Is circulating tumor cell count-driven cost-effective for first-line therapy choice in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer in the United States?

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor cell (CTC) counting may be a useful non-invasive biomarker that helps patients choose first-line treatment options. Nevertheless, the cost of CTC inspection may impose an economic burden on patients, necessitating the simultaneous consideration of both its clinical effectiveness and cost. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CTC count-guided chemotherapy and endocrine therapy as first-line therapy for HR+/HER2-metastatic breast cancer (MBC) from the perspective of US payers. METHODS: Based on the STIC CTC trial, a Markov model was constructed for three health states, and health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the incremental cost per QALY. RESULTS: The base-case analysis revealed that CTC count-driven treatment was associated with improved effectiveness by 0.07 QALYs and increased the overall cost by $9187.05 compared with clinician-driven first-line treatment choices, leading to an ICER of $138 354.15 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the model was most sensitive to the cost of treatment for neutropenia and the utility for PFS; probability sensitivity analysis indicated that CTC count-driven treatment choices would be considered the cost-effective option at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that, at the current price of CTC enumeration, choosing first-line treatment options based on CTC count is a cost-effectiveness approach for treating patients with HR+/HER2- MBC in the US.

Anastrozole for the prevention of breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women: cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK and the USA.

PURPOSE: The effectiveness of anastrozole for breast cancer prevention has been demonstrated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anastrozole for the prevention of breast cancer in women with a high risk of breast cancer and to determine whether anastrozole for the primary prevention of breast cancer can improve the quality of life of women and save health-care resources. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to assess the costs and effects of anastrozole prevention versus no prevention among women with a high risk of breast cancer. The key parameters of probability were derived from the IBIS-II trial, and the cost and health outcome data were derived from published literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for the two strategies,One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case, the incremental cost per QALY of anastrozole prevention was £125,705.38/QALY in the first 5 years compared with no prevention in the UK, above the threshold of WTP (£3,000/QALY),and in the 12-year period, the ICER was £8,313.45/QALY, less than WTP. For the US third-party payer, ICER was $134,232.13/QALY in the first 5 years and $8,843.30/QALY in the 12 years, both less than the WTP threshold ($150,000/QALY). CONCLUSION: In the UK and US, anastrozole may be a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women. Moreover, the longer the cycle of the model, the higher the acceptability. The results of this study may provide a scientific reference for decision-making for clinicians, patients, and national medical and health care government departments.

Is Alpelisib Plus Fulvestrant Cost-Effective for Treating PIK3CA-Mutation, HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer in the USA?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is a considerable survival benefit of alpelisib in patients with PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (HR+/HER2- ABC), yet the financial burden may limit its use. Therefore, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alpelisib plus fulvestrant in patients with PIK3CA-mutated, HR+/HER2- ABC in the USA. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the progression of PIK3CA-mutated, HR+/HER2- ABC. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the SOLAR-1 trial. A parametric survival model was used to explore the long-term effect. From a US payer perspective, only direct medical costs were considered. The cost data were estimated based on local pricing and relevant literature. The health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model stability was assessed using one-way sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore cost-effectiveness outcomes for patients with different clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The QALY increased by 0.28 with alpelisib plus fulvestrant with an additional cost of $94,345.87 compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $340,153.30/QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the model is most sensitive to the price of alpelisib. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, alpelisib plus fulvestrant was cost effective when the cost of alpelisib was less than $71 per 300 mg (36.5 % of the original price), whereas this cost would be less than $168 per 300 mg (86.5 % of the original price) at a WTP threshold of $300,000/QALY. In addition, alpelisib + fulvestrant was not cost effective in all subgroups compared with placebo + fulvestrant at the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. In contrast, at the WTP threshold of $300,000/QALY, alpelisib + fulvestrant was cost effective in nearly all subgroups except for endocrine-sensitive patients. CONCLUSION: At current drug prices, alpelisib plus fulvestrant is not cost effective for patients with PIK3CA-mutated, HR+/HER2- ABC from a US payer perspective. Given the considerable progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits observed with alpelisib in this setting, further discussion and negotiation of the price of alpelisib are warranted to provide more favorable economic outcomes and thereby increase the value of the alpelisib plus fulvestrant regimen in patients.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in China and United States.

Background: Metastatic prostate cancer is initially sensitive to androgen receptor inhibition, but eventually becomes metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Olaparib has longer progression-free survival and better measures of response and patient-reported end points than either enzalutamide or abiraterone. In the present study, 2 Markov models were established to analyze the cost utility of olaparib in treating mCRPC from the perspectives of health services in China and the United States. Methods: Markov models were established to simulate the progress of mCRPC in China and the United States. The state transition probabilities and clinical data were extracted from the PROfound trial. The cost data were estimated from local pricing, the relevant literature and expert consultancy. The health outcomes are expressed by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). All costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are presented in US dollars. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the uncertainty of the models. Results: Based on the Chinese Markov model, the base case ICER for olaparib versus the control group was ¥392,727.87, with incremental costs of ¥93,673.23 and an incremental QALY of 0.23, indicating that it was not cost effective from the aspect of the Chinese healthcare system. However, as shown by the American Markov model, olaparib was dominant versus the control group, with a cost saving of $69,675.20 and a gain of 0.23 QALYs. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the modeling results were not significantly affected by the model parameters. Conclusions: Olaparib treatment in patients with mCRPC is not cost effective in China, but it is cost saving in the United States.

NUDT15 genetic testing-guided 6-mercaptopurine dosing in children with ALL likely to be cost-saving in China.

OBJECTIVE: The cost-effectiveness of NUDT15 genetic testing-guided initial 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) dosing in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was evaluated. METHODS: A decision tree model was used to evaluate the cost to China's medical system per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and cost per case of severe leukopenia avoided of NUDT15 genetic testing using public clinical data. RESULTS: Genetic testing-guided initial 6-MP dosing reduced overall costs by $518.61, and prevented 0.221 cases of Grade III-IV leukopenia and increased QALY by 0.00136 per patient. Results were robust in one-way analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: NUDT15 genetic testing prior to the initial administration of 6-MP in pediatric ALL patients in China is less expensive than standard dosing without genetic testing.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of CYP2D6*10 Pharmacogenetic Testing to Guide the Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Postmenopausal Women with Estrogen Receptor Positive Early Breast Cancer in China.

BACKGROUND: A CYP2D6 gene polymorphism is related to the effect of tamoxifen treatment in patient with estrogen-receptor positive (ER) positive breast cancer and CYP2D6*10 T/T can lead to a poor prognosis in Asian patients. Although one-off pharmacogenetic testing may optimize adjuvant endocrine therapy, testing prior to tamoxifen initiation incurs additional costs. AIM: We conducted a study to assess the cost-effectiveness of CYP2D6*10 pharmacogenetic testing to guide the adjuvant endocrine therapy compared with tamoxifen without CYP2D6*10 testing in China. METHODS: A semi-Markov model was developed to evaluate costs and health outcomes represented as quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Input data were obtained from the public literature. The results were expressed as incremental cost per QALY gained. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis explored the impact of uncertainty in the model parameters on results, and probabilistic uncertainty was assessed through a Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, in the CYP2D6*10 testing and alternative adjuvant endocrine therapy group, the incremental total cost was US$17,966.95 and the incremental QALY was 3.582. Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$5015.693 per QALY gained. Compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$26,508/QALY in China, the CYP2D6*10 testing is the dominant strategy in postmenopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer in China, and the increased cost of genetic testing was completely worthwhile. The sensitivity analyses showed that the model we built was quite stable. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, CYP2D6*10 pharmacogenetic testing was cost effective for postmenopausal women with ER-positive early breast cancer.

CYP2D6*10 pharmacogenetic-guided SERM could be a cost-effective strategy in Chinese patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of CYP2D6*10 genetic testing for the management of Chinese women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer treated with selective estrogen receptor modulator. Methods: A Markov model was developed to evaluate a total expected cost and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Robustness of the model was addressed in one-way analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: The cost of strategies of tamoxifen, toremifene without genotyping and the strategy base on CYP2D6*10 genotype were $63,879.19, $90,156.60 and $95,021.41, and the quality-adjusted life years gained are 8.1588, 12.89687 and 13.85911, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the CYP2D6*10 testing versus toremifene were 5,055.74221/quality-adjusted life year, respectively. Conclusion:CYP2D6*10 pharmacogenetic-guided selective estrogen receptor modulator can be a cost-effective strategy in the Chinese patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of UGT1A1*6/*28 genotyping for preventing FOLFIRI-induced severe neutropenia in Chinese colorectal cancer patients.

AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1*6/*28 genotyping compared with no genotyping or no dose adjustment before irinotecan administration in China. MATERIALS & METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to evaluate costs and health outcomes represented as quality-adjusted life years gained. Model inputs for the frequency of genotypes, the probability of neutropenia under FOLFIRI chemotherapy and direct costs and utilities were obtained from published sources. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The strategy of genotyping with dose reduction dominated all remaining strategies. Compared with the strategies of no genotyping and genotyping with unchanged dose, it resulted in only marginal quality-adjusted life year increases (0.0011 and 0.0012) but a cost reduction of $651.12 and $805.22 per patient, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was relatively robust. CONCLUSION: UGT1A1*6/*28 genotyping was cost saving for Chinese colorectal cancer patients.