The cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: A comparison of no chemotherapy and first, second, and third generation regimens for patients with differing prognoses☆
Introduction
For women with early breast cancer, surgery to remove the primary tumour is often followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, a combination of cytotoxic drugs given to reduce the risk of disease recurrence. Recent decades have seen major advances in chemotherapy treatment as new and potentially more effective classes of drugs and modes of administration are developed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated first generation alkylating-based chemotherapy regimens, second generation anthracycline-based regimens and third generation taxane-based regimens.1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Health economic evaluation has been used to assess the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens; most recently, those containing the taxane agents docetaxel and paclitaxel.6, 7, 8, 9 However, these evaluations, and the RCTs providing the corresponding clinical data, conducted pair-wise comparisons in which the new generation therapy was assessed only against the previous generation’s therapy. To our knowledge, no clinical or economic assessment has to date simultaneously compared all potential adjuvant chemotherapy treatment strategies; that is, first, second, and third generation regimens, as well as a policy of using no adjuvant chemotherapy. A simultaneous comparison of this kind would prove informative for several reasons. Firstly, there has been considerable recent research on the effectiveness of all adjuvant chemotherapies, including meta-analyses conducted by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) and systematic reviews by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group.1, 10 This evidence should inform and update economic analysis and policy. Secondly, there are factors relating to the progression and treatment of early breast cancer that mean different chemotherapy regimens may be cost-effective for different patient groups. The risk of recurrence, for example, can vary substantially between women depending upon prognostic factors including age, axillary lymph node status, and tumour grade, size, and oestrogen receptor (ER) status.11, 12, 13 Also, the proportional reduction in the risk of recurrence with chemotherapy is known to vary by age, and women with ER positive tumours now routinely receive adjuvant anti-hormone therapy, which also reduces the risk of recurrence, but independently of chemotherapy.1 Finally, advances in treatment effectiveness come at a cost, as new chemotherapy regimens are usually more expensive than older regimens and potentially more toxic, resulting in an increase in adverse events and a detrimental impact on patient health related quality of life (HRQoL). Given all of these factors, it would appear important to review each of the relevant treatment options for all types of patient.
This paper describes a cost-effectiveness analysis in which the lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) (life years adjusted for HRQoL) of adjuvant chemotherapy treatment options for women with early breast cancer are estimated and compared. Reflecting the full range of management options which have been used in the adjuvant setting in United Kingdom trials over recent years, the strategies considered are:
- I.
no chemotherapy,
- II.
first generation chemotherapy with CMF (six cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil),
- III.
second generation chemotherapy with FEC60 (eight cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide) or E-CMF (four cycles of epirubicin followed by four cycles of CMF), and
- IV.
third generation chemotherapy with FEC-D (four cycles of FEC60 followed by four cycles of docetaxel).
These chemotherapy regimens are defined in accordance with the protocols of three pragmatic UK-led RCTs – the Adjuvant Breast Cancer (ABC) Trial which began in 1992 and compared CMF with no chemotherapy, the National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial (NEAT) which began in 1996 and compared E-CMF with CMF, and the Taxotere as Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial (TACT) which began in 2001 and compared FEC-D with FEC60 or E-CMF.3, 4, 5 Docetaxel is not currently licensed in the UK for use as a single agent following FEC. This regimen is, however, advocated by the majority of breast cancer oncologists in the UK and indeed worldwide, because when used on its own, docetaxel carries a lower risk of adverse events than if used simultaneously with other agents.14 In line with the TACT trial protocol and indirect evidence from the trial results, our analysis assumes equivalence of FEC60 and E-CMF in terms of effectiveness and toxicity.
Section snippets
Overview and model structure
The analysis followed the methodological guidelines from the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).15 It was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective and the annual discount rate used for costs (expressed as 2009 Pound Sterling) and effects was 3.5%.16 Fig. 1 shows the structure of the economic model. Following local surgery, (a hypothetical cohort of) patients enter a short term decision tree (panel a) and are assigned to one of the four treatment
Reference case cohort
For the reference-case cohort (for whom the predicted probability of remaining recurrence free out to 10 years in the absence of chemotherapy and (given the ER negative status of the group) anti-hormone therapy is 44%), expected costs and QALYs estimated for the four treatment strategies are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 3. FEC-D on average generates the greatest amount of health gain but also has the greatest cost. When compared with E-CMF/FEC60 (the next most effective alternative) the expected
Discussion
This study used decision analytic modelling to estimate and compare the lifetime costs and effects of no chemotherapy and first, second, and third generation adjuvant chemotherapy for women with early breast cancer. Sub-group analyses showed different treatment strategies have the potential to be cost-effective for different types of patients. Assuming the cost-effectiveness threshold to be £20,000 per QALY, and summarising for younger women first, FEC-D appears cost-effective for patients,
Conclusion
This paper has presented the first known comparison of the cost-effectiveness of three different generations of adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer patients with differing prognoses. The results are necessarily complex, with cost-effectiveness shown to vary not only with the underlying risk of a recurrence, but also according to age and ER status. The findings are also subject to uncertainty, particularly in relation to the effectiveness of FEC-D, a parameter on which further research
Funding
Cancer Research UK (C14185/A5946), UK Medical Research Council.
Individual contributions
HC developed, populated, and analysed the economic model and drafted the manuscript. DE assisted in the development of the economic model, conducted analyses of trial data for use in the model, and helped draft the manuscript. DB was the clinical lead for the project, provided input into the modelling process, helped write the manuscript, and co-ordinated manuscript circulation across the authorship. SG advised on the development and population of the economic model and provided comments on
Conflict of interest statement
HC had access to all data used in this study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit the paper for publication. DB received educational travel grants from Roche and Astra-Zeneca. DC received research funding, honoraria, consultancies and travel grants from Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis. PBL in the past received an honorarium for roles on Advisory boards of Sanofi-Aventis and Pfizer. HE has received unrestricted educational grants for research trials from Pfizer (epirubicin), and
Role of funding source
The funding source had no involvement in the study design or analysis, the interpretation of the results, the writing of the paper, or the decision to submit for publication.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all of the staff who worked on the ABC, NEAT, and TACT trials, and in the Oxford Breast Care team, including surgeons, oncologists, pathologists, nurses, data managers, QoL study coordinators, support staff, and N Atkins (ICR-CTSU) for helping to prepare the manuscript for submission. We are also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments. Above all though, we would like to thank the patients themselves. The research costs of the
References (57)
- et al.
Sequential docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (TACT): an open-label, phase III, randomised controlled trial
Lancet
(2009) - et al.
Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer patients: results of the PACS 01 economic study
Ann Oncol
(2010) - et al.
Is adjuvant therapy for older patients with node(−) early breast cancer cost-effective
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol
(2005) - et al.
Cost-effectiveness of radiation therapy following conservative surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials
Lancet
(2005)- et al.
Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS 01 Trial
J Clin Oncol
(2006) - et al.
Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer
N Engl J Med
(2006) Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: results from the international adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy randomized trial
J Nat Cancer Inst
(2007)- Ward S, Simpson E, Davis S, et al. Taxanes for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: systematic review and...
- Bristol-Myers Squibb. Submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Taxol (Paclitaxel) for...
Prognostic factors in breast cancer – the formation of a prognostic index
Clin Oncol
Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer
The green book: appraisal and evaluation in central government
Euroqol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life
Health Policy
A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population. Discussion paper 138
Estimation and external validation of a new prognostic model for predicting recurrence-free survival for early breast cancer patients in the UK
Br J Cancer
Excess mortality from breast cancer 20 years after diagnosis when life expectancy is normal
Br J Cancer
Health care costs for the treatment of breast cancer recurrent events: estimates from a UK-based patient-level analysis
Br J Cancer
The decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis
PharmacoEconomics
Decision modelling for health economic evaluation
Cited by (35)
Geriatric assessment prior to cancer treatment: A health economic evaluation
2023, Journal of Geriatric OncologyCost-Effectiveness Modeling of Surgery Plus Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Versus Primary Endocrine Therapy Alone in UK Women Aged 70 and Over With Early Breast Cancer
2021, Value in HealthCitation Excerpt :Rates of mastectomy, BCS, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) were age dependent.15,28 Patients receiving PET were assumed not to receive chemotherapy, but for surgery patients an average risk of death during chemotherapy was applied.29 The proportion of patients receiving radiotherapy was averaged over the types of primary surgery received.
The cost-effectiveness of EndoPredict to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer
2019, Health Policy and TechnologyCitation Excerpt :Prior to entering the Markov part of the model, all patients on a chemotherapy regimen have the potential of dying due to related toxicity. This probability is estimated from a study by Campbell [15]. The Markov model's three state structure allows patients to transition from each state to any which represents a worsening health state (i.e. disease free to metastases, disease free to death, metastases to death).
Value of Information Analysis of Multiparameter Tests for Chemotherapy in Early Breast Cancer: The OPTIMA Prelim Trial
2017, Value in HealthCitation Excerpt :Costs of cancer recurrence and long-term toxicities were taken from a bespoke costing study of NHS patients and the published literature [19]. Quality-of-life (utility) values were extracted from a previously published study and assigned to each model health state, including a decrement for chemotherapy toxicity [20]. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted using Monte-Carlo simulation to sample from distributions assigned to model input parameters.
- ☆
On behalf of the Centre for Health Economics, York, the ABC, NEAT and TACT Trial groups and the Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford.