Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Cost–effectiveness analysis of adjuvant therapy for node positive breast cancer in Korea: docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC)

  • Clinical Trial
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background This study evaluated the incremental cost–effectiveness (ICER) and cost–utility ratios (ICUR) of TAC compared with FAC following primary surgery for node positive breast cancer patients in Korea. Materials and methods A cost–effectiveness analysis was performed using the Markov model from the combined view of Korean National Health Insurance and patients. The model allowed assessment from the beginning of the first cycle of adjuvant chemotherapy following primary surgery until death. Relevant clinical data were obtained from the clinical trial BCIRG 001 and data for local treatment patterns and direct medical costs were obtained from three Korean hospitals. Results Over a life time horizon, the life expectancy of TAC was 0.9 years longer than that of FAC. The ICER was 8,025,879 Korean won (KW, €6,573) per life year gained and the ICUR was 8,885,794 KW (€7,277) per QALY gained when the cost and effectiveness were discounted at 5%. The model was most sensitive to the percent patient receiving prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) in TAC arm and the ICUR was 12,119,561 KW (€9,926) when assuming 100%. Conclusions TAC appears to be cost–effective in the management of early breast cancer in Korea.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brinton L, Lacey J, Devesa SS (2002) Epidemiology of breast cancer. In: Donegan WL, Spratt JS (eds) Cancer of the breast, 5th edn. Saunders, St. Louis, MO, pp 111–132

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kruijshaar ME, Barendregt JJ, European disability weights group (2004) The breast cancer related burden of morbidity and mortality in six European countries. Eur J Public Health 14:141–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barron JJ, Quimbo R, Nikam PT, Amonkar MM (2007) Assessing the economic burden of breast cancer in a US managed care population. Breast Cancer Res Treat Aug 3 (Epub ahead of print)

  4. Radice D, Redaelli A (2003) Breast cancer management: quality of life and cost considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 21(6):383–396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Korea National Statistical Office (2004) Annual report on the cause of death statistics. Korea National Statistical Office, Seoul

    Google Scholar 

  6. Trudeau M, Charbonneau F, Gelmon K et al (2005) Selection of adjuvant chemotherapy for treatment of node-positive breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 6:886–898

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD et al (2003) Meeting highlights: updated international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:3357–3365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Martin M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J et al (2005) Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 352:2302–2313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR (1993) Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 13:322–338

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kimura M, Yanagita Y, Fujisawa T et al (2007) Study of time-course changes in annual recurrence rates for breast cancer: data analysis of 2,209 patients for 10 years post-surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 106:407–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Saphner T, Tormey DC, Gray R (1996) Annual hazard rates of recurrence for breast cancer after primary therapy. J Clin Oncol 14:2738–2746

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Demicheli R, Miceli R, Brambilla C et al (1999) Comparative analysis of breast cancer recurrence risk for patients receiving or not receiving adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil (CMF). Breast Cancer Res Treat 53:209–215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bureau of health information and policy, Division of public health, Wisconsin department of health and family services (1999) Wisconsin cancer incidence and mortality. www.dhfs.state.wi.us/wcrs. Accessed 10 Jan 2005

  14. Korean National Health Insurance Corporation (2005) National health insurance fee schedule. Korean National Health Insurance Corporation, Seoul

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lee JH, Glick HA, Hayman JA, Solin LJ (2002) Decision analytic model and cost-effectiveness evaluation of postmastectomy radiation therapy in high-risk premenopausal breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 20:2713–2725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Au HJ, Golmohammadi K, Chia S et al (2005) Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for node + breast cancer: modeling the downstream effects of adjuvant TAC vs. FAC: docetaxel (T), adriamycin (A), cyclophosphamide (C) compared to 5-fluorouracil (F) A C. Breast Cancer Res Treat 94(S1):S218 abstr 5038

    Google Scholar 

  17. Younis T, Rayson D, Sellon M et al (2007) Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a cost-utility analysis of FEC-D vs. FEC 100. Breast Cancer Res Treat Oct 5. (Epub ahead of print)

  18. Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM (2003) What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med 163(14):1637–1641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A (2001) Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidende from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics 19:1103–1109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Devlin N, Parkin D (2004) Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decision? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 13:437–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Keeler E (1995) Decision trees and Markov models in cost-effectiveness research. In: Sloan F (ed) Valuing health care. Cambridge University Press, St. Louis, MO, pp 185–205

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kievit W, Bolster MJ, van der Wilt GJ et al (2005) Cost-effectiveness of new guidelines for adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with primary breast cancer. Ann Oncol 16:1874–1881

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a grant from sanofi-aventis Korea. Part of this study was presented as a poster at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 2nd Asia-Pacific conference 2006. The authors thank two anonymous referees for helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sang Gyu Lee.

Additional information

An invited commentary to this article can be found at doi:10.1007/s10549-008-0142-y.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, S.G., Jee, Y.G., Chung, H.C. et al. Cost–effectiveness analysis of adjuvant therapy for node positive breast cancer in Korea: docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC). Breast Cancer Res Treat 114, 589–595 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0035-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0035-0

Keywords

Navigation