Cost-effectiveness analysis of breast cancer adjuvant treatment: FEC 50 versus FEC 100 (FASG05 study).

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the FEC 100 compared with the FEC 50 in the FASG05 trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a multi-state Markov process model. Relevant clinical data introduced into the model were obtained from 10-year follow-up of the clinical trial FASG05. Survival curves for each health state were assessed by survival parametric model. The model allowed assessments from the start of adjuvant chemotherapy until death. The costs of adjuvant treatment and follow-up were estimated. The costs of recurrence were evaluated from the medical records of 146 patients. A prospective survey was performed on a cohort of 87 patients to quantify the resources external to the hospital (including cost of transportation). The inpatient costs were evaluated using the French diagnosis-related groups. The ambulatory costs were assessed using the French nomenclature. Costs were expressed in 2002 Euro (), according to the French societal perspective. The ICER assessed the cost of one additional life year saved. A discount rate of 5% per year was used for cost, and alternatively 0%, 3% and 5% for effectiveness. We validated the results with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis incorporating parametric and non-parametric bootstraps, and with the acceptability curves. RESULTS: The mean total discounting cost of adjuvant treatments was 11 465 for FEC 50 and 13 815 for FEC 100; the mean total discounting cost of recurrences was 14 636 and 13 503, respectively. According to the discount rate of effectiveness, the life expectancy was 16.5, 11.4 and 9.3 years for FEC 50 and 18.4, 12.5 and 10.2 years for FEC 100. The ICER (cost per life year saved) were 642, 1084 and 1460, respectively. The probability according to which FEC 50 is strictly dominated by FEC 100 was 0.15. CONCLUSION: The clinical benefit of FEC 100 generates a negligible cost increase when compared with FEC 50.

[Economic assessments of head and neck cancers: a review]. / Evaluations economiques des cancers de la tête et du cou: un etat des lieux.

The aim of this study is to perform a review of the literature on economic studies in the area of head and neck cancer (including the cancers of the buccal cavity, the larynx, and the pharynx). French and international literature (as reported on Medline and OHE-IFPMA databases) has been reviewed. This research demonstrated the lack of economic data in this field. In France, only one study was found, assessing the cost of the treatment of head and neck cancer in hospital to 29 billions French Francs including 2.3 billions linked to head and neck cancer. This relative indifference is possibly due to the heterogeneity and the low incidence of the studied pathologies. In addition, the research highlighted the great interest of dealing with quality of life in such physically and psychologically disabling illnesses. To facilitate the decision making and to allow optimal resource allocation in the area of costly health strategies, we should develop in France an economic evaluation of the head and neck cancer, while taking care of integrating the notion of quality of life into the analysis.

[Advanced breast cancer: an evaluation of the cost of recurrence]. / Cancer du sein au stade avancé: évaluation du coût de la récidive.

In the context of a medicoeconomic study of the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer, we evaluated the cost of the recurrence. This cost was assessed from the medical records of 146 patients having presented either distant metastases, or a local recurrence followed or not by metastases between 1983 and 1990. We checked according to published data that the frequency of the metastatic risk is negligible if beyond 5 years after the local recurrence. Costs are expressed in 1995 French Francs (FF), with the French Social Security point of view. From the medical records, we calculated the mean cost of each type of recurrence using medical costs (visits, drugs and treatments, assessments, tests, hospital care, outpatient services.) and non medical costs (patient transportation). The costs are 175,168 FF (standard deviation or SD: 127,972) for metastatic recurrence, and respectively 287,582 FF (SD: 142,280) and 115,705 FF (SD: 78,677) for local recurrence followed or not by metastases. There is a significant difference between these figures (p < 0.001). The hospitalization costs are around 66% of the total cost of each type of recurrences and they are significantly higher (p < 0.005) when metastatic disease occurs after a local recurrence. The mean cost of isolated local recurrence added to metastatic recurrence, 290,873 FF, is not different from that of local recurrence followed by metastases, 287,582 FF (p = 0.15). These results will be integrated in a model in order to evaluate the long-term economic consequences of an adjuvant strategy in the treatment of breast cancer and presented in other publications.

[Adjuvant treatment of cancer of the breast: cost assessment of the protocol used]. / Traitement adjuvant du cancer du sein: évaluation du coût de la stratégie mise en oeuvre.

In this study a cost analysis of therapeutics used in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer has been performed. Four strategies were considered: chemotherapy (FEC, 6 courses), hormone therapy (tamoxifen, 20 mg/day during 3 years), the association of chemotherapy and hormone therapy, or standard follow-up with neither chemotherapy nor hormone therapy. The costs of these strategies were analysed according to the payer's perspective (social security system). In order to complete the economic data, specific investigations were performed at the Centre Oscar-Lambret (COL), a Cancer Center located in Lille (France). The study shows a high cost for chemotherapy (63,767 FF at 5 years) and a high cost for the association (68,891 FF), in comparison to the cost of hormone therapy alone (45,540 FF) or to the follow-up without adjuvant therapy (38,416 FF). These costs could be confronted to the efficacy data of these different strategies and to the cost of avoided relapses. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit ratios of these adjuvant strategies could then be assessed.

[Medico-economical assessment in cancerology]. / Evaluation médico-économique en cancérologie.

In recent studies, the economic criteria has begun to be integrated to the appraisal in cancerology. The question asked by the economist can be framed as follows: what incremental cost should the collectivity or the health insurance system consent, in order to improve the care of cancer patients? This involves first that the cost of the strategies, foreseen or already implemented, can be appraised, then, that indicators can be defined to capture health improvement, and finally, that this health improvement can be quantified. In this article, we present the process of integrated appraisal (cost/result approach). We specifically analyze costs in cancerology, their source and their evolution. We demonstrate the meaning of the integration of economic costs and medical results. We emphasize on the fact that part of the costs, especially those supported by the patient and his close relations, are most of the time excluded from the analysis. Two main points should be carefully analyzed, when proceeding to an appraisal in cancerology: the measurement of the patient's QoL, which represents an expression of the results of the strategy of care; the financing modalities, for the same type of care, if we consider the specificity of the structures involved and the organization of the care. We conclude by mentioning how difficult this task is and under which conditions it should be developed.