NEJM199405053301801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA, Dal Lago L, Donnelly JP, Kearney N et al. 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(1):8–32. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.10.013.
  54. 54.
    Begg SJ, Vos T, Barker B, Stanley L, Lopez AD. Burden of disease and injury in Australia in the new millennium: measuring health loss from diseases, injuries and risk factors. Med J Aust. 2008;188(1):36–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ministry of Health. The price of cancer: the public price of registered cancer in New Zealand. Wellington: University of Otago; 2011.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ministry of Health, District Health Boards New Zealand. Purchase Unit Data Dictionary (PU DD) 2011/2012; 2011.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ministry of Health. Guide to the National Travel Assistance (NTA) Policy 2005: August 2009. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2009.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    The National Pricing Programme Casemix Cost Weights Project Group. New Zealand casemix framework for publicly funded hospitals (including WIESNZ11 methodology and casemix purchase unit allocation) for the 20011/12 financial year: specification for implementation on NMDS. Wellington: District Health Boards New Zealand, Ministry of Health; 2011.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ministry of Health. WIESNZ11 cost weights. Ministry of Health, Wellington. 2011. http://www.health.govt.nz/nz-health-statistics/data-references/weighted-inlier-equivalent-separations/wiesnz11-cost-weights. Accessed 7 March 2013.
  60. 60.
    Dooley MJ, Singh S, Michael M. Implications of dose rounding of chemotherapy to the nearest vial size. Support Care Cancer. 2004;12(9):653–6. doi:10.1007/s00520-004-0606-5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sacco JJ, Botten J, Macbeth F, Bagust A, Clark P. The average body surface area of adult cancer patients in the UK: a multicentre retrospective study. PLoS One. 2010;5(1):e8933. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008933.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel Webber-Foster
    • 1
  • Giorgi Kvizhinadze
    • 1
  • Gareth Rivalland
    • 2
  • Tony Blakely
    • 1
  1. 1.Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness (BODE3) ProgrammeUniversity of Otago-WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of OncologyAuckland City HospitalAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations