OBJECTIVE: Decision makers must make decisions without complete information. That uncertainty can be decreased when economic evaluations use local data and can be quantified by considering the variability of all model inputs concurrently per international evaluation guidelines. It is unclear how these recommendations have been implemented in evaluations of targeted cancer therapy. By using economic evaluations of adjuvant trastuzumab, we have assessed the extent to which decision support recommendations were adopted. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Published economic evaluations of adjuvant trastuzumab treatment in early-stage breast cancer were examined as an established example of targeted therapy. Canadian, United Kingdom, and US economic evaluation guidelines were reviewed to establish extraction criteria. Extraction characterized the use of effectiveness evidence and local data sources for model parameters, sensitivity analysis methods (scenario, univariate, multivariate, and probabilistic), and uncertainty representation (ie, cost-effectiveness plane, scatterplot, confidence ellipses, tornado diagrams, cost-effectiveness acceptability curve). RESULTS: Fifteen economic evaluations of adjuvant trastuzumab were identified in the literature. Local data were used to estimate costs (15 of 15) and utilities rarely (2 of 15) but not trastuzumab efficacy. Univariate sensitivity analysis was most common (12 of 15), whereas probabilistic analysis was less frequent (10 of 15). Two-thirds of all studies provided visual representation of results and decision uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Authors of adjuvant trastuzumab economic evaluations rarely use local data beyond costs. Quantification of uncertainty and its representation also fell short of guideline recommendations. This review demonstrates that economic evaluations of adjuvant trastuzumab, as an example of targeted cancer therapy, can be improved for decision-making support.
OBJECTIVE: Decision makers must make decisions without complete information. That uncertainty can be decreased when economic evaluations use local data and can be quantified by considering the variability of all model inputs concurrently per international evaluation guidelines. It is unclear how these recommendations have been implemented in evaluations of targeted cancer therapy. By using economic evaluations of adjuvant trastuzumab, we have assessed the extent to which decision support recommendations were adopted. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Published economic evaluations of adjuvant trastuzumab treatment in early-stage breast cancer were examined as an established example of targeted therapy. Canadian, United Kingdom, and US economic evaluation guidelines were reviewed to establish extraction criteria. Extraction characterized the use of effectiveness evidence and local data sources for model parameters, sensitivity analysis methods (scenario, univariate, multivariate, and probabilistic), and uncertainty representation (ie, cost-effectiveness plane, scatterplot, confidence ellipses, tornado diagrams, cost-effectiveness acceptability curve). RESULTS: Fifteen economic evaluations of adjuvant trastuzumab were identified in the literature. Local data were used to estimate costs (15 of 15) and utilities rarely (2 of 15) but not trastuzumab efficacy. Univariate sensitivity analysis was most common (12 of 15), whereas probabilistic analysis was less frequent (10 of 15). Two-thirds of all studies provided visual representation of results and decision uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Authors of adjuvant trastuzumab economic evaluations rarely use local data beyond costs. Quantification of uncertainty and its representation also fell short of guideline recommendations. This review demonstrates that economic evaluations of adjuvant trastuzumab, as an example of targeted cancer therapy, can be improved for decision-making support.
Authors: Ian Smith; Marion Procter; Richard D Gelber; Sébastien Guillaume; Andrea Feyereislova; Mitch Dowsett; Aron Goldhirsch; Michael Untch; Gabriella Mariani; Jose Baselga; Manfred Kaufmann; David Cameron; Richard Bell; Jonas Bergh; Robert Coleman; Andrew Wardley; Nadia Harbeck; Roberto I Lopez; Peter Mallmann; Karen Gelmon; Nicholas Wilcken; Erik Wist; Pedro Sánchez Rovira; Martine J Piccart-Gebhart Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-01-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Brigitte A B Essers; Shanley C Seferina; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Johan L Severens; Annoesjka Novák; Marjolein Pompen; Ulrich H Oron; Manuela A Joore Journal: Value Health Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Michael F Press; Guido Sauter; Leslie Bernstein; Ivonne E Villalobos; Martina Mirlacher; Jian-Yuan Zhou; Rooba Wardeh; Yong-Tian Li; Roberta Guzman; Yanling Ma; Jane Sullivan-Halley; Angela Santiago; Jinha M Park; Alessandro Riva; Dennis J Slamon Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Martine J Piccart-Gebhart; Marion Procter; Brian Leyland-Jones; Aron Goldhirsch; Michael Untch; Ian Smith; Luca Gianni; Jose Baselga; Richard Bell; Christian Jackisch; David Cameron; Mitch Dowsett; Carlos H Barrios; Günther Steger; Chiun-Shen Huang; Michael Andersson; Moshe Inbar; Mikhail Lichinitser; István Láng; Ulrike Nitz; Hiroji Iwata; Christoph Thomssen; Caroline Lohrisch; Thomas M Suter; Josef Rüschoff; Tamás Suto; Victoria Greatorex; Carol Ward; Carolyn Straehle; Eleanor McFadden; M Stella Dolci; Richard D Gelber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
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: S Costa; D A Regier; B Meissner; I Cromwell; S Ben-Neriah; E Chavez; S Hung; C Steidl; D W Scott; M A Marra; S J Peacock; J M Connors Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 3.677