Dataset Information

Economic evaluation of fulvestrant as an extra step in the treatment sequence for ER-positive advanced breast cancer.

ABSTRACT: Drug therapies for advanced breast cancer in hormone-receptor-positive disease include both hormonal and chemotherapies. Current UK practice is to minimise toxicity by using sequential hormonal agents for as long as clinically appropriate. A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost effectiveness of different sequences of therapies, particularly exploring the effects of adding an additional hormonal agent, fulvestrant, to the treatment pathway. A systematic review was undertaken and a panel of seven UK oncologists validated assumptions used for treatment efficacy, treatment pathways and resources used. Fulvestrant was found to be a cost-effective treatment option when added to the treatment sequence as a second- or third-line hormonal therapy for advanced disease. For a cohort of 1000 patients, fulvestrant as a second-line hormone therapy provided an additional 47 life years and 41 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at an additional cost of pound 301 359. This equated to pound 6500 per life years gained and pound 7500 per QALY. When used as a third-line option, the fulvestrant arm was dominant providing an increase in health benefit of 27 QALYs for the whole cohort, at a mean overall cost reduction of pound 430 per patient. Sensitivity analyses showed these results to be robust, demonstrating that fulvestrant is an economically viable additional endocrine option in the United Kingdom for the treatment of hormone responsive advanced breast cancer.

SUBMITTER: Cameron DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2607221 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAmong breast cancer (BC) patients, near 40% are post-menopause, and 70%-80% are hormone receptor (HR)-positive. About 30%-40% BC patients who are diagnosed as invasive carcinoma HR-positive BC would eventually develop metastatic breast cancers. In 2016, FALCON trial proves Fulvestrant as an effective first-line endocrine therapy for post-menopause HR-positive advanced BC (ABC) patients. But even after FALCON published, Fulvestrant is rarely used as first-line in real world ABC patients in China.MethodIn this study, 136 Fulvestrant users were enrolled from 2015. To investigate the clinical and genetic risk factors for Fulvestrant treatment response in real world data, biostatistic and bioinformatic analysis tools were adopted.ResultKM curves showed that Fulvestrant first-line users had a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 15.67 months, which was longer than the second-line users and third (or higher)-line users (mPFS = 7.47 and 5.43 months, respectively). 16 s (or higher)-line users were voluntarily received circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing after progression. ctDNA testing results showed that compared to patients with PFS longer than 6 months, Fulvestrant users with PFS less than 6 months had a significantly higher mutation rate of ESR1 or ERBB2 gene (0/6 vs 6/10, Fisher's Exact p-value = 0.03). Multivariate COX regression analysis showed that clinical features, including lymph node metastasis and HER-2 positive, were significant risk factors for poor PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.396 and 2.863, respectively]; high portion of estrogen receptor-positive cells was significant protective factor (HR = 0.663). Propensity-score matching (PMS) analysis suggested that visceral metastasis, prior palliative chemotherapy, and old age at Fulvestrant usage were not significant influential factor for PFS.ConclusionFirst-line Fulvestrant usage could guarantee a better prognosis than higher-line usage. ESR1 or ERBB2 mutation was found to be related to poor PFS in higher-line Fulvestrant users.

Project description:Endocrine therapies include aromatase inhibitors and the selective estrogen receptor (ER) downregulator fulvestrant. This study aimed to determine whether the reported efficacy of fulvestrant over anastrozole, and high- over low-dose fulvestrant, reflect distinct transcriptional responses.Global gene expression profiles from ER?-positive breast carcinomas before and during presurgical treatment with fulvestrant (n = 22) or anastrozole (n = 81), and corresponding in vitro models, were compared. Transcripts responding differently to fulvestrant and estrogen deprivation were identified and integrated using Gene Ontology, pathway and network analyses to evaluate their potential significance.The overall transcriptional response to fulvestrant and estrogen deprivation was correlated (r = 0.61 in presurgical studies, r = 0.87 in vitro), involving downregulation of estrogen-regulated and proliferation-associated genes. The transcriptional response to fulvestrant was of greater magnitude than estrogen deprivation (slope = 0.62 in presurgical studies, slope = 0.63 in vitro). Comparative analyses identified 28 genes and 40 Gene Ontology categories affected differentially by fulvestrant. Seventeen fulvestrant-specific genes, including CAV1/2, SNAI2, and NRP1, associated with ER?, androgen receptor (AR), and TP53, in a network regulating cell cycle, death, survival, and tumor morphology. Eighteen genes responding differently to fulvestrant specifically predicted antiproliferative response to fulvestrant, but not anastrozole. Transcriptional effects of low-dose fulvestrant correlated with high-dose treatment, but were of lower magnitude (ratio = 0.29).The transcriptional response to fulvestrant has much in common with estrogen deprivation, but is stronger with distinctions potentially attributable to arrest of estrogen-independent ER? activity and involvement of AR signaling. Genes responding differently to fulvestrant may have predictive utility. These data are consistent with the clinical efficacy of fulvestrant versus anastrozole and higher dosing regimens.

Dataset Information

Economic evaluation of fulvestrant as an extra step in the treatment sequence for ER-positive advanced breast cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets