Article

A cost-benefit analysis of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA.
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (Impact Factor: 4.2). 12/2011; 132(2):747-51. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1919-y
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy increases progression-free survival (PFS), but not overall survival when compared to chemotherapy alone in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Recently in November, 2011 the Food and drug administration revoked approval of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel for the treatment of MBC. The European Medicines Agency, in contrast, maintained its approval of bevacizumab in MBC. While neither agency considers health economics in their decision-making process, one of the greatest challenges in oncology practice today is to reconcile hard-won small incremental clinical benefits with exponentially rising costs. To inform policy-makers in the US, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab/paclitaxel in MBC, from a payer perspective. We created a decision analytical model using efficacy and adverse events data from the ECOG 2100 trial. Health utilities were derived from available literature. Costs were obtained from the Center for Medicare Services Drug Payment Table and Physician Fee Schedule and are represented in 2010 US dollars. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Bevacizumab added 0.49 years of PFS and 0.135 QALY with an incremental cost of $100,300, and therefore a cost of $204,000 per year of PFS gained and an ICER of $745,000 per QALY. The main drivers of the model were drug acquisition cost, PFS, and health utility values. Using a threshold of $150,000/QALY, drug price would have to be reduced by nearly 80% or alternatively PFS increased by 10 months to make bevacizumab cost-effective. The results of the model were robust in sensitivity analyses. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is not cost-effective in treating MBC. Value-based pricing and the development of biomarkers to improve patient selection are needed to better define the role of the drug in this population.

Full-text

Available from: Stefan Gluck, Jun 14, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
143 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Paclitaxel and docetaxel are commonly used for metastatic breast cancer in the People's Republic of China. To improve the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel, an albumin-bound formulation (nab) is now available in the People's Republic of China (Abraxane(®)). To provide health economic data for the key stakeholders, a cost-utility analysis comparing nab-paclitaxel to docetaxel, both as alternatives to paclitaxel, was conducted. A meta-analysis of clinical outcomes Phase III trials comparing nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m(2) every [q] 3 weeks) or branded docetaxel (100 mg/m(2) q 3 weeks), to solvent-based branded paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) q 3 weeks) was undertaken to provide safety and clinical data. Resource use data for the delivery of anticancer therapy and for the treatment of grade 3/4 toxicity was collected from a time and motion study conducted in three Chinese cancer centers and from a survey of clinicians. Using the Time Trade-Off technique, health utility estimates were derived from interviewing 28 breast cancer patients from one cancer center in the People's Republic of China. All costs were reported in 2014 US dollars. Nab-paclitaxel had the most favorable safety profile, characterized with the lowest incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, and stomatitis. When the median number of cycles delivered from the clinical trials was applied, nab-paclitaxel had a cost per course of $19,752 compared with $8,940 and $13,741 for paclitaxel and docetaxel, respectively. As an alternative to paclitaxel, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with nab-paclitaxel suggested better value than with docetaxel ($57,900 vs $130,600). Nab-paclitaxel appears to be a cost-effective option compared with docetaxel and paclitaxel, for metastatic breast cancer in the People's Republic of China.
    ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 01/2015; 7:249-56. DOI:10.2147/CEOR.S82194
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the activity and safety of the docetaxel, gemcitabine and bevacizumab combination, administered biweekly, in pretreated patients with HER-2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC).
    Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 11/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00280-014-2628-0 · 2.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Blood supply is essential for development and growth of tumors and angiogenesis is the fundamental process of new blood vessel formation from preexisting ones. Angiogenesis is a prognostic indicator for a variety of tumors, and it coincides with increased shedding of neoplastic cells into the circulation and metastasis. Several molecules such as cell surface receptors, growth factors, and enzymes are involved in this process. While antiangiogenic therapy for cancer has been proposed over 20 years ago, it has garnered much controversy in recent years within the scientific community. The complex relationships between the angiogenic signaling cascade and antiangiogenic substances have indicated the angiogenic pathway as a valid target for anticancer drug development and VEGF has become the primary antiangiogenic drug target. This review discusses the basic and clinical perspectives of angiogenesis highlighting the importance of comparative biology in understanding tumor angiogenesis and the integration of these model systems for future drug development.
    The Scientific World Journal 01/2014; 2014:919570. DOI:10.1155/2014/919570 · 1.73 Impact Factor