Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

nab-Paclitaxel weekly or every 3 weeks compared to standard docetaxel as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: an economic analysis of a prospective randomized trial

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Docetaxel is an effective therapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and considered a first-line standard of care in many jurisdictions. However, it may be associated with dose-limiting toxicity often requiring dose reductions, delays and in some cases prophylactic hematopoietic growth factors. A nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) formulation of paclitaxel was developed to overcome the safety drawbacks of solvent-based taxanes and to improve efficacy. A randomized phase II trial comparing nab-paclitaxel 100 or 150 mg/m2 weekly 3 out of 4 weeks and nab-paclitaxel 300 mg/m2 every-3-week (q3w) to docetaxel 100 mg/m2 q3w reported improved progression-free survival (PFS) and reduced toxicity with the former regimens. From resource use captured during the trial, an economic analysis from the perspective of the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service was conducted. Resource use data contained within the trial database were converted to UK costs. These consisted of costs for chemotherapy, drug delivery, monitoring, supportive care drugs and hospitalization due to toxicity. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were then conducted to compare the total cost of therapy in patients randomized to each of the four regimens. Growth factor use, hospitalization due to side effects and toxicity-induced protocol discontinuations were higher in the docetaxel group. When all of the cost components were combined for the entire population (N = 300), patients in the nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 weekly and 300 mg/m2 q3w groups had comparable average costs to the docetaxel arm (£15,396 vs. £15,809 vs. £12,923; P = NS). The nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 weekly arm had significantly higher overall costs of £27,222 per patient but had a significant improvement in PFS compared to docetaxel. Relative to docetaxel, the incremental costs per progression-free year gained with nab-paclitaxel 100, 150 mg/m2 weekly and 300 mg/m2 q3w were £5,600, £31,800 and £9,900, respectively. Given its improved safety profile, potentially enhanced efficacy and comparable economic impact, nab-paclitaxel (weekly or q3w) can be considered a reasonable alternative to docetaxel as first-line chemotherapy for MBC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) (2008) National Cancer Institute 2008, Washington, USA. Accessed 2 Nov 2008 from http://seer.cancer.gov/

  2. Chan S, Friedrichs K, Noel D et al (1999) Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:2341–2354

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jones SE, Erban J, Overmoyer B et al (2005) Randomized phase III study of docetaxel compared with paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:5542–5551. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.02.027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonneterre J, Roche H, Monnier A et al (2002) Docetaxel vs. 5-fluorouracil plus vinorelbine in metastatic breast cancer after anthracycline therapy failure. Br J Cancer 87:1210–1215. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600645

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Roché H, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M et al (2006) Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS 01 trial. J Clin Oncol 24(36):5664–5671. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.07.3916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bradbury J (2005) Docetaxel downside highlighted. Lancet Oncol 6:447. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70229-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Crawford J, Dale DC, Lyman GH (2004) Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: risks, consequences, and new directions for its management. Cancer 100:228–237. doi:10.1002/cncr.11882

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dranitsaris G, Cottrell, W, Spirovski B, Hopkins S (2009) Economic analysis of albumin bound paclitaxel for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. J Oncol Pharm Prac 15:67–78

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Henderson IC, Bhatia V (2007) nab-Paclitaxel for breast cancer: a new formulation with an improved safety profile and greater efficacy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 7:919–943. doi:10.1586/14737140.7.7.919

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gradishar WJ, Tjulandin S, Davidson N et al (2005) Superior efficacy of albumin bound paclitaxel, ABI-007, compared to polyethylated castor oil based paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer: results of a phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 23:1–10. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.04.937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gradishar W, Krasnojon D, Cheporov S et al (2007) Randomized comparison of weekly or every-3-week (q3w) nab-paclitaxel compared to q3w docetaxel as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). J Clin Oncol 40s (suppl; abstr 1032)

  12. Dranitsaris G (2000) The cost of blood transfusions in cancer patients: a reanalysis of a Canadian economic evaluation. J Oncol Pharm Pract 6:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  13. Varney SJ, Guest JF (2003) The annual cost of blood transfusions in the UK. Transfus Med 13:205–218. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3148.2003.00443.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. George SL (1988) Identification and assessment of prognostic factors. Semin Oncol 15:462–471

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Feinstein AR (1996) Multivariable analysis an introduction. New Haven, Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  16. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX (1992) How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 146:473–481

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Dranitsaris G, Lidgren M, Lundkvist J, Coleman RE (2008) nab-Paclitaxel or docetaxel as alternatives to conventional paclitaxel for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC): a cost utility analysis in five European countries. J Clin Oncol 26(15s) (May 20 suppl; abstr 6571)

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Abraxis Oncology who provided financial support to conduct this study and for access to the full clinical trial database, which was the starting point for the analysis.

Conflict of interest statement

George Dranitsaris received funding from Abraxis Oncology to perform the analysis. Robert Coleman and William Gradishar received honoraria from Abraxis Oncology for participation in advisory boards. There are no other competing interests to declare. Abraxis Oncology did not contribute in any way to the methodology employed or to the interpretation of the final results. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had the responsibility for the final decision to submit the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Dranitsaris.

Additional information

G. Dranitsaris: Consultant in Health Economics and Biostatistics.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dranitsaris, G., Coleman, R. & Gradishar, W. nab-Paclitaxel weekly or every 3 weeks compared to standard docetaxel as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: an economic analysis of a prospective randomized trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119, 717–724 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0424-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0424-z

Keywords

Navigation