Mingjun Rui1,2, Fenghao Shi1,2, Ye Shang1,2, Rui Meng1,2, Hongchao Li3,4. 1. School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China. 2. Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China. 3. School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China. lihongchao@cpu.edu.cn. 4. Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China. lihongchao@cpu.edu.cn.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as a first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China. METHODS: The Markov model and partitioned survival (PS) model were used, and the study included three health states over the period of a lifetime. Transition probabilities and safety data were derived from the CBCSG006 trial (cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients who had acquired metastatic triple-negative breast cancer). Cost and utility values were derived from previous studies, the Chinese Drug Bidding Database, and healthcare documents. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability. RESULTS: In the Markov model, compared with paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.15 QALYs, with an incremental cost of 1976.33 USD. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 12,826.98 USD/QALY (quality-adjusted life year). In the PS model, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.17 QALYs with an incremental cost of 2384.63 USD; the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 13,867.7 USD/QALY. In the first scenario analysis, in which the 3-year time horizon was used in both arms, the total QALYs in the cisplatin plus gemcitabine group were larger and the costs were lower, indicating that cisplatin plus gemcitabine was superior to paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. In the second scenario, in which the progression-free (PF) utility (during chemotherapy) was 0.76, the PF utility was 0.96, and the post-progression (PP) utility was 0.55, the result obtained with the Markov model showed that the ICUR was 11,063.68 USD/QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) on the Markov model, the probabilities that cisplatin plus gemcitabine would be cost-effective were 48.94-78.72% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was 9776.8 to 29,330.4 USD/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present analysis suggest that cisplatin plus gemcitabine might be much more cost-effective than paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients receiving first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China.
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as a first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China. METHODS: The Markov model and partitioned survival (PS) model were used, and the study included three health states over the period of a lifetime. Transition probabilities and safety data were derived from the CBCSG006 trial (cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients who had acquired metastatic triple-negative breast cancer). Cost and utility values were derived from previous studies, the Chinese Drug Bidding Database, and healthcare documents. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability. RESULTS: In the Markov model, compared with paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.15 QALYs, with an incremental cost of 1976.33 USD. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 12,826.98 USD/QALY (quality-adjusted life year). In the PS model, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.17 QALYs with an incremental cost of 2384.63 USD; the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 13,867.7 USD/QALY. In the first scenario analysis, in which the 3-year time horizon was used in both arms, the total QALYs in the cisplatin plus gemcitabine group were larger and the costs were lower, indicating that cisplatin plus gemcitabine was superior to paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. In the second scenario, in which the progression-free (PF) utility (during chemotherapy) was 0.76, the PF utility was 0.96, and the post-progression (PP) utility was 0.55, the result obtained with the Markov model showed that the ICUR was 11,063.68 USD/QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) on the Markov model, the probabilities that cisplatin plus gemcitabine would be cost-effective were 48.94-78.72% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was 9776.8 to 29,330.4 USD/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present analysis suggest that cisplatin plus gemcitabine might be much more cost-effective than paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients receiving first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cisplatin; Cost-effectiveness; Gemcitabine; Paclitaxel; Triple-negative breast cancer