Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis review of exemestane in the treatment of primary and advanced breast cancer.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Exemestane was approved in 2005 for adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. In this study, we aimed to assess whether it is cost-effective in comparison to available alternatives. MATERIAL AND METHODS:To evaluate the efficacy of exemestane, a systematic review was conducted by searching electronic databases. The outcomes of interest were "clinical benefit", "overall response" and "disease-free survival rate". To evaluate the cost of treatments, costs of both domestic generic and imported brand medicines were taken into account, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for each comparison. RESULTS:Regarding primary breast cancer, based upon available evidence, exemestane could not be considered as a cost-effective medicine either in generic or brand form compared with placebo (ICER: 119,100 and 215,525), with tamoxifen after 2-3 years of therapy (ICER: 35,150 and 82,400) and with sequential treatment by tamoxifen and exemestane (dominated because of lower effectiveness and higher cost). In metastatic breast cancer, exemestane was not considered a cost-effective treatment compared with both anastrozole and megestrol acetate (dominated) and was highly cost-effective compared with tamoxifen (ICERs: 2,208 and 4,326 dollars per one more patient with an overall response for generic and brand medicines) although even in this case it was not cost-effective in terms of the 1-year survival rates (dominated). CONCLUSIONS:Regarding current evidence and related costs in terms of Iranian pharmaceutical market prices, exemestane could not be considered a cost-effective treatment in primary and advanced breast cancer compared with available alternatives. However, more evidence is still needed for more certain decisions.

SUBMITTER: Hashemi-Meshkini A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3701982 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis review of exemestane in the treatment of primary and advanced breast cancer.

Hashemi-Meshkini Amir A Keshavarz Khosro K Gharibnaseri Zahra Z Kheirandish Mehrnaz M Kebriaeezadeh Abbas A Nikfar Shekoufeh S Abdollahi Mohammad M

Archives of medical science : AMS 20130527 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Exemestane was approved in 2005 for adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. In this study, we aimed to assess whether it is cost-effective in comparison to available alternatives.<h4>Material and methods</h4>To evaluate the efficacy of exemestane, a systematic review was conducted by searching electronic databases. The outcomes of interest were "clinical benefit", "overall response" and "disease-free survival rate". To evaluate the cost of treatments, costs of both domestic gen ...[more]

PMID: 23847669

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTesting to determine HER2 status has come into focus since the approval of trastuzumab (Herceptin) for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. We compared the cost-effectiveness of various strategies used to test HER2 status, an important first step toward evaluating the overall cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab therapy.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of studies that evaluated concordance between immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization testing to determine HER2 status. We performed a meta-analysis to estimate the distribution of immunohistochemistry scores in each category (0, 1+, 2+, 3+) and the probability of receiving a positive result of fluorescence in situ hybridization (which we assumed to be the "gold-standard" test) for each category. We calculated the accuracy and incremental cost per accurate diagnosis for each testing strategy compared with the base strategy (immunohistochemistry testing, followed by confirmation of 2+ scores by fluorescence in situ hybridization).ResultsThe median percentage of patients in each category of immunohistochemistry score was: 0, 36.1%; 1+, 35.5%; 2+, 12.0%; and 3+, 16.2%. The median percentage of results of fluorescence in situ hybridization that were positive in each immunohistochemistry category was: 0, 1.6%; 1+, 4.9%; 2+, 29.8%; and 3+, 92.4%. The base strategy was expected to correctly determine the HER2 status of 96% of patients with breast cancer. Confirmation of the HER2 status by fluorescence in situ hybridization in cases that received a score of 3+ reduced the percentage of false-positive results to 0% and increased the percentage of accurately determined HER2 results to 97.6%. Compared with the base strategy, this strategy was associated with a median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $6175 per case of accurately determined HER2 status. The strategy of performing fluorescence in situ hybridization testing in all cases of breast cancer was associated with a median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $8401 per case of accurately determined HER2 status.InterpretationThe strategy with the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio involved screening all newly diagnosed cases of breast cancer with immunohistochemistry and confirming scores of 2+ or 3+ with fluorescence in situ hybridization testing.

Project description:Background: In 2018, the global estimate of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases among women totaled 2.1 million. The economic and social burden that breast cancer places on societies has propelled research that analyzes the role of modifiable risk factors as the primary prevention methods. Healthy behavior changes, moderated alcohol intake, healthy body weight, and regular physical activity may decrease the risk of breast cancer among women. This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle-related interventions for the primary prevention of breast cancer in order to answer the question on whether implementing interventions focused on behavior changes are worth the value for money. Methods: A rapid review was performed using search terms developed by the research team. The articles were retrieved from MEDLINE and the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, with an additional web search in Google and Google Scholar. Comparisons were performed on the cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year between the interventions using a league table, and the likelihood of cost-effective interventions for breast cancer primary prevention was analyzed. Results: Six studies were selected. The median cost-effectiveness ratio (in 2018 USD) was $24,973, and 80% of the interventions had a ratio below the $50,000 threshold. The low-fat-diet program for postmenopausal women was cost-effective at a societal level, and the physical activity interventions, such as the Be Active Program in the UK, had the best cost saving results. A total of 11 of the 25 interventions ranked either as highly or very highly likely to be cost-effective for breast cancer primary preventions. Conclusion: Although the review had some limitations due to using only a few studies, it showed evidence that diet-related and physical-activity-related interventions for the primary prevention of breast cancer were cost-effective. Many of the cost-effective interventions aimed to reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases alongside breast cancer.

Project description:PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib compared to palbociclib, both in combination with letrozole, in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (ABC) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).Patients and methodsDisease progression was simulated with a partitioned survival model developed from the parameterization and extrapolation of survival curves of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC from clinical trials with ribociclib or palbociclib, both in combination with letrozole. The model was structured on the basis of three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death), with a 1-month cycle length and inclusion of subsequent treatments administered for disease progression, over a time horizon of 15 years. Clinical, economic, and quality of life parameters were drawn from clinical trials and the literature. The use of resources and clinical practice in the Spanish setting was validated by a panel of experts. The Spanish NHS perspective was adopted, taking into account exclusively direct health costs from 2017 expressed in Euros. Drug prices used were the reported ex-factory prices. Uncertainty of the parameters and robustness of the results were evaluated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (2,000 iterations).ResultsThis cost-effectiveness analysis showed a greater benefit (0.437 and 0.285 life-years gained [LYGs] and quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] gained, respectively) and a slightly higher cost (€439.86) for ribociclib+letrozole compared to palbociclib+letrozole. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were €1,007.69 per LYG and €1,543.62 per QALY gained, respectively. The results of the multiple sensitivity analyses showed limited dispersion of the outcomes, thus corroborating their robustness.ConclusionFrom the NHS perspective, considering the most commonly established willingness-to-pay thresholds in the Spanish setting, ribociclib+letrozole would represent a cost-effective therapeutic option compared to palbociclib+letrozole in the first-line treatment of HR+/HER2- ABC in postmenopausal women.

Project description:Background:Breast cancer is highly prevalent worldwide and leads to high health-care costs. HER2-positive subtype represents 30% of all breast cancers and is associated with a poor prognosis. Patients treated with anti-HER2 therapies frequently develop resistance and require pharmacological treatment change. Liquid biopsy is a minimally invasive and an easily accessible technique, with high sensitivity and specificity, to detect molecular treatment resistance even before the onset of clinical manifestations and can thus be used to reduce unnecessary anti-HER2 treatment costs. Objective:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using liquid biopsy (ctDNA detection) to determine treatment change in women with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer in Colombia. Methodology:We performed an economic evaluation using decision tree modeling and deterministic analyses based on literature search for first and second lines of treatment (trastuzumab, pertuzumab, docetaxel, and TDM1); resistance; outcomes; and sensitivity and specificity of tests detecting molecular resistance. The effectiveness was measured using quality-adjusted life year (QALY) score, and costs were obtained from databases with national validity, suppliers, the Colombian Drug Price Information System (SISMED), and local studies. Results:The use of liquid biopsy (ctDNA detection) with conventional treatment was more expensive and less effective than conventional treatment without liquid biopsy (US $177,985.35 and 0.533889206 QALY, respectively). The incremental cost with liquid biopsy was US $7,333.17 and the incremental effectiveness was 0.00042256 QALY relative to the conventional method. Conclusion:Including liquid biopsy in the treatment of HER2-positive advanced breast cancer was considered currently inapplicable in Colombia because it was not cost effective. Our results open a window of opportunity to improve the development and implementation of ctDNA testing in Colombia, potentially reducing current costs. More evidence is required on the utility of this test, depending on the financial capacity of Colombia and other countries.

Project description:ObjectiveIn the double-blind, phase III, placebo-controlled RUBY randomized clinical trial, dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel significantly increased survival among patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of dostarlimab in combination with chemotherapy in these patients stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups from the perspective of a United States payer.Materials and methodsA Markov model with three states was employed to simulate patients who were administered either dostarlimab in combination with chemotherapy or chemotherapy based on the RUBY trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to explore the robustness of the model.ResultsIn dMMR EC, the combination of dostarlimab and chemotherapy achieved an additional 5.48 QALYs at an incremental cost of $330,747 compared to chemotherapy alone, resulting in an ICER of $60,349.30 per QALY. In pMMR EC, there were 1.51 additional QALYs gained at an extra cost of $265,148, yielding an ICER of $175,788.47 per QALY. With a 15.2% discount on dostarlimab, the ICER decreased to $150,000 per QALY in the pMMR EC. The univariate sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost of dostarlimab, utility of progression-free survival (PFS), and progressive disease (PD) had the most significant impacts on the outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that dostarlimab had a 100% likelihood of being considered cost-effective for patients at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY for dMMR EC, whereas this likelihood was only 0.5% for pMMR EC.ConclusionDostarlimab in combination with chemotherapy was cost-effective for primary advanced or recurrent dMMR EC from the perspective of a United States payer at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, but not for pMMR EC. Lowering the prices of dostarlimab could potentially enhance the cost-effectiveness of treatment for pMMR EC.

Project description:BackgroundMore than 30% of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers are resistant to primary hormone therapy, and about 40% that initially respond to hormone therapy eventually acquire resistance. Although the mechanisms of hormone therapy resistance remain unclear, aberrant DNA methylation has been implicated in oncogenesis and drug resistance.PurposeWe investigated the relationship between methylome variations in circulating tumor DNA and exemestane resistance, to track hormone therapy efficacy.MethodsWe prospectively recruited 16 patients who were receiving first-line therapy in our center. All patients received exemestane-based hormone therapy after enrollment. We collected blood samples at baseline, first follow-up (after 2 therapeutic cycles) and at detection of disease progression. Disease that progressed within 6 months under exemestane treatment was considered exemestane resistance but was considered relatively exemestane-sensitive otherwise. We obtained circulating tumor DNA-derived methylomes using the whole-genome bisulfide sequencing method. Methylation calling was done by BISMARK software; differentially methylated regions for exemestane resistance were calculated afterward.ResultsMedian follow-up for the 16 patients was 19.0 months. We found 7 exemestane resistance-related differentially methylated regions, located in different chromosomes, with both significantly different methylation density and methylation ratio. Baseline methylation density and methylation ratio of chromosome 6 [32400000-32599999] were both high in exemestane resistance. High baseline methylation ratios of chromosome 3 [67800000-67999999] (P = .013), chromosome 3 [140200000-140399999] (P = .037), and chromosome 12 [101200000-101399999] (P = .026) could also predict exemestane resistance. During exemestane treatment, synchronized changes in methylation density and methylation ratio in chromosome 6 [32400000-32599999] could accurately stratify patients in terms of progression-free survival (P = .000033). Cutoff values of methylation density and methylation ratio for chromosome 6 [149600000-149799999] were 0.066 and 0.076, respectively.ConclusionMethylation change in chromosome 6 [149600000-149799999] is an ideal predictor of exemestane resistance with great clinical potential.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis review of exemestane in the treatment of primary and advanced breast cancer.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis review of exemestane in the treatment of primary and advanced breast cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets