BACKGROUND: A randomized controlled trial showed longer overall survival (OS) with docetaxel compared with paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer patients with prior exposure to anthracycline. We report a similar comparison using population-based data. METHODS: Data on patients treated with single-agent paclitaxel or docetaxel were retrospectively reviewed. OS was compared using a two-tailed log-rank test and expressed as Kaplan-Meier plots. A cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using cost/patient and OS. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-five patients met eligibility criteria. Prognostic factors were balanced between docetaxel and paclitaxel groups. Median OS was significantly longer for docetaxel versus paclitaxel [10.9 versus 8.3 months; hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62-0.92; P = 0.006]. The median number of cycles administered were four (docetaxel) and three (paclitaxel). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $2434/per month of median survival gained. In the sensitivity analysis, the results were robust except that paclitaxel dominated when the low end of the 95% CI of survival for docetaxel was compared with the high end for paclitaxel. CONCLUSION: This population-based study corroborated the randomized trial's conclusion that for patients with metastatic breast cancer, docetaxel provided superior survival compared with paclitaxel. Each additional month of survival had an incremental cost of $2434.
BACKGROUND: A randomized controlled trial showed longer overall survival (OS) with docetaxel compared with paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancerpatients with prior exposure to anthracycline. We report a similar comparison using population-based data. METHODS: Data on patients treated with single-agent paclitaxel or docetaxel were retrospectively reviewed. OS was compared using a two-tailed log-rank test and expressed as Kaplan-Meier plots. A cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using cost/patient and OS. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-five patients met eligibility criteria. Prognostic factors were balanced between docetaxel and paclitaxel groups. Median OS was significantly longer for docetaxel versus paclitaxel [10.9 versus 8.3 months; hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62-0.92; P = 0.006]. The median number of cycles administered were four (docetaxel) and three (paclitaxel). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $2434/per month of median survival gained. In the sensitivity analysis, the results were robust except that paclitaxel dominated when the low end of the 95% CI of survival for docetaxel was compared with the high end for paclitaxel. CONCLUSION: This population-based study corroborated the randomized trial's conclusion that for patients with metastatic breast cancer, docetaxel provided superior survival compared with paclitaxel. Each additional month of survival had an incremental cost of $2434.