OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer, the most common malignant cancer among women in Western countries, has poor prognosis following metastasis. New therapies potentially extend survival, but their value is questioned when benefits are incremental and expensive. The objective of our study was to understand the economic impact of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and its treatment, and to evaluate the designs of these studies. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the MEDLINE-indexed, English-language literature, identifying 31 articles on the economic evaluation of MBC in 10 developed countries, including studies of per-patient costs, gross national costs, and cost-effectiveness models. We also included health technology assessments (HTAs) from government and regulatory agencies. RESULTS: Total per-patient costs of MBC are only available for Sweden ($17,301-$48,169 annually, depending on patient age (2005 USD)). Most economic analyses of per-patient direct costs originate from the US; across all countries, data indicate that this burden is substantial. Gross national costs of MBC are available only for the UK (cost of incident MBC cases is estimated to be $22 million annually (2002 GBP)). Many cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that a number of new and established treatments are cost-effective compared to standard care in various countries, but many offer small increments in survival. The cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab, capecitabine, and nab-paclitaxel has been evaluated in many recent studies. CONCLUSION: Most economic evaluations of MBC have utilized secondary rather than primary data, and have used scenarios and assumptions which may be inaccurate or outdated. The quality of evidence disseminated to decision-makers could be improved by adherence to best practices in cost-effectiveness analyses.
OBJECTIVE:Breast cancer, the most common malignant cancer among women in Western countries, has poor prognosis following metastasis. New therapies potentially extend survival, but their value is questioned when benefits are incremental and expensive. The objective of our study was to understand the economic impact of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and its treatment, and to evaluate the designs of these studies. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the MEDLINE-indexed, English-language literature, identifying 31 articles on the economic evaluation of MBC in 10 developed countries, including studies of per-patient costs, gross national costs, and cost-effectiveness models. We also included health technology assessments (HTAs) from government and regulatory agencies. RESULTS: Total per-patient costs of MBC are only available for Sweden ($17,301-$48,169 annually, depending on patient age (2005 USD)). Most economic analyses of per-patient direct costs originate from the US; across all countries, data indicate that this burden is substantial. Gross national costs of MBC are available only for the UK (cost of incident MBC cases is estimated to be $22 million annually (2002 GBP)). Many cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that a number of new and established treatments are cost-effective compared to standard care in various countries, but many offer small increments in survival. The cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab, capecitabine, and nab-paclitaxel has been evaluated in many recent studies. CONCLUSION: Most economic evaluations of MBC have utilized secondary rather than primary data, and have used scenarios and assumptions which may be inaccurate or outdated. The quality of evidence disseminated to decision-makers could be improved by adherence to best practices in cost-effectiveness analyses.
Authors: Rima Tawk; Vassiki Sanogo; Vakaramoko Diaby; Hong Xiao; Alberto J Montero Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-04-19 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Dirk Müller; Marion Danner; Kerstin Rhiem; Björn Stollenwerk; Christoph Engel; Linda Rasche; Lisa Borsi; Rita Schmutzler; Stephanie Stock Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2017-04-05
Authors: Rana El Haidari; Amelie Anota; Tienhan S Dabakuyo-Yonli; Francis Guillemin; Thierry Conroy; Michel Velten; Damien Jolly; Sylvain Causeret; Jean Cuisenier; Olivier Graesslin; Linda Abou Abbas; Virginie Nerich Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Begoña Bermejo de Las Heras; Javier Cortes Ramon Y Cajal; Elena Galve Calvo; Juan de la Haba Rodriguez; Jesus Garcia Mata; Fernando Moreno Anton; Ignacio Pelaez Fernandez; Alvaro Rodriguez-Lescure; Cesar A Rodriguez Sanchez; Manuel Ruiz-Borrego; Edit Remak; Magdolna Barra; Maria Rivero; Javier Soto Alvarez Journal: Eur J Hosp Pharm Date: 2018-07-30
Authors: Paul Peter Schneider; Bram L Ramaekers; Xavier Pouwels; Sandra Geurts; Khava Ibragimova; Maaike de Boer; Birgit Vriens; Yes van de Wouw; Marien den Boer; Manon Pepels; Vivianne Tjan-Heijnen; Manuela Joore Journal: Value Health Date: 2021-02-13 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Marie Louise Svendsen; Henrik Gammelager; Claus Sværke; Mellissa Yong; Victoria M Chia; Christian F Christiansen; Jon P Fryzek Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 4.790