PURPOSE: Paclitaxel, docetaxel, and vinorelbine have been approved for chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer that is resistant to anthracyclines. Selecting which agent to use is difficult because each possesses advantages and disadvantages related to clinical response, toxicity, method of administration, and cost. A cost-utility analysis was therefore performed to create a rank order on the basis of effectiveness, quality of life, and economic considerations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-eight anthracycline-resistant breast cancer patients who had received paclitaxel (n = 34), docetaxel (n = 29), or vinorelbine (n = 25) during the past 2 years were identified. Total resource consumption was collected, which included expenditures for chemotherapy, supportive care, laboratory tests, management of adverse effects, and all related physician fees. Utilities from 25 oncology care providers and 25 breast cancer patients were estimated using the time trade-off technique. The economic estimates from the chart review and clinical data from the literature were then modeled using the principles of decision analysis. RESULTS: Each of the three drugs led to a similar duration of quality-adjusted progression-free survival (paclitaxel, 37.2 days; docetaxel, 33.6 days; vinorelbine, 38.0 days). Vinorelbine was the least costly strategy, with an overall treatment expenditure of Can $3,259 per patient, compared with Can $6,039 and Can $10,090 for paclitaxel and docetaxel, respectively. CONCLUSION: Palliative chemotherapy with vinorelbine in anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer patients has economic advantages over the taxanes and provides at least equivalent quality-adjusted progression-free survival. These benefits are largely related to its lower drug acquisition cost and better toxicity profile.
PCH1: PAMIDRONATE FOR BREAST CANCER PATIENTS WITH SKELETAL METASTASES: A MARKOV TREE-BASED COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS
