OBJECTIVES: Recent results of the U.S. Oncology Adjuvant Trial 9735 demonstrated significant disease-free survival and overall survival benefits for docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (tc) compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ac) in the adjuvant treatment of operable invasive breast cancer. Based on clinical data from the 9735 study, we evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of tc compared with ac from the perspective of the Canadian publicly funded health care system. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained and per life-year gained. Monthly survival and risk of disease recurrence up to 7 years were obtained directly from the overall survival and disease-free survival curves in the 9735 study; life-years beyond 7 years were estimated using the average life expectancy of age-matched women in the general Canadian population. Canadian-specific resource utilization and unit costs (in 2008 Canadian dollars) were applied to estimate costs for chemotherapy administration, chemotherapy-related toxicities, recurrence, and adverse events. Health-utility scores and decrements used in the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years were derived from the literature. RESULTS: The lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $8,251 for tc compared with ac, and the cost per life-year gained was $6,842. The results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness, combined with efficacy and an acceptable safety profile, support the adoption of tc as an alternative to ac in Canadian clinical practice for the adjuvant treatment of operable early breast cancer.
OBJECTIVES: Recent results of the U.S. Oncology Adjuvant Trial 9735 demonstrated significant disease-free survival and overall survival benefits for docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (tc) compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ac) in the adjuvant treatment of operable invasive breast cancer. Based on clinical data from the 9735 study, we evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of tc compared with ac from the perspective of the Canadian publicly funded health care system. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained and per life-year gained. Monthly survival and risk of disease recurrence up to 7 years were obtained directly from the overall survival and disease-free survival curves in the 9735 study; life-years beyond 7 years were estimated using the average life expectancy of age-matched women in the general Canadian population. Canadian-specific resource utilization and unit costs (in 2008 Canadian dollars) were applied to estimate costs for chemotherapy administration, chemotherapy-related toxicities, recurrence, and adverse events. Health-utility scores and decrements used in the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years were derived from the literature. RESULTS: The lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $8,251 for tc compared with ac, and the cost per life-year gained was $6,842. The results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness, combined with efficacy and an acceptable safety profile, support the adoption of tc as an alternative to ac in Canadian clinical practice for the adjuvant treatment of operable early breast cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost-effectiveness; adjuvant chemotherapy; anthracycline; breast cancer; cost–utility; docetaxel
Authors: Henri Roché; Pierre Fumoleau; Marc Spielmann; Jean-Luc Canon; Thierry Delozier; Daniel Serin; Michel Symann; Pierre Kerbrat; Patrick Soulié; Françoise Eichler; Patrice Viens; Alain Monnier; Anita Vindevoghel; Mario Campone; Marie-Josèphe Goudier; Jacques Bonneterre; Jean-Marc Ferrero; Anne-Laure Martin; Jean Genève; Bernard Asselain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-11-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gershon Y Locker; Robert Mansel; David Cella; Deborah Dobrez; Sonja Sorensen; Sanjay K Gandhi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-01-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Miguel Martin; Tadeusz Pienkowski; John Mackey; Marek Pawlicki; Jean-Paul Guastalla; Charles Weaver; Eva Tomiak; Taher Al-Tweigeri; Linnea Chap; Eva Juhos; Raymond Guevin; Anthony Howell; Tommy Fornander; John Hainsworth; Robert Coleman; Jeferson Vinholes; Manuel Modiano; Tamas Pinter; Shou C Tang; Bruce Colwell; Catherine Prady; Louise Provencher; David Walde; Alvaro Rodriguez-Lescure; Judith Hugh; Camille Loret; Matthieu Rupin; Sandra Blitz; Philip Jacobs; Michael Murawsky; Alessandro Riva; Charles Vogel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-06-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephen E Jones; Michael A Savin; Frankie Ann Holmes; Joyce A O'Shaughnessy; Joanne L Blum; Svetislava Vukelja; Kristi J McIntyre; John E Pippen; James H Bordelon; Robert Kirby; John Sandbach; William J Hyman; Pankaj Khandelwal; Angel G Negron; Donald A Richards; Stephen P Anthony; Robert G Mennel; Kristi A Boehm; Walter G Meyer; Lina Asmar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Pj Devereaux; Joel Lexchin; Samuel B Stone; Armine Yalnizyan; David Himmelstein; Steffie Woolhandler; Qi Zhou; Laurie J Goldsmith; Deborah J Cook; Ted Haines; Christina Lacchetti; John N Lavis; Terrence Sullivan; Ed Mills; Shelley Kraus; Neera Bhatnagar Journal: Open Med Date: 2007-04-14
Authors: Gursharan K Sohi; Jordan Levy; Victoria Delibasic; Laura E Davis; Alyson L Mahar; Elmira Amirazodi; Craig C Earle; Julie Hallet; Ahmed Hammad; Rajan Shah; Nicole Mittmann; Natalie G Coburn Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2021-03-09