, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 415–432 | Cite as

Updated Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Trastuzumab for Early Breast Cancer

A UK Perspective Considering Duration of Benefit, Long-Term Toxicity and Pattern of Recurrence
  • Peter S. HallEmail author
  • Claire Hulme
  • Christopher McCabe
  • Yemi Oluboyede
  • Jeff Round
  • David A. Cameron
Original Research Article


Background: Trastuzumab has significantly improved survival outcomes for women with Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer. Trastuzumab was established as a cost-effective adjuvant treatment in 2006. We present an updated cost-effectiveness analysis from the UK perspective, which explores assumptions about the duration of benefit from treatment, pattern of metastatic recurrence and long-term cardiac toxicity.

Objective: The objective of this study was to calculate, from the UK NHS perspective, expected costs (year 2008 values) and benefits over the lifetime of an average cohort of women with HER2-positive early breast cancer treated with or without 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab sequentially after chemotherapy.

Methods: A cost-utility analysis was performed using a discrete-state timedependent semi-Markov model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to characterize uncertainty around expected outcomes. Value-of-information (VOI) analysis was used to identify areas of priority for further research.

Results: The cost-effectiveness estimates were highly sensitive to the estimated duration of treatment benefit. Trastuzumab remained a cost-effective treatment strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30000 per QALY provided the duration of benefit was more than 3.6 years from treatment initiation, assuming the hazard ratio for disease-free survival was 0.63. An increasing proportion of brain metastases with trastuzumab produced a small change towards worse cost effectiveness. Long-term cardiac toxicity needed to rise to high levels to affect overall life expectancy and cost effectiveness. VOI analysis placed highest value on research into the duration of treatment benefit. The relationships between progression-free survival and overall survival and the costs of cancer recurrence were also important.

Conclusion: The cost effectiveness of adjuvant trastuzumab remains uncertain and dependent on assumptions regarding its clinical effect. Uncertainty around cost effectiveness could be reduced by further research into the duration of treatment effect, particularly in subgroups where this may be shorter. Longterm follow-up is warranted and methods to accurately measure duration of treatment effect and late toxicities should be developed for future adjuvant drug studies.


Trastuzumab Early Breast Cancer Cardiac Toxicity Adjuvant Trastuzumab HERA Trial 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors thank Christopher Plummer, Sandy Tubeuf, Roberta Longo and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript. This modelling exercise was undertaken as part of the preparatory work for the Persephone trial sponsored by the UK National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment programme.

Peter Hall holds a contract of employment with the UK NHS, and his position with the University of Leeds is supported by a grant from Roche Ltd. The authors have no other conflicts of interest that are directly related to the content of this study.


  1. 1.
    Hall PS, Cameron DA. Current perspective: trastuzumab. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45 (1): 12–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353 (16): 1659–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gianni L, Goldhirsch A, Gelber RD, et al. S25 update of the HERA trial and the role of 1 year trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Breast 2009; 18 Suppl. 1: S11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Slamon DEW, Robert N, Pienkowski T, et al., on behalf of BCIRG006 Investigators. Phase III randomized trial comparing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (AC-T) with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel and trastuzumab (ACTH) with docetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab (TCH) in her2neu positive early breast cancer patients: BCIRG 006 Study [abstract no. 62]. Cancer Res 2010; 69: 62Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353 (16): 1673–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jones AL, Barlow M, Barrett-Lee PJ, et al. Management of cardiac health in trastuzumab-treated patients with breast cancer: updated United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute recommendations for monitoring. Br J Cancer 2009; 100 (5): 684–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Suter TM, Procter M, van Veldhuisen DJ, et al. Trastuzumab-associated cardiac adverse effects in the herceptin adjuvant trial. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (25): 3859–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tan-Chiu E, Yothers G, Romond E, et al. Assessment of cardiac dysfunction in a randomized trial comparing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel, with or without trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy in nodepositive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing breast cancer: NSABP B-31. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23 (31): 7811–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ewer MS, O’Shaughnessy JA. Cardiac toxicity of trastuzumabrelated regimens in HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 2007; 7 (8): 600–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Dec Making 1993; 13 (4): 322–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Institute for Health Research. NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme. Details of HTA project in progress. PERSEPHONE: duration of trastuzumab study with chemotherapy in early breast cancer: six versus twelve months [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2010 Mar]Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skedgel C, Rayson D, Younis T. The cost-utility of sequential adjuvant trastuzumab in women with Her2/Neupositive breast cancer: an analysis based on updated results from the HERA trial. Value Health 2009; 12 (5): 641–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norum J, Olsen JA, Wist EA, et al. Trastuzumab in adjuvant breast cancer therapy: a model based cost-effectiveness analysis. Acta Oncol 2007; 46 (2): 153–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neyt M, Huybrechts M, Hulstaert F, et al. Trastuzumab in early stage breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Belgium. Health Policy 2008; 87 (2): 146–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Millar JA, Millward MJ. Cost effectiveness of trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: a lifetime model. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25 (5): 429–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lidgren M, Jonsson B, Rehnberg C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of HER2 testing and 1-year adjuvant trastuzumab therapy for early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2008; 19 (3): 487–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liberato NL, Marchetti M, Barosi G. Cost effectiveness of adjuvant trastuzumab in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (6): 625–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kurian AW, Thompson RN, Gaw AF, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant trastuzumab regimens in early HER2/neu-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (6): 634–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garrison Jr LP, Lubeck D, Lalla D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting for treatment ofHER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer 2007; 110 (3): 489–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Elkin EB, Weinstein MC, Winer EP, et al. HER-2 testing and trastuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22 (5): 854–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dedes KJ, Szucs TD, Imesch P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: a model-based analysis of the HERA and FinHer trial. Ann Oncol 2007; 18 (9): 1493–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McKeage K, Lyseng-Williamson KA. Trastuzumab: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in early breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (8): 699–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Shimozuma K, et al. The model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of 1-year adjuvant trastuzumab treatment: based on 2-year follow-up HERA trial data. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 109 (3): 559–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Dec 10]Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith I, Procter M, Gelber RD, et al. 2-year follow-up of trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 369 (9555): 29–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paik S, Bryant J, Tan-Chiu E, et al. HER2 and choice of adjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-15. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92 (24): 1991–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cancer Research UK Cancer Stats [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Feb 11]
  28. 28.
    Mellemkjaer L, Friis S, Olsen JH, et al. Risk of second cancer among women with breast cancer. Int J Cancer 2006; 118 (9): 2285–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Bock GH, Putter H, Bonnema J, et al. The impact of locoregional recurrences on metastatic progression in earlystage breast cancer: a multistate model. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 117 (2): 401–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Canney P, Linsday C, Wardley A, et al. Cardiac effects when using trial-derived monitoring protocols for adjuvant trastuzumab: results from a retrospective multicenter UK audit [abstract no. 582]. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27 (15 Suppl.): 582Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cowie MR, Wood DA, Coats AJS, et al. Incidence and aetiology of heart failure: a population-based study. Eur Heart J 1999; 20 (6): 421–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pinder MC, Duan Z, Goodwin JS, et al. Congestive heart failure in older women treated with adjuvant anthracycline chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (25): 3808–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Office of National Statistics. Interim life tables for England and Wales 2006–2008. Sheffield: UK Government [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Dec 10]Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cowie MR, Wood DA, Coats AJS, et al. Survival of patients with a new diagnosis of heart failure: a population based study. Heart 2000; 83 (5): 505–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dawood S, Broglio K, Buzdar AU, et al. Prognosis of women with metastatic breast cancer by HER2 status and trastuzumab treatment: an institutional-based review. J Clin Oncol 2010 Jan 1; 28 (1): 92–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Niwińska A, Murawska M, Pogoda K. Breast cancer brain metastases: differences in survival depending on biological subtype, RPA RTOG prognostic class and systemic treatment after whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). Ann Oncol 2010 May; 21 (5): 942–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Untch M, Gelber RD, Jackisch C, et al. Estimating the magnitude of trastuzumab effects within patient subgroups in the HERA trial. Ann Oncol 2008; 19 (6): 1090–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lidgren M, Wilking N, Jonsson B, et al. Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer. Qual Life Res 2007; 16 (6): 1073–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Calvert MJ, Freemantle N, Cleland JG. The impact of chronic heart failure on health-related quality of life data acquired in the baseline phase of the CARE-HF study. Eur J Heart Fail 2005; 7 (2): 243–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dinnes J, Cave C, Huang S, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of temozolomide for the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5 (13): 1–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    British National Formulary. London: British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2008: 56Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    NHS. National health service executive. NHS reference costs, 2008. London: Department of Health, 2010Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lorgelly PK, Briggs AH, Wedel H, et al. An economic evaluation of rosuvastatin treatment in systolic heart failure: evidence from the CORONA trial. Eur J Heart Fail 2010; 12 (1): 66–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Karnon J, Kerr GR, Jack W, et al. Health care costs for the treatment of breast cancer recurrent events: estimates from a UK-based patient-level analysis. Br J Cancer 2007; 97 (4): 479–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 479–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Perez EA, Suman VJ, Davidson NE, et al. Results of chemotherapy alone, with sequential or concurrent addition of 52 weeks of trastuzumab in the NCCTG N9831 HER2-positive adjuvant breast cancer trial [abstract no. 80]. Cancer Res 2009; 69: 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Perez EA, Suman VJ, Davidson NE, et al. Cardiac safety analysis of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel with or without trastuzumab in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trial. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26 (8): 1231–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Handbooks in health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hall PS, McCabe C, Brown JM, et al. Health economics in drug development: efficient research to inform healthcare funding decisions. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46 (15): 2674–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Coulson S, Kumar V, Coleman R. Treatment of HER2+ breast cancer in routine practice review of testing and use of adjuvant trastuzumab across a cancer network [abstract no. B16]. National Cancer Research Institute Conference; 2009 Oct 4–7; BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Trastuzumab for the adjuvant treatment of early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer: NICE technology appraisal guidance 107. London: NICE, 2006Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Breast cancer (early) - trastuzumab: evidence review group report [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Feb 11]Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Slamon DEW, Robert N, Pienkowski T, et al. BCIRG 006: 2nd interim analysis phase III randomized trial comparing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (AT/T) with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel and trastuzumab (AC/TH) with docetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab (TCH) in HER2neu positive early breast cancer patients [abstract no. 52]. Breast Cancer Treat Res 2006; 100 Suppl. 1: 52Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Younis T, Skedgel C. Is trastuzumab a cost-effective treatment for breast cancer? Exp Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2008; 8 (5): 433–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Reed SD, Schulman KA. Cost utility of sequential adjuvant trastuzumab for HER2/Neu-positive breast cancer. Value Health 2009; 12 (5): 637–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Slamon DEW, Eiermann W, Robert N, et al. Phase III randomized trial comparing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (AC→T) with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel and trastuzumab (AC-TH) with docetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab (TCH) in HER2 positive early breast cancer patients: BCIRG 006 study [abstract no. 1]. Breast Cancer Res Treatment 2005; 94 Suppl. 1: S5Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Joensuu H, Bono P, Kataja V, et al. Fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide with either docetaxel or vinorelbine, with or without trastuzumab, as adjuvant treatments of breast cancer: final results of the FinHer trial. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27 (34): 5685–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Steinherz LJ, Steinherz PG, Tan CT, et al. Cardiac toxicity 4 to 20 years after completing anthracycline therapy. JAMA 1991; 266: 1672–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lipshultz SE, Colan SD, Gelber RD, et al. Late cardiac effects of doxorubicin therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia of childhood. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 808–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Goorin AM, Chauvenet AR, Perez-Atayde AR, et al. Initial congestive heart failure, six to ten years after doxorubicin chemotherapy for childhood cancer. J Pediatr 1990; 116: 144–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter S. Hall
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Claire Hulme
    • 1
  • Christopher McCabe
    • 1
  • Yemi Oluboyede
    • 1
  • Jeff Round
    • 1
  • David A. Cameron
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health SciencesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Section of Oncology and Clinical Research, Leeds Institute of Molecular MedicineUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  3. 3.Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, Western General HospitalEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations