Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant endocrine treatment with tamoxifen for male breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen (TAM) is recommended as the first-line strategy for men with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive early breast cancer who are candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy in ASCO guideline. Our study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy with TAM compared to no TAM, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of using TAM with high adherence over low adherence for ER-positive early male breast cancer in the USA. METHODS: Two Markov models comprising three mutually exclusive health states were constructed: (1) the first Markov model compared the cost-effectiveness of adding TAM with not using TAM (TAM versus Not-TAM); (2) the second model compared the cost-effectiveness of receiving TAM with high adherence and low adherence (High-adherence-TAM versus Low-adherence-TAM). The simulation time horizon for both models was the lifetime of patients. The efficacy and safety data of two models were elicited from the real-world studies. Model inputs were derived from the US website and published literature. The main outcomes of two models both included the total cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: In the first model, TAM yielded an ICER of $5707.29 per QALY compared to Not-TAM, which was substantially below the WTP threshold of $50,000.00 per QALY in the USA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results demonstrated a 100.00% probability of cost-effectiveness for this strategy. In the second model, High-adherence-TAM was dominated absolutely compared to Low-adherence-TAM. The High-adherence-TAM was cost-effective with a 99.70% probability over Low-adherence-TAM when WTP was set as $50,000.00/QALY. All of these parameters within their plausible ranges did not reversely change the results of our models. CONCLUSIONS: Our study will offer valuable guidance for physicians or patients when making treatment decisions and provide an effective reference for decision-making to consider the appropriate allocation of funds to this special group.

Evaluation of Metronomic Therapy as a Low-Cost, Sustainable, Standard-of-Care Option in Desmoid Fibromatosis: Real-World Data From a Tertiary Care Center in India.

PURPOSE: Desmoid fibromatosis (DF) is a locally aggressive tumor with low mortality but significant morbidity. There is a lack of standard of care, and existing therapies are associated with significant barriers including access, cost, and toxicities. This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of the metronomic therapy (MT) in DF in a large, homogenous cohort from India. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study involved histologically confirmed DF cases treated with MT comprising vinblastine (6 mg) and methotrexate (15 mg) both once a week, and tamoxifen (40 mg/m2) in two divided doses once daily between 2002 and 2018. RESULTS: There were 315 patients with a median age of 27 years; the commonest site was extremity (142 of 315; 45.0%). There were 159 (50.1%) male patients. Of the 123 (39.0%) prior treated patients, 119 had surgery. Of 315 patients, 263 (83.5%) received treatment at our institute (MT-151, 77-local treatment, 9-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and 26 were observed). Among the MT cohort (n = 163, 61.2%), at a median follow-up of 36 (0.5-186) months, the 3-year progression-free and overall survival were 81.1% (95% CI, 74.3 to 88.4) and 99.2% (95% CI, 97.6 to 100), respectively. There were 35% partial responses. Ninety-two patients (56.4%) completed 1-year therapy, which was an independent prognosticator (P < .0001; hazard ratio, 0.177 [95% CI, 0.083 to 0.377]). MT was well tolerated. Predominant grade ≥3 toxicities were febrile neutropenia, 12 (7.4%) without any chemotoxicity-related death. The annual cost of MT was $130 US dollars. CONCLUSION: The novel, low-cost MT qualifies as one of the effective, less toxic, sustainable, standard-of-care options for the treatment of DF with global reach and merits wide recognition.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of vaginal carbon dioxide laser therapy compared with standard medical therapies for genitourinary syndrome of menopause-associated dyspareunia.

BACKGROUND: Topical vaginal estrogen therapy is considered the gold standard treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause-associated dyspareunia, but early investigations of energy-based devices show promise for patients with contraindications or those who are refractory to vaginal estrogen cream therapy. Although evaluating safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes for novel technologies is critically important when new technologies become available to treat unmet healthcare needs, evaluation of the costs of these new technologies compared with existing therapies is also critically important but often understudied. OBJECTIVE: We sought to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of 3 therapies for genitourinary syndrome of menopause, including vaginal estrogen therapy, oral ospemifene therapy, and vaginal CO2 laser therapy and determine if vaginal laser therapy is a cost-effective treatment strategy for dyspareunia associated with genitourinary syndrome of menopause. STUDY DESIGN: An institutional review board-exempt cost-effectiveness analysis was performed by constructing a decision tree using decision analysis software (TreeAge Pro; TreeAge Software, Inc, Williamstown, MA) using integrated empirical data from the published literature. Tornado plots and 1-way and 2-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess how changes in the model's input parameters altered the overall outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis model. RESULTS: All 3 treatment methods were found to be cost-effective below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000.00 per quality-adjusted life year for moderate dyspareunia. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for vaginal CO2 laser therapy was $16,372.01 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ospemifene therapy was $5711.14. Although all 3 treatment strategies were on the efficient frontier, vaginal CO2 laser therapy was the optimal treatment strategy with the highest effectiveness. In a 1-way sensitivity analysis of treatment adherence, vaginal CO2 laser therapy was no longer cost-effective when the adherence fell below 38.8%. Vaginal estrogen cream and ospemifene therapies remained cost-effective treatment strategies at all ranges of adherence. When varying the adherence to 100% for all strategies, oral ospemifene therapy was "dominated" by both vaginal CO2 laser therapy and vaginal estrogen cream therapy. In a 2-way sensitivity analysis of vaginal CO2 laser therapy adherence and vaginal CO2 laser therapy cost, vaginal CO2 laser therapy still remained the optimal treatment strategy at 200% of its current cost ($5554.00) when the adherence was >55%. When the cost fell to 20% of its current cost ($555.40), it was the optimal treatment strategy at all adherence values above 29%. CONCLUSION: This study showed that vaginal fractional CO2 laser therapy is a cost-effective treatment strategy for dyspareunia associated with GSM, as are both vaginal estrogen and oral ospemifene therapies. In our model, vaginal CO2 laser therapy is the optimal cost-effective treatment strategy, and insurance coverage should be considered for this treatment option if it is proven to be safe and effective in FDA trials.

Ospemifene versus local estrogen: adherence and costs in postmenopausal dyspareunia.

Aim: Objective was to compare adherence and persistence, as well as direct healthcare costs and utilization, of ospemifene to available local estrogen therapies (LETs). Patients & methods: This retrospective database study used integrated medical and pharmacy claims data from the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims - US Database. Results: Ospemifene patients had significantly greater adherence and persistence compared with the other nonring LETs. Ospemifene had the lowest mean outpatient costs of any of the LET cohorts, including the estradiol vaginal ring. Total all-cause healthcare costs were also significantly less for ospemifene patients compared with all other LETs.

Custo da Doença em Pacientes com Carcinoma Mamário Tratados com Tamoxifeno / Cost of the Disease in Patients with Breast Cancer Treated with Tamoxifen / Costo de la Enfermedad en Pacientes com Carcinoma Mamário Tratados com Tamoxifeno

Introdução: A estimativa do Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva para o Brasil, para cada ano do biênio 2018-2019, foi de 59.700 novos casos de câncer de mama, com um risco estimado de 56,33 casos a cada 100 mil mulheres. Em 2014, os gastos públicos com atenção oncológica foram de aproximadamente R$ 2,5 bilhões. Objetivo: Avaliar o impacto dos custos diretos médicos em pacientes com carcinoma mamário tratados com tamoxifeno pelo Sistema Único de Saúde. Método: Estudo exploratório de custo da doença, quantitativo, retrospectivo, com caráter de prevalência e de abordagem bottom-up. A coleta dos dados foi realizada no ambulatório de Oncologia do Hospital São Vicente em Curitiba, Paraná. Resultados: A média do custo do tratamento dos pacientes foi R$ 14.497,70 em tratamento neoadjuvante ou adjuvante e de R$ 9.108,60 em tratamento paliativo. Em relação a essas variáveis, o custo do tamoxifeno foi o que mais impactou em relação ao custo total do tratamento, representando mais de 80% deste valor. A média do custo anual gasto com tamoxifeno por paciente foi de R$ 1.947,60. Conclusão: O custo médio do tratamento demonstrou ser alto em relação à média salarial dos brasileiros de R$ 2.110.00 (IBGE-2017). Os custos levantados neste estudo podem auxiliar os gestores de saúde pública em estratégias para racionalização dos gastos, otimização do capital e manutenção do atendimento à população.

Introduction: The estimate of the National Cancer Institute José Alencar Gomes da Silva, for each year of the 2018-2019 biennium in Brazil, was 59,700 new cases of breast cancer, with an estimated risk of 56.33 cases per 100,000 women. In 2014, public expenditures on cancer care were approximately R$ 2.5 billion. Objective: To evaluate the impact of direct medical costs on breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen using the Unified Health System. Method: Prospective, quantitative, retrospective, cost-of-disease study with prevalence and bottom-up approach. Data collection was performed at the Oncology Outpatient Clinic of the Hospital São Vicente in Curitiba, Paraná. Results: The mean cost of the treatment was R$ 14,497.70 for neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment and R$ 9,108.60 for palliative treatment. In relation to these variables, the cost of tamoxifen was the one that most impacted, in relation to the total cost of the treatment, representing more than 80% of this value. The mean annual cost of tamoxifen per patient was R$ 1,947.60. Conclusion: The average cost of treatment was high in relation to the Brazilian average salary of R$ 2,110.00 (IBGE-2017). The costs investigated in this study can help public health managers in strategies to rationalize expenditures, optimize capital and maintain patient care.

Introducción: La estimación del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva para Brasil, para cada año del bienio 2018-2019, fue de 59,700 casos nuevos de cáncer de mama, con un riesgo estimado de 56.33 casos por 100,000 mujeres. En 2014, los gastos públicos con atención oncológica fueron de aproximadamente R $ 2,5 mil millones. Objetivo: Evaluar el impacto de los costos directos médicos en pacientes con carcinoma mamario tratados con tamoxifeno por el Sistema Único de Salud. Método: Estudio exploratorio de costo de la enfermedad, cuantitativo, retrospectivo, con carácter de prevalencia y de enfoque bottom-up. La recolección de los datos fue realizada en el Ambulatorio de Oncología del Hospital São Vicente en Curitiba, Paraná. Resultados: El promedio del costo del tratamiento de los pacientes fue R$ 14.497,70 en tratamiento neoadyuvante o adyuvante y de R$ 9.108,60 en tratamiento paliativo. En relación a estas variables el costo del tamoxifeno fue el que más impactó en relación al costo total del tratamiento, representando más del 80% de este valor. El promedio del costo anual gastado con tamoxifeno por paciente fue de R$ 1.947,60. Conclusión:El costo promedio del tratamiento demostró ser alto en relación al promedio salarial de los brasileños de R $ 2.110.00 (IBGE-2017). Los costos levantados en este estudio pueden auxiliar a los gestores de salud pública en estrategias para racionalización de los gastos, optimización del capital y mantenimiento de la atención a la población.

Cost-effectiveness of monitoring endoxifen levels in breast cancer patients adjuvantly treated with tamoxifen.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women worldwide. Recurrence rates in breast cancer are considered to be dependent on the serum concentration of endoxifen, the active metabolite of tamoxifen. The goal of this study is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of periodically monitoring serum concentrations of endoxifen in adjuvant estrogen receptor alfa (ERα) positive breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen in the Netherlands. METHODS: A Markov model with disease-free survival (DFS), recurrent disease (RD), and death states was constructed. The benefit of drug monitoring was modeled via a difference in the fraction of patients achieving adequate serum concentrations. Robustness of results to changes in model assumptions were tested through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Monitoring of endoxifen added 0.0115 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and saved € 1564 per patient in the base case scenario. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a large effect on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the differences in costs and utilities between the DFS and RD states. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay of € 0 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was 89.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this model, monitoring of endoxifen in adjuvant ERα + breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen is likely to add QALYs and save costs from a healthcare payer perspective. We advise clinicians to consider integrating serum endoxifen concentration monitoring into standard adjuvant tamoxifen treatment of ERα + breast cancer patients.

Association Between Out-Of-Pocket Costs, Race/Ethnicity, and Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Adherence Among Medicare Patients With Breast Cancer.

Purpose Previous studies suggest that adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for patients with breast cancer is suboptimal, especially among minorities, and is associated with out-of-pocket medication costs. This study aimed to determine whether there are racial/ethnic differences in 1-year adherence to AET and whether out-of-pocket costs explain the racial/ethnic disparities in adherence. Methods This retrospective cohort study used the SEER-Medicare linked database to identify patients ≥ 65 years of age with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who were enrolled in Medicare Part D from 2007 to 2009. The cohort included non-Hispanic whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Out-of-pocket costs for AET medications were standardized for a 30-day supply. Adherence to tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors (AIs), and overall AET (tamoxifen or AIs) was assessed using the medication possession ratio (≥ 80%) during the 12-month period. Results Of 8,688 patients, 3,197 (36.8%) were nonadherent to AET. Out-of-pocket costs for AET medication were associated with lower adjusted odds of adherence for all four cost categories compared with the lowest category of ≤ $2.65 ( P < .01). In the univariable analysis, Hispanics had higher odds of adherence to any AET at initiation (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.57), and blacks had higher odds of adherence to AIs at initiation (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.54) compared with non-Hispanic whites. After adjusting for copayments, poverty status, and comorbidities, the association was no longer significant for Hispanics (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17) or blacks (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.19). Blacks had significantly lower adjusted odds of adherence than non-Hispanic whites when they initiated AET therapy with tamoxifen (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.93) after adjusting for socioeconomic, clinic, and prognostic factors. Conclusion Racial/ethnic disparities in AET adherence were largely explained by women's differences in socioeconomic status and out-of-pocket medication costs.

Factors Associated with Adherence to Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Among Privately Insured and Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients: A Quantile Regression Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer remains suboptimal, which suggests that women are not getting the full benefit of the treatment to reduce breast cancer recurrence and mortality. The majority of studies on adherence to AET focus on identifying factors among those women at the highest levels of adherence and provide little insight on factors that influence medication use across the distribution of adherence. OBJECTIVE: To understand how factors influence adherence among women across low and high levels of adherence. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was conducted using the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database from 2007-2011. Privately insured women aged 18-64 years who were recently diagnosed and treated for breast cancer and who initiated AET within 12 months of primary treatment were assessed. Adherence was measured as the proportion of days covered (PDC) over a 12-month period. Simultaneous multivariable quantile regression was used to assess the association between treatment and demographic factors, use of mail order pharmacies, medication switching, and out-of-pocket costs and adherence. The effect of each variable was examined at the 40th, 60th, 80th, and 95th quantiles. RESULTS: Among the 6,863 women in the cohort, mail order pharmacies had the greatest influence on adherence at the 40th quantile, associated with a 29.6% (95% CI = 22.2-37.0) higher PDC compared with retail pharmacies. Out-of-pocket cost for a 30-day supply of AET greater than $20 was associated with an 8.6% (95% CI = 2.8-14.4) lower PDC versus $0-$9.99. The main factors that influenced adherence at the 95th quantile were mail order pharmacies, associated with a 4.4% higher PDC (95% CI = 3.8-5.0) versus retail pharmacies, and switching AET medication 2 or more times, associated with a 5.6% lower PDC versus not switching (95% CI = 2.3-9.0). CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with adherence differed across quantiles. Addressing the use of mail order pharmacies and out-of-pocket costs for AET may have the greatest influence on improving adherence among those women with low adherence. DISCLOSURES: This research was supported by a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award for Individual Predoctoral Fellowship grant from the National Cancer Institute (grant number F31 CA174338), which was awarded to Farias. Additionally, Farias was funded by a Postdoctoral Fellowship at the University of Texas School of Public Health Cancer Education and Career Development Program through the National Cancer Institute (NIH Grant R25 CA57712). The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. DISCLAIMER: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health. Farias was primarily responsible for the study concept and design, along with Hansen and Zeliadt and with assistance from the other authors. Farias, Hansen, and Zeliadt took the lead in data interpretation, assisted by the other authors. The manuscript was written by Farias, along with Thompson and assisted by the other authors, and was revised by Ornelas, Li, and Farias, with assistance from the other authors.

Long-term consequences of ovarian ablation for premenopausal breast cancer.

The TEXT and SOFT trials concluded that an aromatase inhibitor (AI) with ovarian ablation (OA) yields a higher 5-year disease-free survival than tamoxifen alone in premenopausal ER+ high-risk early breast cancer. However, the long-term health consequences and costs of OA, either by GnRH agonist or oophorectomy, have not been evaluated. The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing tamoxifen to OA with AI. Markov Monte Carlo simulation model estimated the costs and benefits of 3 endocrine strategies: (1) tamoxifen; (2) GnRH agonist with AI (GnRHa-AI); (3) bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with AI (BSO-AI). Effectiveness was measured in life expectancy gain (years), and costs were averaged over a lifetime (USD 2015). Adverse events and deaths from each strategy were modeled in the United States population over a time horizon of 40 years. For women without prior chemotherapy (low-risk), tamoxifen alone was more effective (18.03 years) and less costly ($1566) than GnRHa-AI (17.66 years, $93,692) or BSO-AI (17.63 years, $25,892). For those with prior chemotherapy (high-risk), BSO-AI was more costly but more effective (16.78 years, $25,368) than tamoxifen alone (16.55 years, $1523) with an ICER of $102,290, while GnRHa-AI yielded an ICER of $443,376. The simulation estimated 787 and 577 deaths attributable to OA among 9320 high-risk women after BSO-AI and GnRHa-AI, respectively. There may be a role for ovarian ablation in premenopausal women with ER+ high-risk early breast cancer; however, this analysis raises concerns about the long-term health consequences of ovarian ablation and the potential effects on overall survival.

The selective estrogen receptor modulators in breast cancer prevention.

BACKGROUNDS: Persistently increased blood levels of estrogens are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are a class of compounds that act on the estrogen receptor (ER). METHODS: Several clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of its prophylactic administration. Incidence of invasive ER-positive breast cancer was reduced by SERMs treatment, especially for those women with high risk of developing breast cancer. In this study, we reviewed the clinical application of SERMs in breast cancer prevention. RESULTS: To date, four prospective randomized clinical trials had been performed to test the efficacy of tamoxifen for this purpose. Concerning on the benefit and cost of tamoxifen, various studies from different countries demonstrated that chemoprevention with tamoxifen seemed to be cost-effective for women with a high risk of invasive breast cancer. Based above, tamoxifen was approved for breast cancer prevention by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1998. Raloxifene was also approved for postmenopausal women in 2007 for breast cancer prevention which reduces the risk of invasive breast cancer with a lower risk of unwanted stimulation of endometrium. Thus, raloxifene is considered to have a better clinical possesses as prophylactic agent. Several other agents, such as arzoxifene and lasofoxifene, are currently being investigated in clinic. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network had published guidelines on breast cancer chemoprevention by SERMs. However, use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for primary breast cancer prevention was still low. CONCLUSION: A broader educational effort is needed to alert women and primary care physicians that SERMs are available to reduce breast cancer risk.

Essential medicines for breast cancer in low and middle income countries.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer among women worldwide. In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), appropriate selection of medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) is a first step towards adequate access to treatment. We studied selection of systemic treatments for breast cancer on NEMLs and assessed its alignment with treatment guidelines for different types of early and advanced breast cancer. Furthermore, influence of country characteristics on the selection was investigated. METHOD: NEMLs from 75 LMICs were studied for inclusion of all components of therapy in each stage of breast cancer according to international consensus guidelines. The results were then grouped by income level, WHO region and the NEMLs' release date. Non parametric tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Unlike HER2-targeted therapies (<10%), aromatase inhibitors (12%) and taxanes (28%); tamoxifen and first generation chemotherapeutic regimens (e.g., anthracycline-based regimens) were frequently found in the NEMLs (71-78%). Consequently, all components of treatment for "Luminal A" early breast cancer and non HER2 overexpressed advanced breast cancer were found on the NEMLs of over 70% of countries. However, 40% of the low income countries did not have all the components of therapy for any type of early breast cancer in their NEMLs, and adequate treatment of HER2 overexpressed breast cancer was hardly possible with the current selections. Recent NEMLs were more aligned with the guidelines (p < 0.05). Eastern Mediterranean and African regions less frequently incorporated all components of breast cancer treatment in their NEMLs. CONCLUSION: Alignment of selection with guidelines' recommendations was inconsistent for different types of early and advanced breast cancer in NEMLs. Regular updates and more attention to clinical guidelines is therefore recommended.

Clinical observation of three dimensional conformal radiotherapy with tamoxifen in treatment of postoperative malignant glioma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with tamoxifen in treating patients with postoperative malignant glioma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 60 patients of postoperative malignant glioma were randomly assigned into two groups, 30 patients were treated with 3D-CRT plus tamoxifen (treatment group), and the other 30 patients with 3D-CRT plus temozolomide (control group). All patients were radiated by 6MV X-ray, 2.0 Gy per fraction, once daily, with a total dose (DT) of 56~60 Gy. Tamoxifen was delivered at 60 mg /m2/d, temozolomide was given at 75 mg/m2/d. All patients were treated with concurrent radiotherapy. RESULTS: One, 2, 3 year survival rates of treatment and control group were 63.3%, 30.0%, 23.0% and 70.0%, 33.3%, 26.7%, respectively (χ2=0.01, 0.23, 0.09, P>0.05). The rate of thromboembolism in treatment group was 6.7%. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic efficacy of two groups was similar, but it was more cost- effective in treatment group, and toxicity did not increase.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy in the treatment of post-menopausal women with hormone receptor positive breast cancer.

Five years of Tamoxifen (Standard TAM) is a common treatment option for early-stage, hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). Extending Standard TAM by 5 additional years (Extended TAM) can improve survival and BC recurrences. In postmenopausal women, the use of extended aromatase inhibitors (Extended AI) after Standard TAM is an alternative to Extended TAM. This study examines the cost-effectiveness (CE) of extending Standard TAM with Extended TAM vs. Extended AI in postmenopausal HR+ early-stage BC patients. Three treatments were assessed: (1) Standard TAM; (2) Extended TAM; (3) Extended AI through a Markov model using a Canadian health system perspective, lifetime time-horizon, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and a 5 % discount rate for future costs and utilities. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and the impact of parameter uncertainty was assessed through probabilistic sensitivity analyses (SA) using conventional CE thresholds. The estimated total per person costs in 2012 Canadian dollars [$1.00 CAD = $0.99 US 2012] were the least for Extended TAM ($8,623 CAD) and most for Extended AI ($9,432 CAD). Extended AI was the most effective regimen, while Standard TAM was the least. Extended AI was cost-effective at conventional thresholds vs. Extended TAM (ICER: $3,402 CAD/QALY) which was robust to the SA. This study suggests that Extended AI and Extended TAM result in improved QALYs and lower healthcare costs vs Standard TAM. Extended AI results in the greatest improvement in QALYs and is the most cost-effective treatment alternative despite its higher drug costs.

The impact of structural uncertainty on cost-effectiveness models for adjuvant endocrine breast cancer treatments: the need for disease-specific model standardization and improved guidance.

INTRODUCTION: Structural uncertainty relates to differences in model structure and parameterization. For many published health economic analyses in oncology, substantial differences in model structure exist, leading to differences in analysis outcomes and potentially impacting decision-making processes. The objectives of this analysis were (1) to identify differences in model structure and parameterization for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing tamoxifen and anastrazole for adjuvant breast cancer (ABC) treatment; and (2) to quantify the impact of these differences on analysis outcome metrics. METHODS: The analysis consisted of four steps: (1) review of the literature for identification of eligible CEAs; (2) definition and implementation of a base model structure, which included the core structural components for all identified CEAs; (3) definition and implementation of changes or additions in the base model structure or parameterization; and (4) quantification of the impact of changes in model structure or parameterizations on the analysis outcome metrics life-years gained (LYG), incremental costs (IC) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Eleven CEA analyses comparing anastrazole and tamoxifen as ABC treatment were identified. The base model consisted of the following health states: (1) on treatment; (2) off treatment; (3) local recurrence; (4) metastatic disease; (5) death due to breast cancer; and (6) death due to other causes. The base model estimates of anastrazole versus tamoxifen for the LYG, IC and ICER were 0.263 years, €3,647 and €13,868/LYG, respectively. In the published models that were evaluated, differences in model structure included the addition of different recurrence health states, and associated transition rates were identified. Differences in parameterization were related to the incidences of recurrence, local recurrence to metastatic disease, and metastatic disease to death. The separate impact of these model components on the LYG ranged from 0.207 to 0.356 years, while incremental costs ranged from €3,490 to €3,714 and ICERs ranged from €9,804/LYG to €17,966/LYG. When we re-analyzed the published CEAs in our framework by including their respective model properties, the LYG ranged from 0.207 to 0.383 years, IC ranged from €3,556 to €3,731 and ICERs ranged from €9,683/LYG to €17,570/LYG. CONCLUSION: Differences in model structure and parameterization lead to substantial differences in analysis outcome metrics. This analysis supports the need for more guidance regarding structural uncertainty and the use of standardized disease-specific models for health economic analyses of adjuvant endocrine breast cancer therapies. The developed approach in the current analysis could potentially serve as a template for further evaluations of structural uncertainty and development of disease-specific models.

[Impact of depressive disorders on adherence to oral anti-cancer treatment]. / Impact de la dépression sur l'adhésion aux traitements anticancéreux oraux.

The improper adherence to therapy is an emerging medical and economic issue in oncology which raised with the increasing use of oral anti-cancer treatment. Currently, the average rate of non-adherence to oral anti-cancer therapy is estimated at around 21%. In this study, we use the examples of the imatinib treatment against chronic lymphocytic leukemia and the tamoxifene treatment against breast cancer to assess the negative consequences of the non-adherence to therapy in terms of medical outcome and health care cost. One of the main causes of non-adherence to these oral cancer treatments is depression. Surprisingly, this aspect is still relatively unknown to oncologists, while depression has been taken into account for the treatment of other chronic diseases (e.g. diabetes…). We therefore propose that cancer patients should be screened for depression throughout their treatment to improve the adherence to therapy. Cancer patients should have the opportunity to explain their own perception of their disease and their treatment that are key parameters in the onset of depression. The recent use of oral therapy in cancer treatment should thus be accompanied by the establishment of a global management of cancer patient on a case-by-case basis.

The value of high adherence to tamoxifen in women with breast cancer: a community-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Low adherence to adjuvant tamoxifen is associated with worse health outcomes but little is known about the cost-effectiveness of high adherence. METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation using data for all women with incident breast cancer between 1993 and 2000 who were subsequently prescribed tamoxifen in the Tayside region of Scotland. Patient-level, lifetime Markov models evaluated the impact of high vs low adherence to tamoxifen using linked prescribing, cancer registry, clinical cancer audit, hospital discharge and death records. Direct medical costs were estimated for each patient and quality-of-life weights were assigned. Recurrence information was collected by case note review and adherence calculated from prescribing records with low adherence classed below 80%. RESULTS: A total of 354 (28%) patients had a recorded recurrence and 504 (39%) died. Four hundred and seventy-five (38%) patients had low adherence over the treatment period, which was associated with reduced time to recurrence of 52% (P<0.001). Time to other cause mortality was also reduced by 23% (P=0.055) but this was not statistically significant. For an average patient over her lifetime, low adherence was associated with a loss of 1.43 (95% CI: 1.15-1.71) discounted life years or 1.12 (95% CI: 0.91-1.34) discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and increased discounted medical costs of £5970 (95% CI: £4644-£7372). Assuming a willingness to pay threshold of £25,000 per QALY, the expected value of changing a patient from low to high adherence is £33,897 (95% CI: £28,322-£39,652). CONCLUSION: Patients with low adherence have shorter time to recurrence, increased medical costs and worse quality of life. Interventions that encourage patients to continue taking their treatment on a daily basis for the recommended 5-year period may be highly cost-effective.

A systematic review and methodological evaluation of published cost-effectiveness analyses of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: A key priority in developing policies for providing affordable cancer care is measuring the value for money of new therapies using cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). For CEA to be useful it should focus on relevant outcomes and include thorough investigation of uncertainty. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of five years of aromatase inhibitors (AI) versus five years of tamoxifen in the treatment of post-menopausal women with early stage breast cancer, show benefit of AI in terms of disease free survival (DFS) but not overall survival (OS) and indicate higher risk of fracture with AI. Policy-relevant CEA of AI versus tamoxifen should focus on OS and include analysis of uncertainty over key assumptions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published CEAs comparing an AI to tamoxifen. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews without language restrictions. We selected CEAs with outcomes expressed as cost per life year or cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). We assessed quality using the Neumann checklist. Using structured forms two abstractors collected descriptive information, sources of data, baseline assumptions on effectiveness and adverse events, and recorded approaches to assessing parameter uncertainty, methodological uncertainty, and structural uncertainty. RESULTS: We identified 1,622 citations and 18 studies met inclusion criteria. All CE estimates assumed a survival benefit for aromatase inhibitors. Twelve studies performed sensitivity analysis on the risk of adverse events and 7 assumed no additional mortality risk with any adverse event. Sub-group analysis was limited; 6 studies examined older women, 2 examined women with low recurrence risk, and 1 examined women with multiple comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Published CEAs comparing AIs to tamoxifen assumed an OS benefit though none has been shown in RCTs, leading to an overestimate of the cost-effectiveness of AIs. Results of these CEA analyses may be suboptimal for guiding policy.

Extended adjuvant endocrine therapy in hormone dependent breast cancer: the paradigm of the NCIC-CTG MA.17/BIG 1-97 trial.

Early hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer is a chronic relapsing disease that can remain clinically silent for many years. The NCIC-CTG MA.17/BIG 1-97 trial randomized disease-free early breast cancer patients who had received five years of adjuvant tamoxifen to either letrozole or placebo and was the first to demonstrate a benefit with extended endocrine therapy. MA.17/BIG 1-97 was stopped at the first interim analysis because disease free survival was strongly prolonged in the letrozole arm. Subsequent subset analyses and longer follow up have shown that this therapy improved survival across all groups, particularly among women with node-positive disease and those that were pre-menopausal at time of study enrolment. The MA.17/BIG 1-97 study should be considered a paradigm for extended adjuvant endocrine therapy in hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer.