T Younis1, D Rayson, C Skedgel. 1. Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, QEII Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, NS.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The adoption of a chemotherapeutic regimen in oncologic practice is a function of both its clinical and its economic impacts on cancer management. For breast cancer, U.S. Oncology trial 9735 reported significant improvements in disease-free and overall survival favoring adjuvant tc (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles) compared with ac (doxorubicin 60 mg/ m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles). We carried out an economic evaluation to examine the cost-utility of adjuvant tc relative to ac, in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (qaly) gained, given the improved breast cancer outcomes and higher costs associated with the tc regimen. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to calculate the cumulative costs and qalys gained over a 10-year horizon for hypothetical cohorts of women with breast cancer treated with ac or with tc. Event rates, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature and local resources. Efficacy and adverse events were based on results reported from U.S. Oncology trial 9735. The model takes a third-party direct payer perspective and reports its results in 2008 Canadian dollars. Costs and benefits were both discounted at 3%. RESULTS: At a 10-year horizon, tc was associated with $3,960 incremental costs and a 0.24 qaly gain compared with ac, for a favorable cost-utility of $16,753 per qaly gained. Results were robust to model assumptions and input parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to ac, tc is a cost-effective adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, with a cost-effectiveness ratio well below commonly applied thresholds.
PURPOSE: The adoption of a chemotherapeutic regimen in oncologic practice is a function of both its clinical and its economic impacts on cancer management. For breast cancer, U.S. Oncology trial 9735 reported significant improvements in disease-free and overall survival favoring adjuvant tc (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles) compared with ac (doxorubicin 60 mg/ m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles). We carried out an economic evaluation to examine the cost-utility of adjuvant tc relative to ac, in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (qaly) gained, given the improved breast cancer outcomes and higher costs associated with the tc regimen. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to calculate the cumulative costs and qalys gained over a 10-year horizon for hypothetical cohorts of women with breast cancer treated with ac or with tc. Event rates, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature and local resources. Efficacy and adverse events were based on results reported from U.S. Oncology trial 9735. The model takes a third-party direct payer perspective and reports its results in 2008 Canadian dollars. Costs and benefits were both discounted at 3%. RESULTS: At a 10-year horizon, tc was associated with $3,960 incremental costs and a 0.24 qaly gain compared with ac, for a favorable cost-utility of $16,753 per qaly gained. Results were robust to model assumptions and input parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to ac, tc is a cost-effective adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, with a cost-effectiveness ratio well below commonly applied thresholds.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; ac chemotherapy, cost; adjuvant therapy; chemotherapy; tc chemotherapy; utility analysis
Authors: Thomas J Smith; James Khatcheressian; Gary H Lyman; Howard Ozer; James O Armitage; Lodovico Balducci; Charles L Bennett; Scott B Cantor; Jeffrey Crawford; Scott J Cross; George Demetri; Christopher E Desch; Philip A Pizzo; Charles A Schiffer; Lee Schwartzberg; Mark R Somerfield; George Somlo; James C Wade; James L Wade; Rodger J Winn; Antoinette J Wozniak; Antonio C Wolff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P Marino; C Siani; H Roché; C Protière; P Fumoleau; M Spielmann; A-L Martin; P Viens; A-G Le Corroller Soriano Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2009-12-27 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: L Masucci; S Torres; A Eisen; M Trudeau; I Tyono; H Saunders; K W Chan; W Isaranuwatchai Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Kednapa Thavorn; Doug Coyle; Jeffrey S Hoch; Lisa Vandermeer; Sasha Mazzarello; Zhou Wang; George Dranitsaris; Dean Fergusson; Mark Clemons Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Mark E Burkard; Kari B Wisinski; Uchenna O Njiaju; Sarahmaria Donohue; Robert Hegeman; Amy Stella; Patrick Mansky; Varsha Shah; Timothy Goggins; Rubina Qamar; Leah Dietrich; Kyungmann Kim; Anne M Traynor; Amye J Tevaarwerk Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2013-10-26 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Patricia R Blank; Martin Filipits; Peter Dubsky; Florian Gutzwiller; Michael P Lux; Jan C Brase; Karsten E Weber; Margaretha Rudas; Richard Greil; Sibylle Loibl; Thomas D Szucs; Ralf Kronenwett; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Michael Gnant Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.981