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.

Health-related quality of life among elderly breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy: a U.S Medicare population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: The evidence regarding the impact of individual adjuvant endocrine therapies (AET) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is limited. We aimed to assess the association between the type of AET and HRQoL and to examine the relationship between HRQoL and one-year mortality among women with breast cancer in the USA. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study used the 2006-2017 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey database to identify older women with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Multivariate linear regressions were used to assess the association between types of AET (anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane, and tamoxifen) and HRQoL scores (physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS)). Multivariate logistic regressions were used to predict the impact of PCS and MCS on one-year mortality. RESULTS: Out of 3537 older women with breast cancer, anastrozole was the most commonly prescribed (n = 1945, 55.0%). Regarding PCS, there was no significant difference between the four AET agents. Higher MCS scores, which indicate better HRQoL, were reported in patients treated with anastrozole (vs. letrozole [ß = 1.26, p = 0.007] and exemestane [ß = 2.62, p = 0.005) and tamoxifen (vs. letrozole [ß = 1.49, p = 0.010] and exemestane [ß = 2.85, p = 0.004]). Lower PCS and MCS scores were associated with higher one-year mortality, regardless of type of AET initiated, except for tamoxifen in MCS. CONCLUSION: Although there was no significant difference in physical HRQoL scores between AET agents, anastrozole and tamoxifen were associated with better mental HRQoL scores.

Eficacia y seguridad de ribociclib más fulvestrant en mujeres posmenopáusicas con cáncer de mama metastásico RH-Positivo YyHER2-Negativo, sin tratamiento previo o con una línea previa de terapia endocrina para enfermedad metastásica / Efficacy and safety of ribociclib plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with HR-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, treatment-naïve or on a prior line of endocrine therapy for metastatic disease

INTRODUCCIÓN: El presente dictamen preliminar expone la evaluación de la eficacia y seguridad de ribociclib más fulvestrant, en comparación con exemestano o anastrozol, en mujeres posmenopáusicas con cáncer de mama metastásico, RH-positivo y HER2-negativo, sin tratamiento previo o con una línea previa de terapia endocrina para enfermedad metastásica. El cáncer de mama es la primera causa de muerte por neoplasia maligna en mujeres en el mundo. En el 2019, en Perú se detectaron 4,743 casos nuevos de cáncer de mama en mujeres; causando cerca de 1,840 muertes en el mismo año. El cáncer de mama metastásico (CMM) es una condición incurable. Se estima que la mediana de sobrevida global en pacientes con CMM es de aproximadamente tres años y que la tasa de sobrevida global hasta los 5 años es de aproximadamente 27%. Los tipos de medicamentos que se usan para el CMM dependen del estado menopáusico de la paciente, del estado del receptor hormonal (RH) y del receptor 2 del factor de crecimiento epidérmico humano (HER2) del cáncer. En el contexto de EsSalud, las mujeres posmenopáusicas con CMM, RH-positivo, HER2-negativo, sin tratamiento previo o con una línea previa de terapia endocrina para enfermedad metastásica, a menudo se tratan con un inhibidor de la aromatasa (anastrozol o exemestano). El IETSI-EsSalud recibió una solicitud de evaluación de ribociclib más fulvestrant como una alternativa terapéutica al uso de inhibidores de la aromatasa, argumentándose una potencial prolongación de la sobrevida global de los pacientes, junto con un perfil de seguridad aceptable. Al respecto, el IETSI-EsSalud consideró que existe la necesidad de terapias nuevas y efectivas para los pacientes con CMM que proporcionen mejoras en la sobrevida global del paciente, tengan perfiles de toxicidad más favorables y mejoren la calidad de vida. METODOLOGÍA: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de literatura con el objetivo de identificar evidencia sobre la eficacia y seguridad de ribociclib más fulvestrant, en comparación con exemestano o anastrozol, en mujeres posmenopáusicas con CMM, RH-positivo y HER2-negativo, sin tratamiento previo o con una línea previa de terapia endocrina para enfermedad metastásica. Se utilizaron las bases de datos PubMed, Cochrane Library y LILACS, priorizándose la evidencia proveniente de ensayos clínicos controlados aleatorizados. Asimismo, se realizó una búsqueda dentro de bases de datos pertenecientes a grupos que realizan ETS y GPC, incluyendo el Healthcare Improvement Scotland, el National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), la Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), el Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), además de la Base Regional de Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud de las Américas (BRISA) y páginas web de sociedades especializadas en el manejo del cáncer de mama como National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) y American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Se hizo una búsqueda adicional en la página web del registro de ensayos clínicos administrado por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina de los Estados Unidos (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) e International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) (https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/), para poder identificar ensayos clínicos en curso o cuyos resultados no hayan sido publicados para, de este modo, disminuir el riesgo de sesgo de publicación. RESULTADOS: Se realizó una búsqueda de la literatura con respecto a la eficacia y seguridad de ribociclib más fulvestrant, en comparación con exemestano o anastrozol, en mujeres posmenopáusicas con CMM, RH-positivo y HER2-negativo, sin tratamiento previo o con una línea previa de terapia endocrina para enfermedad metastásica. CONCLUSIONES: El presente dictamen preliminar tuvo como objetivo evaluar la mejor evidencia sobre la eficacia y seguridad sobre la eficacia y seguridad de ribociclib más fulvestrant, en comparación con anastrozol y exemestano, en mujeres posmenopáusicas con CMM, RH-positivo y HER2-negativo, sin tratamiento previo o con una línea previa de terapia endocrina para enfermedad metastásica. La evidencia clave para evaluar el uso de ribociclib en combinación con fulvestrant en la población de interés proviene de MONALEESA-3, un ECA de fase III, doble ciego, controlado con placebo, de grupos paralelos. El estudio MONALEESA-3 tuvo la limitación de no responder directamente a la pregunta PICO de interés, ya que evaluó el uso de ribociclib más fulvestrant en comparación con fulvestrant solo, y no versus el comparador de interés del presente dictamen (anastrozol o exemestano). Cabe señalar que el uso de fulvestrant como monoterapia no está aprobado en EsSalud porque no se ha demostrado que sea diferente del exemestano, en términos de calidad de vida y eventos adversos en pacientes posmenopáusicas con CMM, RH-positivo y tratamiento endocrino previo, y no hay evidencia que permita generar conclusiones definitivas respecto a la sobrevida global (Dictamen Preliminar de Evaluación de Tecnología Sanitaria N.° 050-SDEPFyOTS-DETS-IETSI-2016). Los resultados de MONALESSA-3 no permiten determinar un beneficio neto con ribociclib más fulvestrant en comparación con fulvestrant más placebo por las siguientes razones: i) los resultados disponibles de SG son aún preliminares (corresponden a análisis interinos) y requieren de un mayor seguimiento (resultados del análisis final de SG) para determinar si realmente existe un beneficio en la prolongación de la vida de los pacientes, más aun en vista de una modesta reducción en el riesgo de mortalidad y una gran incertidumbre en las estimaciones reportadas (amplio intervalo de confianza, con valores cercanos al valor de la no diferencia), ii) los resultados muestran que ribociclib más fulvestrant no mejora la calidad de vida de los pacientes y, iii) los resultados muestran que ribociclib más fulvestrant aumenta significativamente el riesgo de EA serios y discontinuación debido a EA asociados a la medicación. Debido a la incertidumbre en la relación de riesgo-beneficio con ribociclib más fulvestrant, en comparación con anastrozol y/o exemestano, dada principalmente por la ausencia de evidencia que responda directamente a la pregunta PICO establecida en el presente dictamen, la aprobación de uso de ribociclib más fulvestrant no sería una decisión costo-oportuna; dada la disponibilidad de tratamientos efectivos, con perfiles de seguridad aceptables y menos costosos en la institución (anastrozol y exemestano), los cuales son recomendados en las GPC internacionales más recientes para la población de interés del presente dictamen. Por lo expuesto, el IETSI no aprueba el uso de ribociclib más fulvestrant en mujeres posmenopáusicas con CMM, RH-positivo y HER2-negativo, sin tratamiento previo o con una línea previa de terapia endocrina para enfermedad metastásica.

Half-dose fulvestrant plus anastrozole as a first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The S0226 trial demonstrated that the combination of half-dose fulvestrant (FUL) and anastrozole (ANA) (F&A) caused a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) versus ANA monotherapy for first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (PMW-MBC (HR+)). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of F&A in the first-line treatment for PMW-MBC (HR+) in China. DESIGN: We constructed a Markov model over a life-time horizon. The clinical outcomes and utility data were obtained from published literature. Cost data were obtained from official Chinese websites. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test result uncertainty. SETTING: Chinese healthcare system perspective. POPULATION: A hypothetical cohort of adult patients presenting with PMW-MBC (HR+). INTERVENTIONS: F&A compared with full-dose FUL and ANAmonotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). RESULTS: ANA was estimated to have the lowest cost and minimum life-years. The ICER of F&A versus ANA was US$15 665.891/QALY with incremental cost and QALY of US$12 401.120 and 0.792, respectively, which was less than the willingness-to-pay of US$29 383/QALY. Compared with F&A, FUL yielded a higher cost and a shorter lifetime; hence, it was identified as a dominated strategy. The univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the price of FUL was the most influential factor in our study. The probability that F&A was cost-effective at a threshold of US$29 383/QALY in China was 86.5%. CONCLUSION: F&A is a cost-effective alternative to FUL and ANA monotherapy for the first-line treatment of PMW-MBC (HR+) in China. F&A is a promising first-line treatment for PMW-MBC (HR+), and more research is needed to evaluate the economy of using F&A in other countries.

The impact of the introduction of generic aromatase inhibitors on adherence to hormonal therapy over the full course of 5-year treatment for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: High out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) often are found to be inversely associated with adherence to medical treatment. The introduction of generic aromatase inhibitors (GAIs) significantly reduced the OOPCs of patients. The objective of the current study was to explore the impact of the introduction of GAIs on adjuvant hormone therapy (AHT) adherence over the full course of breast cancer treatment. METHODS: Women aged ≥65 years who were diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer from 2007 through mid-2009 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked database. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the likelihood of AHT initiation and an interrupted time series model was used to predict the association between the introduction of GAIs and AHT adherence. The model was stratified further using Medicare low-income subsidy (LIS) status. RESULTS: A total of 10,905 women were included, approximately 62.8% of whom initiated AHT within the first year of their breast cancer diagnosis. Adjusted adherence among LIS beneficiaries was 11.4% higher than among non-LIS beneficiaries (P < .001). Non-LIS beneficiaries had an overall decreasing trend of adherence (-0.035; P < .001) prior to the introduction of GAIs. They experienced a 3.4% increase in the slope 6 months after the first GAI, anastrozole, entered the market, and an additional 0.8% increase in the slope 6 months after letrozole and exemestane were introduced (P < .001). Adherence change among LIS patients was small and statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: With the introduction of GAIs, the decrease trend of adherence to therapy atteunated over the course of treatment. Although the successful implementation of the Medicare LIS program minimized the OOPCs for financially vulnerable patients, policymakers should be cautious not to introduce disparities for those who may be of low income but ineligible for such a program.

First-line fulvestrant plus anastrozole for hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: In a recent randomized, open-label trial (S0226), the addition of fulvestrant to anastrozole therapy decreased the risk of progression and death in patients with hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. However, the cost-effectiveness of incorporating fulvestrant into the first-line setting is unknown. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to assess the costs and clinical outcomes of fulvestrant plus anastrozole compared with anastrozole as a first-line therapy in a cohort of patients with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. The transition probabilities were estimated from the fitted survival curves in the S0226 trial. Health care costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for fulvestrant plus anastrozole compared with anastrozole from US payer's perspective. RESULTS: Fulvestrant plus anastrozole led to an improvement of 0.11 QALYs compared with treatment with anastrozole alone. However, incorporating fulvestrant into the first-line therapy produced significantly higher health care costs ($72,496 vs. $38,959 for all eligible patients, and $73,728 vs. $37,239 for patients with no previous hormonal adjuvant therapy), resulting in ICERs of $300,564 and $194,450/QALY, respectively. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that when the cost of fulvestrant decreased to $1.5/mg for all eligible patients or $3.5/mg for patients with no previous hormonal adjuvant therapy, at the perfect health in progression-free status, the ICER became $141,320 and $145,543 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Substituting fulvestrant as a first-line therapy for hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer is not cost-effective compared with anastrozole based on the willing-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

Radiation Therapy Without Hormone Therapy for Women Age 70 or Above with Low-Risk Early Breast Cancer: A Microsimulation.

PURPOSE: Hormone therapy without radiation therapy is considered appropriate for women age 70 or above with low-risk, hormone-positive breast cancer after partial mastectomy. However, some patients may prefer radiation without hormone therapy, for which there is minimal modern data. We modeled the comparative efficacy of aromatase inhibition alone without radiation versus radiation alone without hormone therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We constructed a patient-level Markov model and compared 5 years of anastrozole to a 15-fraction course of radiation without boost or anastrozole. The relative effectiveness between treatments was based on the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-21 trial, which was further adjusted such that the endocrine-alone arm matched the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9343 and PRIME II trials. Common or severe side effects were considered. Eight survival metrics were assessed and validated against clinical trial data. The cost-efficacy of each strategy was considered using the quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The model's predicted outcomes matched those demonstrated by modern trials. Aromatase inhibitors were superior in preventing contralateral cancers, with a small impact on the risk of distant metastatic disease. Radiation was superior in preventing ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence with a small impact on regional failure. No clinically significant differences were seen in the other 4 oncologic endpoints. Differences in quality-adjusted life years were small, but radiation therapy was $3809 more expensive over the average lifetime. The ICER suggested anastrozole was cost-effective in 62% of probabilistic simulations. However, the ICER was unstable owing to a denominator that approached zero. CONCLUSIONS: Women age 70 or above with low-risk early breast cancer who are reluctant or unable to pursue adjuvant aromatase inhibition can safely pursue adjuvant radiation alone with limited differences in outcome and a modest increase in costs.

Are aromatase inhibitors associated with higher myocardial infarction risk in breast cancer patients? A Medicare population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Theoretically, the estrogen deprivation induced by aromatase inhibitors (AIs) might cause ischemic heart disease, but empiric studies have shown mixed results. We aimed to compare AIs and tamoxifen with regard to cardiovascular events among older breast cancer patients outside of clinical trials. We hypothesized that AIs increase the risk of myocardial infarction. METHODS: We identified women age ≥67 years diagnosed with breast cancer from June 30, 2006 to June 1, 2008 in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER)-Medicare database, treated with either tamoxifen or an AI, and followed through December 31, 2012. To compare myocardial infarction (MI) risk for the treatment groups of AIs vs tamoxifen, we developed and assigned stabilized probability of treatment weights and used the Fine and Gray model for time to MI with death not related to MI as a competing risk. RESULTS: Of the cohort of 5648 women, 4690 were treated with AIs and 958 with tamoxifen; a total of 251 patients developed MI, and 22 patients died of MI during the study period while 476 died of other causes. The hazard for MI was not significantly different between AI vs tamoxifen groups (HR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.72-1.42), after adjusting for the following known MI risk factors at the start of adjuvant therapy: diabetes, ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, MI, and peripheral vascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: In this SEER-Medicare-based population study, there were no significant differences in the risk of MI between AI and tamoxifen users after adjustment for known risk factors.