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

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.

The impact of the introduction of generic aromatase inhibitors on adherence to hormonal therapy over the full course of 5-year treatment for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: High out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) often are found to be inversely associated with adherence to medical treatment. The introduction of generic aromatase inhibitors (GAIs) significantly reduced the OOPCs of patients. The objective of the current study was to explore the impact of the introduction of GAIs on adjuvant hormone therapy (AHT) adherence over the full course of breast cancer treatment. METHODS: Women aged ≥65 years who were diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer from 2007 through mid-2009 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked database. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the likelihood of AHT initiation and an interrupted time series model was used to predict the association between the introduction of GAIs and AHT adherence. The model was stratified further using Medicare low-income subsidy (LIS) status. RESULTS: A total of 10,905 women were included, approximately 62.8% of whom initiated AHT within the first year of their breast cancer diagnosis. Adjusted adherence among LIS beneficiaries was 11.4% higher than among non-LIS beneficiaries (P < .001). Non-LIS beneficiaries had an overall decreasing trend of adherence (-0.035; P < .001) prior to the introduction of GAIs. They experienced a 3.4% increase in the slope 6 months after the first GAI, anastrozole, entered the market, and an additional 0.8% increase in the slope 6 months after letrozole and exemestane were introduced (P < .001). Adherence change among LIS patients was small and statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: With the introduction of GAIs, the decrease trend of adherence to therapy atteunated over the course of treatment. Although the successful implementation of the Medicare LIS program minimized the OOPCs for financially vulnerable patients, policymakers should be cautious not to introduce disparities for those who may be of low income but ineligible for such a program.

First-line fulvestrant plus anastrozole for hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: In a recent randomized, open-label trial (S0226), the addition of fulvestrant to anastrozole therapy decreased the risk of progression and death in patients with hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. However, the cost-effectiveness of incorporating fulvestrant into the first-line setting is unknown. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to assess the costs and clinical outcomes of fulvestrant plus anastrozole compared with anastrozole as a first-line therapy in a cohort of patients with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. The transition probabilities were estimated from the fitted survival curves in the S0226 trial. Health care costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for fulvestrant plus anastrozole compared with anastrozole from US payer's perspective. RESULTS: Fulvestrant plus anastrozole led to an improvement of 0.11 QALYs compared with treatment with anastrozole alone. However, incorporating fulvestrant into the first-line therapy produced significantly higher health care costs ($72,496 vs. $38,959 for all eligible patients, and $73,728 vs. $37,239 for patients with no previous hormonal adjuvant therapy), resulting in ICERs of $300,564 and $194,450/QALY, respectively. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that when the cost of fulvestrant decreased to $1.5/mg for all eligible patients or $3.5/mg for patients with no previous hormonal adjuvant therapy, at the perfect health in progression-free status, the ICER became $141,320 and $145,543 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Substituting fulvestrant as a first-line therapy for hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer is not cost-effective compared with anastrozole based on the willing-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

Radiation Therapy Without Hormone Therapy for Women Age 70 or Above with Low-Risk Early Breast Cancer: A Microsimulation.

PURPOSE: Hormone therapy without radiation therapy is considered appropriate for women age 70 or above with low-risk, hormone-positive breast cancer after partial mastectomy. However, some patients may prefer radiation without hormone therapy, for which there is minimal modern data. We modeled the comparative efficacy of aromatase inhibition alone without radiation versus radiation alone without hormone therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We constructed a patient-level Markov model and compared 5 years of anastrozole to a 15-fraction course of radiation without boost or anastrozole. The relative effectiveness between treatments was based on the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-21 trial, which was further adjusted such that the endocrine-alone arm matched the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9343 and PRIME II trials. Common or severe side effects were considered. Eight survival metrics were assessed and validated against clinical trial data. The cost-efficacy of each strategy was considered using the quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The model's predicted outcomes matched those demonstrated by modern trials. Aromatase inhibitors were superior in preventing contralateral cancers, with a small impact on the risk of distant metastatic disease. Radiation was superior in preventing ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence with a small impact on regional failure. No clinically significant differences were seen in the other 4 oncologic endpoints. Differences in quality-adjusted life years were small, but radiation therapy was $3809 more expensive over the average lifetime. The ICER suggested anastrozole was cost-effective in 62% of probabilistic simulations. However, the ICER was unstable owing to a denominator that approached zero. CONCLUSIONS: Women age 70 or above with low-risk early breast cancer who are reluctant or unable to pursue adjuvant aromatase inhibition can safely pursue adjuvant radiation alone with limited differences in outcome and a modest increase in costs.