Dataset Information

Half-dose fulvestrant plus anastrozole as a first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:The S0226 trial demonstrated that the combination of half-dose fulvestrant (FUL) and anastrozole (ANA) (F&A) caused a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) versus ANA monotherapy for first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (PMW-MBC (HR+)). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of F&A in the first-line treatment for PMW-MBC (HR+) in China. DESIGN:We constructed a Markov model over a life-time horizon. The clinical outcomes and utility data were obtained from published literature. Cost data were obtained from official Chinese websites. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test result uncertainty. SETTING:Chinese healthcare system perspective. POPULATION:A hypothetical cohort of adult patients presenting with PMW-MBC (HR+). INTERVENTIONS:F&A compared with full-dose FUL and ANAmonotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). RESULTS:ANA was estimated to have the lowest cost and minimum life-years. The ICER of F&A versus ANA was US$15 665.891/QALY with incremental cost and QALY of US$12 401.120 and 0.792, respectively, which was less than the willingness-to-pay of US$29 383/QALY. Compared with F&A, FUL yielded a higher cost and a shorter lifetime; hence, it was identified as a dominated strategy. The univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the price of FUL was the most influential factor in our study. The probability that F&A was cost-effective at a threshold of US$29 383/QALY in China was 86.5%. CONCLUSION:F&A is a cost-effective alternative to FUL and ANA monotherapy for the first-line treatment of PMW-MBC (HR+) in China. F&A is a promising first-line treatment for PMW-MBC (HR+), and more research is needed to evaluate the economy of using F&A in other countries.

SUBMITTER: Huang X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7462248 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Half-dose fulvestrant plus anastrozole as a first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Huang Xiaoting X Weng Xiuhua X Lin Shen S Liu Yiwei Y Luo Shaohong S Wang Hang H Ming Wai-Kit WK Huang Pinfang P

BMJ open 20200830 8

<h4>Objective</h4>The S0226 trial demonstrated that the combination of half-dose fulvestrant (FUL) and anastrozole (ANA) (F&A) caused a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) versus ANA monotherapy for first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (PMW-MBC (HR+)). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of F&A in the first-line treatment for PMW-MBC (HR+) in China.<h4>Design</h4>We constructed a Markov mo ...[more]

PMID: 32868353

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceRandomized clinical trials have demonstrated a substantial benefit of adding everolimus to endocrine therapy. Everolimus inhibits the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) complex but not mTORC2, which can set off an activating feedback loop via mTORC2. Vistusertib, a dual inhibitor of mTORC1 and mTORC2, has demonstrated broad activity in preclinical breast cancer models, showing superior activity to everolimus.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of vistusertib in combination with fulvestrant compared with fulvestrant alone or fulvestrant plus everolimus in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThe MANTA trial is an open-label, phase 2 randomized clinical trial in which 333 patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer progressing after prior aromatase inhibitor treatment underwent randomization (2:3:3:2) between April 1, 2014, and October 24, 2016, at 88 sites in 9 countries: 67 patients were assigned to receive fulvestrant, 103 fulvestrant plus vistusertib daily, 98 fulvestrant plus vistusertib intermittently, and 65 fulvestrant plus everolimus. Treatment was continued until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.InterventionsFulvestrant alone or in combination with vistusertib (continuous or intermittent dosing schedules) or everolimus.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsAmong the 333 women in the study (median age, 63 years [range, 56-70 years]), median PFS was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.5-9.2 months) with fulvestrant, 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.9-9.4 months) with fulvestrant plus daily vistusertib, 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.6-9.9 months) with fulvestrant plus intermittent vistusertib, and 12.3 months (95% CI, 7.7-15.7 months) with fulvestrant plus everolimus. There was no significant difference in PFS between those receiving fulvestrant plus daily or intermittent vistusertib and fulvestrant alone (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.63-1.24]; P = .46; and hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.55-1.12]; P = .16).Conclusions and relevanceThe combination of fulvestrant plus everolimus demonstrated significantly longer PFS compared with fulvestrant plus vistusertib or fulvestrant alone. The trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of adding the dual mTORC1 and mTORC2 inhibitor vistusertib to fulvestrant.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02216786 and EudraCT number: 2013-002403-34.

Project description:BackgroundThe aromatase inhibitor anastrozole inhibits estrogen synthesis. Fulvestrant binds and accelerates degradation of estrogen receptors. We hypothesized that these two agents in combination might be more effective than anastrozole alone in patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer.MethodsPostmenopausal women with previously untreated metastatic disease were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive either 1 mg of anastrozole orally every day (group 1), with crossover to fulvestrant alone strongly encouraged if the disease progressed, or anastrozole and fulvestrant in combination (group 2). Patients were stratified according to prior or no prior receipt of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Fulvestrant was administered intramuscularly at a dose of 500 mg on day 1 and 250 mg on days 14 and 28 and monthly thereafter. The primary end point was progression-free survival, with overall survival designated as a prespecified secondary outcome.ResultsThe median progression-free survival was 13.5 months in group 1 and 15.0 months in group 2 (hazard ratio for progression or death with combination therapy, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.94; P=0.007 by the log-rank test). The combination therapy was generally more effective than anastrozole alone in all subgroups, with no significant interactions. Overall survival was also longer with combination therapy (median, 41.3 months in group 1 and 47.7 months in group 2; hazard ratio for death, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.00; P=0.05 by the log-rank test), despite the fact that 41% of the patients in group 1 crossed over to fulvestrant after progression. Three deaths that were possibly associated with treatment occurred in group 2. The rates of grade 3 to 5 toxic effects did not differ significantly between the two groups.ConclusionsThe combination of anastrozole and fulvestrant was superior to anastrozole alone or sequential anastrozole and fulvestrant for the treatment of HR-positive metastatic breast cancer, despite the use of a dose of fulvestrant that was below the current standard. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; SWOG ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00075764.).

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:Introduction: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (ABE + FUL) vs. palbociclib plus fulvestrant (PAL + FUL), ribociclib plus fulvestrant (RIB + FUL) and fulvestrant monotherapy (FUL) as second-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2- negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US. Methods: The 3 health states partitioned survival (PS) model was used over the lifetime. Effectiveness and safety data were derived from the MONARCH 2 trial, MONALEESA-3 trial, and PALOMA-3 trial. Parametric survival models were used for four treatments to explore the long-term effect. Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services, and utility values were derived from published studies. Sensitivity analyses including one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were performed to observe model stability. Results: In the PS model, compared with PAL + FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.44 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $100,696 for an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $229,039/QALY. Compared with RIB + FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.03 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $518 for an ICUR of $19,314/QALY. Compared with FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.68 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $260,584 for ICUR of $381,450/QALY. From the PS model, the ICUR was $270,576 /QALY (ABE + FUL vs. PAL + FUL), dominated (ABE + FUL vs. RIB + FUL) and $404,493/QALY (ABE + FUL vs. FUL) in scenario analysis. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities that ABE + FUL was cost-effective vs. PAL + FUL, RIB + FUL and FUL at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained were 0% and the probabilities that ABE + FUL was cost-effective vs. PAL + FUL and RIB + FUL at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained were 0.2, 0.6, and 7.3%. Conclusions: The findings from the present analysis suggest that ABE + FUL might be cost-effective compared with RIB + FUL and not cost-effective compared with PAL + FUL and FUL for second-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US.

Dataset Information

Half-dose fulvestrant plus anastrozole as a first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Publications

Half-dose fulvestrant plus anastrozole as a first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets