Pharmacoeconomic analysis of a combination of capecitabine (X) with docetaxel (D) and trastuzumab (H) first-line in HER2- positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer
17036 Background: A recently published (Wardley et al ESMO 2006) randomized phase II trial (CHAT) compared XDH with DH. The primary endpoint, overall response rate, was similar with XDH (71%) and DH (73%), while XDH showed superior time to progression (TTP) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, p=0.045, median 18.2 vs 13.8 months, respectively) and a trend toward superior progression-free survival (HR 0.72, p=0.06, median 14.8 vs 12.8 months, respectively). Overall survival data are immature. This analysis evaluates potential pharmacoeconomic impacts of adding X to DH. Methods: Direct medical costs during the study were estimated from the Italian health system perspective. Actual doses of both regimens were modeled from trial data. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) and related medications were analyzed to estimate costs of treating major AEs. Other costs relating to laboratory tests and drug administration were assumed to be the same in both arms. Results: Total direct medical costs were slightly lower for XDH: €15250 vs €15570 for DH. As expected, the main cost drivers were drug costs: €14,370 vs €14,690, respectively. XDH and DH safety profiles were different: XDH resulted in more grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs than DH (total: 77% vs 68%; hand-foot syndrome: 16% vs <1%; diarrhea: 11% vs 4%, respectively), but less grade 3/4 neutropenia (54% vs 77%), complicated neutropenia (20% vs 24%) and febrile neutropenia (14% vs 23%). The estimated mean AE costs per patient were similar in both arms. Conclusion: With the convenience of oral therapy, adding X to DH does not increase the number and duration of infusion visits or increase costs. For patients, physicians and payers, XDH is a good alternative for the treatment of advanced/metastatic breast cancer. [Table: see text]