Cabazitaxel schedules in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a review.

Cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) is the standard second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel. It is associated with a risk of neutropenic complications, which may be a barrier to its use in daily clinical practice, particularly in frail elderly patients. Here the authors reviewed key studies conducted with cabazitaxel (TROPIC, PROSELICA, AFFINITY, CARD and the European compassionate use program) and pilot studies with adapted schedules. Based on this review, the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor from cycle 1 appears crucial to maximize the benefit-risk ratio of cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Preliminary data with alternative schedules look promising, especially for frail patients. Results of the ongoing Phase III CABASTY trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02961257) are awaited.

High-effective biosynthesis of baccatin â ¢ by using the alternative acetyl substrate, N-acetyl-d-glucosamine.

AIMS: Paclitaxel is a type of broad-spectrum anticancer drug in short supply. The price of acetyl-CoA (17 709 677·4 USD mol-1 ), which is the acetyl group donor for the enzymatic synthesis of the intermediate, baccatin Ⅲ, is still the bottleneck of the mass production of paclitaxel. This study reports a novel acetyl group donor, which could substantially reduce the cost of production. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this study, a substrate spectrum with 14 kinds of representative acetyl-donor substitutes predicted by computer-aided methods was tested in a 10-deacetylbaccatin Ⅲ-10-O-acetyltransferase (DBAT) heterogeneous-expressed open-whole-cell catalytic system. The results of computer prediction and experimental analysis revealed the rule of the acetyl-donor compounds based on this substrate spectrum. N-acetyl-d-glucosamine (30·95 USD mol-1 , about 572 202-fold cheaper than acetyl-CoA) is selected as a suitable substitute under the rule. The yield when using N-acetyl-d-glucosamine as acetyl donor in open-whole-cell catalytic system was 2·13-fold of that when using acetyl-CoA. In the in vivo system, the yield increased 24·17%, which may indicate its cooperation with acetyl-CoA. CONCLUSION: The success of open-whole-cell synthesis and in vivo synthesis of baccatin Ⅲ by adding N-acetyl-d-glucosamine as acetyl substrate demonstrates that it is a useful substrate to improve the yield of baccatin Ⅲ. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: All these findings provided a potential acetyl-donor substitute for acetyl-CoA, as well as a low cost and efficient method of preparing paclitaxel through baccatin Ⅲ semi-synthesis.

Liver Resection for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases: A Cost-utility Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by adjuvant systemic therapy relative to systemic therapy alone for patients with breast cancer liver metastasis. BACKGROUND: Data on cost-effectiveness of liver resection for advanced breast cancer with liver metastasis are lacking. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by postoperative conventional systemic therapy (strategy A) versus conventional therapy alone (strategy B) versus newer targeted therapy alone (strategy C). The implications of using different chemotherapeutic regimens based on estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was also assessed. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit (NHB). RESULTS: NHB of strategy A was 10.9 QALMs compared with strategy B when letrozole was used as systemic therapy, whereas it was only 0.3 QALMs when docetaxel + trastuzumab was used as a systemic therapy. The addition of newer biological agents (strategy C) significantly decreased the cost-effectiveness of strategy B (conventional systemic therapy alone). The NHB of strategy A was 31.6 QALMs versus strategy C when palbociclib was included in strategy C; similarly, strategy A had a NHB of 13.8 QALMs versus strategy C when pertuzumab was included in strategy C. Monte-Carlo simulation demonstrated that the main factor influencing NHB of strategy A over strategy C was the cost of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection in patients with breast cancer liver metastasis proved to be cost-effective when compared with systemic therapy alone, particularly in estrogen receptor-positive tumors or when newer agents were used.

Economic evaluation of sequencing strategies in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in Mexico: a contrast between public and private payer perspectives.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in Mexico. A large proportion of Mexican patients present with advanced disease, and 25% have HER2-positive tumors. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequencing strategies of HER2-targeted agents in Mexico according to various payer perspectives. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different HER2-targeted treatment sequences among patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer treated in Mexico according to three public and one private payer perspectives. Patients were followed weekly over their remaining life expectancies within the model. Health states considered were progression-free survival (PFS) 1st-3rd lines, and death. Transition probabilities between states were based on published trials. Cost data were obtained from official publications from Mexican healthcare institutions. The evaluated outcomes were PFS, OS, costs, QALYs, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the public payer perspective, sequences containing pertuzumab or T-DM1 were not cost-effective when compared with a sequence including the combination of trastuzumab/docetaxel as first line without subsequent T-DM1 or pertuzumab, even when utilizing alternate definitions for willingness to pay thresholds. In the private payer perspective, a sequence containing T-DM1 but not pertuzumab proved cost-effective at a lower clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In Mexico, the use of at least three lines of trastuzumab in combination with other therapies, but not with pertuzumab or TDM-1, represents the most cost-effective option for patients covered by the public healthcare system, and this sequence should be made available for all patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of additional docetaxel for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treated with androgen-deprivation therapy from a Chinese perspective.

The E3805 (CHAARTED) study found that docetaxel combined with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly improved overall survival of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. This study aims to determine whether docetaxel combined with ADT is a cost-effective strategy for advanced prostate cancer in China. According to the E3805 study, two groups (docetaxel + ADT and ADT alone) and three health states [progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death] were analysed in a Markov model. All medical costs were calculated from the Chinese societal perspective. Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were applied as the primary outcome. Overall, the addition of docetaxel was estimated to increase the cost by $12 816.93, with a gain of 0.48 QALY. Additionally, for patients with high-volume disease, the increased cost and effectiveness were $14 627.75 and 0.69 QALYs in docetaxel + ADT group versus the ADT alone group, and the ICER was $21 199.63 per QALY. These ICERs are far more than the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $20 301 per QALY in China. In spite of longer survival time, docetaxel combined with ADT is not a recommended cost-effective treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in the Chinese setting.

Is febrile neutropenia prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors economically justified for adjuvant TC chemotherapy in breast cancer?

PURPOSE: Febrile neutropenia (FN) during adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with morbidity, mortality risk, and substantial cost, and subsequent chemotherapy dose reductions may result in poorer outcomes. Patients at high risk of, or who develop FN, often receive prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF). We investigated whether different prophylaxis strategies with G-CSF offered favorable value-for-money. METHODS: We developed a decision model to estimate the short- and long-term costs and outcomes of a hypothetical cohort of women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant taxotere + cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy. The short-term phase estimated upfront costs and FN risks with adjuvant TC chemotherapy without G-CSF prophylaxis (i.e., chemotherapy dose reductions) as well as with secondary and primary G-CSF prophylaxis strategies. The long-term phase estimated the expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for patients who completed adjuvant TC chemotherapy with or without one or more episodes of FN. RESULTS: Secondary G-CSF was associated with lower costs and greater QALY gains than a no G-CSF strategy. Primary G-CSF appears likely to be cost-effective relative to secondary G-CSF at FN rates greater than 28%, assuming some loss of chemotherapy efficacy at lower dose intensities. The cost-effectiveness of primary vs. secondary G-CSF was sensitive to FN risk and mortality, and loss of chemotherapy efficacy following FN. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary G-CSF is more effective and less costly than a no G-CSF strategy. Primary G-CSF may be justified at higher willingness-to-pay thresholds and/or higher FN risks, but this threshold FN risk appears to be higher than the 20% rate recommended by current clinical guidelines.

A review of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a global health concern. In fact, breast cancer is the primary cause of death among women worldwide and constitutes the most expensive malignancy to treat. As health care resources are finite, decisions regarding the adoption and coverage of breast cancer treatments are increasingly being based on "value for money," i.e., cost-effectiveness. As the evidence about the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments is abundant, therefore difficult to navigate, systematic reviews of published systematic reviews offer the advantage of bringing together the results of separate systematic reviews in a single report. As a consequence, this paper presents an overview of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer to inform policy and reimbursement decision-making. A systematic review was conducted of published systematic reviews documenting cost-effectiveness analyses of breast cancer treatments from 2000 to 2014. Systematic reviews identified through a literature search of health and economic databases were independently assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Systematic reviews of original evaluations were included only if they targeted breast cancer patients and specific breast cancer treatments (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy only), documented incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and were reported in the English language. The search strategy used a combination of these key words: "breast cancer," "systematic review/meta-analysis," and "cost-effectiveness/economics." Data were extracted using predefined extraction forms and qualitatively appraised using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool. The literature search resulted in 511 bibliographic records, of which ten met our inclusion criteria. Five reviews were conducted in the early-stage breast cancer setting and five reviews in the metastatic setting. In early-stage breast cancer, evidence about trastuzumab value differed by age. Trastuzumab was cost-effective only in women with HER2-positive breast cancer younger than 65 years and over a life-time horizon. The cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer yielded conflicting results. The same conclusions were reached in comparisons between vinorelbine and taxanes. In both early stage and advanced/metastatic breast cancer, newer aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have proved cost-effective compared to older treatments. This overview of systematic reviews shows that there is heterogeneity in the evidence concerning the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer. The cost-effectiveness of these treatments depends not only on the comparators but the context, i.e., adjuvant or metastatic setting, subtype of patient population, and perspective adopted. Decisions involving the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments could be made easier and more transparent by better harmonizing the reporting of economic evaluations assessing the value of these treatments.

Clinical Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness of Primary Prophylaxis of Febrile Neutropenia During Adjuvant Docetaxel and Cyclophosphamide Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.

Docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) is a widely used breast cancer adjuvant regimen. We sought to compare the rates of febrile neutropenia (FN) between patients receiving no primary prophylaxis (PP) and those receiving PP with either granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) or antibiotics. We also analyzed cost-effectiveness of TC with and without either G-CSF or antibiotics. Charts were reviewed of all 340 patients who received adjuvant TC between January 2008 and December 2012 at two major cancer centers. Rates of FN in the three groups - no PP, PP with G-CSF and PP with antibiotics were compared. A Markov model was constructed comparing cost-effectiveness of PP with G-CSF, PP with antibiotics, and secondary prophylaxis (SP) with G-CSF after an episode of FN in a previous cycle. Costs were based on actual resource utilization and supplemented by the published literature, adjusted to 2012 Canadian dollars. Of the 73 (21%) patients who did not receive any PP, 23 (32%) of patients developed FN. Of the 192 (57%) patients receiving PP with G-CSF alone, only two (1%; p < 0.0001) developed FN; and of the 53 (16%) receiving PP with antibiotics alone, six (11%; p < 0.01) developed FN. From a cost-standpoint, PP with G-CSF was less cost-effective than PP with antibiotics. The rate of FN with TC chemotherapy exceeds 30%, and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend PP with G-CSF in this situation. PP with antibiotics is more cost-effective, and is a reasonable option in resource-limited settings or for patients who decline or do not tolerate G-CSF.

Investigation of adverse-event-related costs for patients with metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting.

BACKGROUND: Existing treatments for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are often effective but can cause adverse events (AEs). This study aimed to identify AEs associated with chemotherapies commonly used in mBC treatment (phase 1) and to quantify the economic impact of these AEs (phase 2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in phase 1 had at least one claim for therapy for mBC, with at least one episode with single or multiple agents. The most common chemotherapy-related complications were identified using medical and pharmacy claims data. In phase 2, patients meeting study criteria were divided into four treatment cohorts by the line of treatment and chemotherapy received: first-line taxane-treated patients, second-line taxane-treated patients, first-line capecitabine-treated patients, and second-line capecitabine-treated patients. Average monthly AE-related health care costs per cohort were stratified by cost component. Total monthly costs per number of AEs were also calculated. RESULTS: On average, patients in phase 1 (n = 1,551) had 2 episodes of treatment, with a mean duration of 131 days. The most frequently noted complications were anemia (50.7% of mBC treatment episodes), bilirubin elevation (26.4%), and leukopenia (24.8%). In phase 2, costs related to AEs were primarily driven by incremental inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy costs. Increases in average monthly costs ranged from $854 (9.0%) to $5,320 (69.5%), according to cohort. Overall costs increased with increasing numbers of AEs. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy-related AEs in patients with mBC are associated with a substantial economic burden that increases with the number of AEs reported.

Cost-utility analysis of platinum-based chemotherapy versus taxane and other regimens for ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Most economic evaluations of chemotherapies for ovarian cancer patients have used hypothetical cohorts or randomized control trials, but evidence integrating real-world survival, cost, and utility data is limited. METHODS: A propensity score-matched cohort of 6856 elderly (≥65 years) ovarian cancer patients diagnosed from 1991 to 2005 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data cohort were included. Treatment regimens (i.e., no chemotherapy, platinum-based only, platinum plus taxane, and other nonplatinum) were identified in the 6 months postdiagnosis. Patients were followed until death or end of study (December 2006). Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total health care costs were measured by using a payer's perspective (2009 US dollars). Methodological and statistical uncertainties were accounted by including alternative scenarios (for utility values) and net monetary benefit approach. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and stratified analyses were performed by tumor stages and age groups. RESULTS: On comparing the platinum-based group versus no chemotherapy, we found that the ICER was $30,073/QALY and $58,151/QALY for early- and late-stage disease, respectively, while other nonplatinum and platinum plus taxane groups were dominated (less effective and more costly). Similar results were found across alternative scenarios and age groups. For patients 85 years or older, platinum plus taxane, however, was not dominated by the platinum-based group, with an ICER of $133,892/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Following elderly ovarian cancer patients over a lifetime using real-world longitudinal data and adjusting for quality of life, we found that treatment with platinum-based regimen was the most cost-effective treatment alternative.

New therapeutic options in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Can cost-effectiveness analysis help in treatment decisions?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abiraterone, cabazitaxel, and enzalutamide compared to placebo for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A decision-tree model compared three treatment options for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients over 18 months from a societal perspective in 2012 USD. Chance nodes included baseline pain as a severity indicator, significant adverse effects (neutropenia, cardiac events, or seizures), and survival. Probabilities, survival rates, and health utilities were from clinical trials (COU-AA, TROPIC, and AFFIRM) and other published studies. Survival of enzalutamide was adjusted to match placebo groups across trials. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses, acceptability curves and net benefit calculations were performed. RESULTS: Abiraterone was the most cost-effective of the treatments ($123.4 K/quality-adjusted life year) compared to placebo, enzalutamide was $437.6 K/quality-adjusted life year compared to abiraterone, and cabazitaxel was $351.9 K/quality-adjusted life year compared to enzalutamide. Enzalutamide and cabazitaxel were not cost-effective compared to placebo at $154.3 K/quality-adjusted life year and $163.2 K/quality-adjusted life year, respectively. Acceptability curves showed abiraterone was cost-effective 29.3% of the time with a willingness to pay threshold of $100 K. The model was sensitive to changes in cost of the drugs, life expectancy, and survival rate. Sensitivity analysis shows that enzalutamide can become the most cost-effective option if the price of the medication decreased by 26% and other drug costs remained the same. CONCLUSION: Based on the cost-effective analysis, and survival adjustments necessary to match placebo groups, we would recommend abiraterone for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer despite not quite falling under the usually accepted willingness to pay threshold. Further analysis should examine comparative survival across the three drugs.

First-line trastuzumab plus taxane-based chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: cost-minimization analysis.

AIM: To carry out a cost-minimization analysis including a comparison of the costs arising from first-line treatment by trastuzumab plus docetaxel versus trastuzumab plus paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: All consecutive patients with human epidermal growth receptor 2-postive metastatic breast cancer who were treated at Besançon University Hospital and Saint Vincent private hospital between 2001 and 2010 by first-line therapy containing trastuzumab plus taxane were retrospectively studied. Economic analysis took into account costs related to drugs, hospitalization, and healthcare travel. RESULTS: Progression-free survival difference between the two treatments was not significant (p = 0.65). First-line treatment by trastuzumab plus taxane was estimated at approximately €68,000 (p = 0.74). The drug costs represented around 70-75% of the total cost, mainly related to the use of trastuzumab. CONCLUSION: Our economic analysis shows that although the costs of the two trastuzumab plus taxane regimens are similar, they may contribute to the on-going debate about the availability and use of innovative chemotherapy drugs, in particular in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer with new therapies such as trastuzumab-DM1 and pertuzumab.

Within-trial hospitalization resource utilization and budget impact analysis for darolutamide in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer using ARASENS.

BACKGROUND: ARASENS was a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial comparing darolutamide + docetaxel + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with placebo + docetaxel + ADT in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). OBJECTIVE: To use clinical trial data from ARASENS to understand whether the addition of darolutamide to docetaxel + ADT leads to increased hospitalizations and to estimate the budget impact on the US health care system. METHODS: We used mixed-effects negative binomial regression to estimate hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates and length of hospital stay (LoHS) counts. Hospitalization rates were estimated per treatment arm for the period during and after administration of docetaxel. Based on these estimates, a budget impact analysis evaluated the hospitalization costs (including ICU admissions) and standalone ICU hospitalization costs for the totality of the US population over a 5-year time horizon. The analysis compared a scenario without darolutamide vs one with darolutamide included in the US payer formulary. Hospitalization estimates were varied in a one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The first 4 months of treatment (when patients were receiving docetaxel) were associated with increased hospitalizations across both arms. The addition of darolutamide was associated with a numerical reduction in the rate of hospitalization (per year) due to any reason both during docetaxel treatment (1.01 visits per year [95% CI = 0.82-1.20] vs 1.18 visits per year [95% CI = 0.96-1.41]) and after docetaxel treatment (0.28 visits per year [95% CI = 0.23-0.34] vs 0.33 visits per year [95% CI = 0.27-0.40]). Darolutamide was associated with a marginally longer LoHS per hospitalization compared with placebo (+1.90 days per year) both during and after docetaxel treatment. ICU admissions were low in the ARASENS data; admission rates were assumed to be the same during and after docetaxel treatment. ICU admission rate estimates were equivalent across arms (0.02 visits per year [95% CI = 0.01-0.03]). The budget impact per treated member per month represents a cost-neutral option after Year 5 with a cumulative budget impact of -$9.71. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of darolutamide to docetaxel + ADT was associated with a numerically lower rate of hospitalization but marginally longer LoHS compared with docetaxel + ADT alone. Darolutamide represents a cost-neutral alternative per treated member per month compared with docetaxel + ADT with regard to hospitalizations at the end of a 5-year time horizon.

Cost comparison and economic implications of commonly used originator and generic chemotherapy drugs in India.

Cancer treatments have improved outcomes but access to medications is an issue around the world and especially so in low- and middle-income countries, such as India. Generic substitution may lead to significant cost savings. The author aimed to compare the cost and estimate potential cost savings per cycle, per patient, and for the country as a whole with generic substitution of frequently used chemotherapy drugs in the treatment of common cancers in India. Generic paclitaxel (Taxol), docetaxel (Taxotere), gemcitabine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan cost from 8.9% to 36% of their equivalent branded originator drug, resulting in cost savings of ~ Indian Rupees (INR) 11,000 to >INR 90,000 (USD 200-1600, Euro 160-1300) per cycle; and ~INR 50,000 to >INR 240,000 (USD 900-4300, Euro 700-3400) per patient. Overall, potential yearly savings for health systems in India were nearly INR 47 billion (~USD 843 million, Euro 670 million). In conclusion, generic substitution for frequently used chemotherapy drugs in the treatment of common cancers has an enormous potential to generate significant cost savings and increase access to cancer treatments in India and other low- and middle-income countries.

[The non-hormonal treatment of metastatic prostate cancer]. / Le traitement non hormonal de la maladie métastatique du cancer de la prostate.

AIM: To describe drugs used in the non-hormonal treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIAL: Bibliographical search was performed from the database Medline (National Library of Medicine, PubMed) and websites of the HAS and the ANSM. The search was focused on the characteristics, the mode of action, the efficiency and the side effects of the various drugs concerned. RESULTS: The metabolic radiotherapy although under-used for this indication, kept a place at the beginning of the disease. Radium-223 chloride seems to have to occupy an important place in the coming years. The chemotherapy, the only recourse until very recently in the castration-resistant prostate cancer, must redefine its place partially. The denosumab provide an interesting alternative to bisphosphonates. CONCLUSION: The non-hormonal treatment of the metastatic disease of the prostate cancer is changing rapidly with the emergence of new molecules. Urologist must know perfectly these new drugs.

Cost-effectiveness of combination versus sequential docetaxel and carboplatin for the treatment of platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, the combination weekly docetaxel and carboplatin was associated a with progression-free survival (PFS) of 13.7 months compared with 8.4 months for sequential, single-agent docetaxel followed by carboplatin. The objective of the current study was to construct a cost-utility model to compare these 2 regimens with the incorporation of prospectively collected quality-of-life (QoL) data. METHODS: An RCT of concurrent docetaxel and carboplatin (cDC) versus docetaxel followed by carboplatin (sequential docetaxel and carboplatin [sDC]) was the basis for a Markov decision model, and the primary effectiveness outcome was PFS. Costs were estimated using US dollars based on Medicare reimbursements for chemotherapy regimens, bone marrow support, and management of adverse events. QoL data obtained using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire were converted to utilities. Costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported in US dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Extensive 1-way sensitivity analyses and a Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: The least expensive strategy was sDC, which cost an average of $20,381, compared with cDC, which cost an average of $25,122. cDC had an ICER of $25,239 per QALY compared with sDC. cDC remained cost-effective, with an ICER <$50,000 per QALY, over a range of costs and estimates. In Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis using a $50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, cDC was either dominant or cost-effective with an ICER <$50,000 per QALY in 83% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Combined weekly cDC appeared to be cost-effective compared with sDC as treatment strategy for patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, even when accounting for slightly lower QoL during treatment.

Cost-utility analysis of adjuvant therapies for breast cancer in Iran.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of Docetaxel with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) and 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (FAC) in node-positive breast cancer patients in the south of Iran. METHODS: A double blind study was done on a cohort of 100 patients suffering from breast cancer with node-positive over 8 months in the radiotherapy center of Namazi hospital, Shiraz-Iran. Health-related quality of life was assessed using questionnaire (QLQ-C30) from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). QLQ-C30 scale scores were mapped to 15D and EuroQol 5D utilities to measure the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).Third party payer point of view was applied to measure and value the cost of treatments. Cost data were extracted from hospital and health insurance organizations. Robustness of the results was checked through a two way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: TAC was associated with higher deterioration in HRQoL during treatment and higher improvements over 4 months follow-up. On average, the cost of treatment per patient in TAC was 15 times higher than FAC (p < .001). In overall, TAC was resulted in lower QALYs and higher cost over study period. CONCLUSIONS: FAC was a dominant option versus TAC in short-term. The higher improvement in HRQoL over follow-up in TAC may not compensate the more intensive deterioration caused during treatment in short-term. The short time horizon of study may limit the generalizability of our findings and, hence, there is a need to conduct long-term economic evaluation studies whenever data is available to inform decision making.

An economic analysis of the INTEREST trial, a randomized trial of docetaxel versus gefitinib as second-/third-line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The INTEREST (IRESSA NSCLC Trial Evaluating Response and Survival against Taxotere) trial compared gefitinib with docetaxel (Taxotere) in pretreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Noninferiority for overall survival was concluded. Gefitinib had a better toxicity profile and greater improvements in quality of life (QoL). We undertook a cost-consequence analysis to estimate the direct medical costs of gefitinib compared with docetaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Summary data from INTEREST were used to derive resource utilization and direct costs from treatment start until drug discontinuation. Costs for treatment, adverse events, outpatient visits and investigations were calculated. Mean total cost-per-patient-per-arm was determined, and incremental cost was calculated. Utility values were generated from Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung scores and compared between arms. RESULTS: Incremental mean overall cost per patient for gefitinib over docetaxel was CAD $5161. Drug was the major contributor to overall cost in both arms. Longer mean duration of gefitinib therapy (134 versus 91 days) contributed to the incremental cost difference. The cost per 21-day cycle was similar in both arms ($1963 docetaxel, $2095 gefitinib). CONCLUSION: The modest increase in cost associated with gefitinib supports its use as an alternative to docetaxel as second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, particularly given the improvements in QoL, patient preference for oral therapy and better toxicity profile with gefitinib.

Chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Comparison of clinical practice and cost of drugs in two cohorts of patients: 1994-1998 and 2003-2006.

Although new chemotherapeutic drugs for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have been approved over the past decade, it is unclear whether this has changed the overall outcome of patients. This study assessed the clinical and economic impacts of these drugs. We retrospectively studied MBC patients receiving chemotherapy in our institution over two time periods, 1994-1998 and 2003-2006. Patient characteristics and outcomes, and treatment characteristics and costs (€, 2008) were compared. Three hundred and one patients were identified, 149 patients in the first cohort and 152 in second one. The median number of lines of chemotherapy was similar in the two cohorts (three lines). The median costs of chemotherapy per patient nearly doubled over time, from 6,272 € in the 1994-1998 cohort to 13,035 € in the 2003-2006 cohort (P < 0.001). No survival difference was observed between the two groups, with a 3-year survival rate estimated to 41% in the 1994-1998 cohort and 44% in the 2003-2006 cohort (P = 0.52). In multivariate analysis, prognostic factors associated with longer overall survival were single metastatic site (HR 0.48; P < 10⁻³), bone metastases (HR = 0.67; P = 0.007) and positive hormone receptors (HR 0.56; P = 0.0002). New chemotherapeutic agents induced a significant cost increase over time. The limited size and heterogeneity of our cohort do not allow any conclusion concerning their impact on survival.

[Treatment patterns in advanced breast cancer with anthracycline and taxanes and their costs in three public hospitals of Mexico]. / Patrones de tratamiento y costo de atención del cáncer de mama avanzado con falla a antraciclinas y taxanos en 3 hospitales públicos de México.

OBJECTIVES: In Mexico, breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality among females. For patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC) resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes (AT), there are limited treatment options. There is a scarcity of data regarding clinical management of this population and treatment costs at this stage of the disease. The objective of this study was to describe the treatment patterns of care for metastatic breast cancer after AT and the associated cost from the point-of-view of the Mexican Public Health Care Sector. METHODS: Between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2007, a retrospective cohort of adult female ABC patients resistant to AT was developed by reviewing and extracting key data from medical charts. We conducted a retrospective, transversal and descriptive analysis of the patient data. Target population data files were obtained from 414 patients from 3 public hospitals in México. RESULTS: Capecitabine, vinorelbine and cyclophosphamide were the most commonly prescribed agents, however clinical drug therapy management of the disease was different within and among the three hospitals included in the study. This difference translated into a disparity of prescription costs, ranging from an average of $122.22 pesos/patient/month (cyclophosphamide, IC 95% $94.43-$150.01) to $37,835.53 pesos/patient/month (capecitabine+trastuzumab IC 95% $34,953.18-$40,717.88) for the first treatment after AT. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight a lack of standardized care for patients and suggest that differences in treatment patterns are not only a reflection of scarcity of scientific data and diversity of prescription preferences among physicians but also of economic restrictions. Ultimately, there is a clear unmet medical need to be addressed through evidence-based medicine alternatives that support efficacy and cost effectiveness treatments.