Abstract
Treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are modestly effective at prolonging life and improving quality of life but can be extremely expensive. Given these tradeoffs in quality of life and cost, the optimal choice of treatment sequencing is unclear. Cost-effectiveness analysis can explicitly quantify such tradeoffs, enabling more informed decision making. Our objective was to estimate the societal cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic alternatives in the first- to third-line sequences of single-agent chemotherapy regimens among patients with endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC.
Using three dynamic microsimulation models of 10,000 patients each, three cohorts were simulated, based upon prior chemotherapy exposure: (1) unexposed to either taxane or anthracycline, (2) taxane- and anthracycline-exposed, and (3) taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive. We focused on the following single-agent chemotherapy regimens as reasonable and commonly used options in the first three lines of therapy for each cohort, based upon feedback from oncologists treating endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC: (1) for taxane- and anthracycline-unexposed patients, paclitaxel, capecitabine (CAPE), or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin; (2) for taxane- and anthracycline-exposed patients, Eribulin, CAPE, or carboplatin; and (3) for taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive patients, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, CAPE, or Eribulin.
In each cohort, accumulated quality-adjusted life-years were similar between regimens, but total societal costs varied considerably. Sequences beginning first-line treatment with paclitaxel, carboplatin, and CAPE, respectively, for cohorts 1, 2, and 3, had lower costs and similar or slightly better outcomes compared with alternative options.
In this setting where multiple single-agent chemotherapy options are recommended by clinical guidelines and share similar survival and adverse event trajectories, treatment sequencing approaches that minimize costs early may improve the value of care.
© 2022 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
CONTEXT
Key Objective
To estimate cost-effectiveness of therapeutic alternatives in first- to third-line systemic treatment sequences among three cohorts of patients with endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC), based upon prior chemotherapy exposure: (1) those unexposed to either taxane or anthracycline, (2) those taxane- and anthracycline-exposed, and (3) those taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive.
Knowledge Generated
In the mBC setting—where multiple therapeutic options are recommended by guidelines and share similar survival and adverse event trajectories—large incremental differences in costs are not associated with better outcomes at the population level.
Relevance
Given the substantial cost burden associated with mBC, treatment sequencing approaches that minimize costs early may lead to higher-value care.
Supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the Prevention Research Centers Program (5-U48-DP005017-04-01, PIs: J.G.T. and S.B.W.).
Conception and design: Stephanie B. Wheeler, Jason Rotter, Anagha Gogate, Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, Temeika Fairley, Justin G. Trogdon
Financial support: Sarah Drier
Administrative support: Sarah Drier
Collection and assembly of data: Stephanie B. Wheeler, Anagha Gogate, Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, Sarah Drier
Data analysis and interpretation: Stephanie B. Wheeler, Jason Rotter, Anagha Gogate, Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, Donatus U. Ekwueme, Gabrielle Rocque
Manuscript writing: All authors
Final approval of manuscript: All authors
Accountable for all aspects of the work: All authors
AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Treatment Options for Women With Endocrine-Refractory or Triple-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer
The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.
Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).
Stephanie B. Wheeler
This author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.
Research Funding: Pfizer (Inst)
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer
Anagha Gogate
Employment: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene
Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene
Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes
Research Funding: Pfizer (Inst)
Gabrielle Rocque
Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Flatiron Health, Gilead Sciences
Research Funding: Carevive Systems, Genentech, Pfizer
No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.
Article Tools
, PhD, MPH1,2,3; Jason Rotter, PhD1; Anagha Gogate 