Dataset Information

Testing for HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Testing 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.

Methods

We 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).

Results

The 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.

Interpretation

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Dendukuri N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1863543 | biostudies-literature | 2007 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Testing for HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Dendukuri Nandini N Khetani Karim K McIsaac Michelle M Brophy James J

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20070501 10

<h4>Background</h4>Testing 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.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a systematic review of studies that evaluated concordance between immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridizatio ...[more]

PMID: 17485695

Similar Datasets

Project description:The cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with lapatinib plus letrozole for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (hr+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (her2+) metastatic breast cancer (mbc) has not been assessed from the Canadian health care system and societal perspectives.A partitioned survival analysis model with 3 health states (alive, pre-progression; alive, post-progression; dead) was developed to estimate direct and indirect costs and quality-adjusted life years (qalys) with lapatinib-letrozole, letrozole, anastrozole, or trastuzumab-anastrozole as first-line treatment. Clinical inputs for lapatinib-letrozole and letrozole were taken from the EGF30008 trial (NCT00073528). Clinical inputs for anastrozole and trastuzumab-anastrozole were taken from a network meta-analysis of published studies. Drug costs were obtained from the manufacturer's price list, the Quebec list of medications, and imsBrogan. Other costs were taken from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan's Schedule of Benefits and Fees and published studies. A 10-year time horizon was used. Costs and qalys were discounted at 5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effects of changes in model parameters.Quality-adjusted life years gained with lapatinib-letrozole were 0.236 compared with trastuzumab-anastrozole, 0.440 compared with letrozole, and 0.568 compared with anastrozole. Assuming a health care system perspective, incremental costs were $5,805, $67,029, and $67,472 respectively. Given a cost per qaly threshold of $100,000, the probability that lapatinib-letrozole is preferred was 21% compared with letrozole, 36% compared with anastrozole, and 68% compared with trastuzumab-anastrozole. Results from the societal perspective were similar.In postmenopausal women with hr+/her2+ mbc receiving first-line treatment, lapatinib-letrozole may not be cost-effective compared with letrozole or anastrozole, but may be cost-effective compared with trastuzumab-anastrozole.

Project description:Importance:The neoadjuvant treatment options for ERBB2-positive (also known as HER2-positive) breast cancer are associated with different rates of pathologic complete response (pCR). The KATHERINE trial showed that adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) can reduce recurrence in patients with residual disease compared with patients treated with trastuzumab; however, T-DM1 and other ERBB2-targeted agents are costly, and understanding the costs and health consequences of various combinations of neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatments in the United States is needed. Objective:To examine the costs and disease outcomes associated with selection of various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer from a health care payer perspective in the United States. The model was informed by the KATHERINE trial, other clinical trials with different regimens from the KATHERINE trial, the Flatiron Health Database, McKesson Corporation data, and other evidence in the published literature. Starting trial median age for KATHERINE patients was 49 years (range, 24-79 years in T-DM1 arm and 23-80 years in trastuzumab arm). The model simulated patients receiving 5 different neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies. Data analyses were performed from March 2019 to August 2020. Exposure:There were 4 neoadjuvant regimens: (1) HP: trastuzumab (H) plus pertuzumab (P), (2) THP: paclitaxel (T) plus H plus P, (3) DDAC-THP: dose-dense anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (DDAC) plus THP, (4) TCHP: docetaxel (T) plus carboplatin (C) plus HP. All patients with pCR, regardless of neoadjuvant regimen, received adjuvant H. Patients with residual disease received different adjuvant therapies depending on the neoadjuvant regimen according to the 5 following strategies: (1) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant H, (2) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant T-DM1, (3) neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1, (4) neoadjuvant HP followed by adjuvant DDAC/THP plus T-DM1, or (5) neoadjuvant TCHP followed by adjuvant T-DM1. Main Outcomes and Measures:Lifetime costs in 2020 US dollars and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each treatment strategy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. A strategy was classified as dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative. Results:In the base-case analysis, costs ranged from $415?833 (strategy 3) to $518?859 (strategy 4), and QALYs ranged from 9.67 (strategy 1) to 10.73 (strategy 3). Strategy 3 was associated with the highest health benefits (10.73 QALYs) and lowest costs ($415?833) and dominated all other strategies. Probabilistic analysis confirmed that this strategy had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (>70% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0-200,000/QALY) and was associated with the highest net benefit. Conclusions and Relevance:These results suggest that neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant H for patients with pCR or followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1 for patients with residual disease was associated with the highest health benefits and lowest costs for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer compared with other treatment strategies considered.

Dataset Information

Testing for HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Testing for HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure