Cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant 250 mg versus 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer and disease progression after antiestrogen therapy
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2012
Cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant 250 mg versus 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer and disease progression after antiestrogen therapy
To determine the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant 250 mg compared to 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer and disease progression after antiestrogen therapy.
Methods:
A Markov model was constructed to find the incremental cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant 250 mg monthly when compared with the 500 mg monthly in patients with progression after antiestrogen therapy. The model duration was 24 months. Clinical efficacy data inputs were derived from a phase III clinical trial demonstrating a statistically significant increase in progression-free survival in patients receiving 500 mg versus 250 mg. Cost data utilized were all relevant Ambulatory Payment Classification payment rates from the 2011 Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System. A Monte Carlo simulation was performed to test the model at various willingness to pay thresholds.
Results:
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as determined by the Markov model was US$10,972 per month of progression-free survival for the 500 mg dose compared with the 250 mg dose. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, it was found that 500 mg monthly was cost-effective at and above the willingness to pay threshold of US$15,000 per month. A series of one-way sensitivity analyses showed this result is robust to geographical practice variations in costs of drug administration and physician examination.
Conclusion:
From a third party payer perspective, the value of fulvestrant 500 mg monthly is dependent on the willingness to pay threshold. Despite a labeling change for fulvestrant in September 2010, fulvestrant 250 mg monthly appears to be a viable option in the target population.
GreenbergPACHortobagyiGNSmithTL. Long-term follow-up of patients with complete remission following combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol1996; 14(8): 2197–2205.
5.
OnitiloAAEngelJMGreenleeRT. Breast cancer subtypes based on ER/PR and Her2 expression: comparison of clinicopathologic features and survival. Clin Med Res2009; 7(1–2): 4–13.
6.
HarveyJMClarkGMOsborneK. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol1999; 17: 1474–1481.
BuzdarAU. Endocrine therapy in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Semin Oncol2001; 28: 291–304.
9.
MichaudLBEspiritoJLEstevaFJDiPiroJTTalbertRLYeeGCMatzkeGRWellsBGPoseyLM. Breast cancer. Pharmacotherapy: a pathophysiologic approach. 7th ed, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008, 2121–2156.
OsborneCKWakelingANicholsonRI. Fulvestrant: an oestrogen receptor antagonist with a novel mechanism of action. Br J Cancer2004; 90(Suppl 1): S2–S6.
12.
CoombesRCHallEGibsonLJ. A randomized trial of exemestane after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. N Engl J Med2004; 350(11): 1081–1092.
13.
ChiaSGradisharWMauriacL. Double-blind, randomized placebo controlled trial of fulvestrant compared with exemestane after prior nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive, advanced breast cancer: results from EFECT. J Clin Oncol2008; 28(10): 1664–1670.
14.
RobertsonJFRLlombart-CussacARolskiJ. Activity of fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer: results from the FIRST study. J Clin Oncol2009; 27(27): 4530–4535.
15.
MlineritschBPsenakOMayerP. Fulvestrant (‘Faslodex’) in heavily pretreated postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer: single centre clinical experience from the compassionate use programme. Breast Cancer Res Treat2007; 106: 105–112.
16.
Di LeoAJerusalemGPetruzelkaL. Results of the CONFIRM phase III trial comparing fulvestrant 250 mg with fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol2010; 28(30): 4594–4600.
OhnoSRaiYIwataH. Three dose regimens of fulvestrant in postmenopausal Japanese women with advanced breast cancer: results from a double-blind, phase II comparative study (FINDER1). Ann Oncol2010; 21: 2342–2347.
19.
PritchardKIRolskiJPapaiZ. Results of a phase II study comparing three dosing regimens of fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer (FINDER2). Breast Cancer Res Treat2010; 123: 453–461.
TumehJWShenoyPJMooreSG. A Markov model assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FOLFOX compared with FOLFIRI for the initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Am J Clin Oncol2009; 32(1): 49–55.
23.
PermsuwanUGuntawongwanKBuddhawongsaP. Handling time in economic evaluation studies. J Med Assoc Thai2008; 91(Suppl 2): S53–S58.
GruberJ. The cost implications of health care reform. N Engl J Med2010; 362: 2050–2051.
26.
DignamJJ. Differences in breast cancer prognosis among African-American and Caucasian women. CA Cancer J Clin2000; 50: 50–64.
27.
GrosseSD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res2008; 8.2: 165–165.
28.
GreenbergDEarleCFangC. When is cancer care cost-effective? A systematic overview of cost-utility analyses in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst2010; 102: 82–88.
29.
BraithwaiteRSMeltzerDOKingJTJr. What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule?. Med Care2008; 46(4): 349–356.
30.
FojoTGradyC. How much is life worth: cetuximab, non-small cell lung cancer, and the $440 billion question. J Natl Cancer Inst2009; 101(15): 1044–1048.
31.
NCI Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities. Economic costs of cancer health disparities; summary of meeting proceedings. Proceedings of Economic Costs of Cancer Health Disparities Think Tank, 6–7 December 2004, Bethesda, MD.
