Advertisement

Clinical and Translational Oncology

, Volume 12, Issue 10, pp 692–700 | Cite as

Cost-effectiveness analyses of docetaxel versus paclitaxel once weekly in patients with metastatic breast cancer in progression following anthracycline chemotherapy, in Spain

  • Carmen Frías
  • Javier Cortés
  • Miguel Ángel Seguí
  • Itziar Oyagüez
  • Miguel Ángel Casado
Research Articles

Abstract

Objectives

Our aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel versus weekly paclitaxel regimen in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracycline from the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

Methods

A Markov model with a 21-day cycle duration was developed to estimate total treatment-related costs and clinical benefits over 5 years of docetaxel (100 mg/m2) and weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2). Patient data were obtained from the Randomized Phase III Study of Docetaxel Compared with Paclitaxel in Metastatic Breast Cancer (TAX-311) and Anglo-Celtic IV trials. Utilities were obtained from literature, and unitary costs (€2009) from a Spanish health-cost database and the Catalogue of Medicines. Cost and benefits [life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY)] were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Docetaxel yields higher health benefits (1.83 LYG; 1.08 QALY) than paclitaxel (1.46 LYG; 0.84 QALY). Global costs (treatment, concomitant medication, adverse events management, progression, best supportive care, and end of life phase) per patient were €20,052 and €9,982 with docetaxel and paclitaxel, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of docetaxel versus paclitaxel was €190/LYG and €295/QALY. Based on a €30,000/QALY threshold, docetaxel has 99% probability of being cost-effective. ICER was mostly sensitive to hazard ratio (HR) (when varied from 1.46 to 1.09; €3,517/ QALY), discount over the ex-lab price of Taxol® (75%; €6,396/QALY) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylactic treatment (when administered in 60% of cycles instead of 100%; cost saving). Variations in other inputs, such as time horizon (3–10 years), discount rate (0–5%), or adverse event cost (± 25%) were shown not to have relevant influence on the results.

Conclusion

Compared to weekly paclitaxel, docetaxel therapy is cost effective for treating metastatic breast cancer patients.

Keywords

Metastatic breast cancer Docetaxel Paclitaxel Cost-effectiveness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo (2005) La situación del cáncer en España. Available at http://www.msc.es/ciudadanos/enfLesiones/enf-NoTransmisibles/docs/situacionCancer.pdf
  2. 2.
    Izquierdo A, Gispert R, Saladie F, Espinàs JA (2008) Análisis de la incidencia, la supervivencia y la mortalidad segÚn las principales localizaciones tumorales, 1985–2019: cáncer de mama. Med Clin (Barc) 131(Suppl 1):50–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martín M, Mahillo E, Llombart-Cussac A et al (2006) The “El Alamo” project (1990–1997): two consecutive hospital-based studies of breast cancer outcomes in Spain. Clin Transl Oncol 8:508–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Remák E, Brazil L (2004) Cost of managing women presenting with stage IV breast cancer in the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer 91:77–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grupo Español para el Desarrollo de la Farmacia Oncológica (GEDEFO) (2008) Estudio transversal del tratamiento del cáncer de mama en España. Farm Hosp 32:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conte P, Salvadori B, Donati S et al (2001) Gemcitabine, epirubicin, and paclitaxel combinations in advanced breast cancer. Semin Oncol 28(2 Suppl. 7):15–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’shaughnessy J (2005) Extending survival with chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist 10(Suppl 3):20–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Estevez LG, Tusquets I, Muñoz M et al (2007) Advanced breast cancer: chemotherapy phase III trials that change a standard. Anticancer Drugs 18:843–859CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Higgins MJ, Wolff AC (2008) Therapeutic options in the management of metastatic breast cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 22:614–623Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghersi D, Wilcken N, Simes J, Donoghue E (2005) Taxane containing regimens for metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Apr 18;2:CD003366Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lyseng-Williamson KA, Fenton C (2005) Docetaxel: a review of its use in metastatic breast cancer. Drugs 65:2513–2531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Figgitt DP, Wiseman LR (2000) Docetaxel. An update of its use in advanced breast cancer. Drugs 59:621–651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brown RE, Hutton J, Burrell A (2001) Cost-effectiveness of treatment options in advanced breast cancer in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 19:1091–1102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perez EA, Vogel CL, Irwin DH et al (2001) Multicenter phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:4216–4223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eniu A, Palmieri FM, Perez EA (2005) Weekly administration of docetaxel and paclitaxel in metastatic or advanced breast cancer. Oncologist 10:665–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S et al (2008) Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 358:1663–1671CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones SE (2008) Metastatic breast cancer: the treatment challenge. Clin Breast Cancer 8:224–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saloustros E, Mavroudis D, Georgoulias V (2008) Paclitaxel and docetaxel in the treatment of breast cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother 9:2603–2616CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilcken N, Dear R (2008) Chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: A summary of all randomised trials reported 2000–2007. Eur J Cancer 44:2218–2225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jones SE, Erban J, Overmoyer B, et al (2005) Randomized phase III study of docetaxel compared with paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:5542–5551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones SE, Benedict A, Cameron D, Jourdan S (2007) Cost-effectiveness of docetaxel compared to paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer: A UK health economic analysis. J Clin Oncol, 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition) 25, 18S (June 20 Supplement):1081Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vu T, Ellard S, Speers CH et al (2008) Survival outcome and cost-effectiveness with docetaxel and paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a population-based evaluation. Ann Oncol 19:461–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lwin Z. Leighl N (2009) Economic evaluation of docetaxel for breast cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother 10:283–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Benedict A, Cameron DA, Corson H, Jones SE (2009) An economic evaluation of docetaxel and paclitaxel regimens in metastatic breast cancer in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 27:847–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee E, Wang JW (2003) Statistical methods for survival data analysis, 3rd edn. Wiley Interscience, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Verrill MW, Lee J, Cameron DA for the Anglo-Celtic IV trial (2007) First results of a UK National Cancer Research Network randomised phase 3 pharmacogenetic trial of weekly versus 3 weekly Paclitaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (ABC) J Clin Oncol. ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I. 25:LBA1005Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    López Bastida J, Oliva J, Antoñanzas F et al (2008) Propuesta de guía para la evaluación económica aplicada a las tecnologías sanitarias. Madrid: Plan Nacional para el SNS del MSC. Servicio de Evaluación del Servicio Canario de la Salud; Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias: SESCS No 2006/22. Available at http://aunets.isciii.es/ficherosproductos/132/MemoriaFinal.pdf Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Briggs AH, Gray AM (1999) Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 3:1–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lloyd A, Nafees B, Narewska J (2006) Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer 95:683–690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    IMS Health. MIDAS, MAT. Dec 2009 [database]Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oblikue Consulting (2009). Base de datos sanitarios e-Salud Available at http://www.oblikue.com/bddcostes/.
  32. 32.
    Consejo General de Colegios de Farmacéuticos 2009 Catálogo de Medicamentos. Consejo Plus. Madrid. Available at http://www.portalfarma.com
  33. 33.
    Briggs A, Sculpher M (1998) An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 13:397–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rodriguez Barrios JM (2004) Papel de los modelos en las evaluaciones económicas en el campo sanitario. Farm Hosp 28:231–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance BJ et al (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhou XH, Melfi CA, Hui SL (1997) Methods for comparison of cost data. Ann Intern Med 127:752–756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Briggs A, Goeree R, Blackhouse G, O’Brien B (2001) Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: Choosing between treatment strategies for gastro-esophageal reflux disease. McMaster University Centre for Heatlh Economics and Policy Analysis Research Working Paper 01-01Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Briggs A (2005) Probabilistic analysis of costeffectiveness models: statistical representation of parameter uncertainty. Value Health 8:1–2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sacristán JA, Oliva J, Del Llano J, Prieto L, Pinto JL (2002) ¿Qué es una tecnología sanitaria eficiente en España? Gac San 16:334–343Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hutton J, Brown R, Borowitz M et al (1996) A new decision model for cost-utility comparisons of chemotherapy in recurrent metastatic breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 9:8–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Launois R, Reboul-Marty J, Henry B, Bonneterre J (1996) A cost-utility analysis of second-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. Docetaxel versus paclitaxel versus vinorelbine. Pharmacoeconomics 10:504–521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yee GC (1997) Cost-utility analysis of taxane therapy. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 54(Suppl 2): S11–S15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lamb HM, Wiseman LR (1998) Docetaxel. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 14:447–459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brown RE, Hutton J (1998) Cost-utility model comparing docetaxel and paclitaxel in advanced breast cancer patients. Anti-Cancer Drugs 9:899–907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Martin-Jimenez M, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Ruiz-Borrego M (2009) Cost effectiveness analysis of docetaxel (Taxotere) vs. 5-fluorouracil in combined therapy in the initial phases of breast cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 11:41–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Garrison LP Jr, Neumann PJ, Erickson P et al (2007) Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. Value Health 10:326–335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Feseo 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmen Frías
    • 1
  • Javier Cortés
    • 2
  • Miguel Ángel Seguí
    • 1
  • Itziar Oyagüez
    • 3
  • Miguel Ángel Casado
    • 3
  1. 1.Corporació Sanitària Parc TaulíBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Hospital Universitari Vall d’HebrónBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research IberiaPozuelo de Alarcón, MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations