scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques for Post-Mastectomy Breast Cancer Patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yibo Xie ◽  
Beibei Guo ◽  
Rui Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Tumor Control ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Mixed Beam

Abstract Background: Prior cost-effectiveness studies of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) only compared conventional radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy and only considered tumor control. The goal of this study was to perform cost-effectiveness analyses of standard of care (SOC) and advanced PMRT techniques including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), standard volumetric modulated arc therapy (STD-VMAT), non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT), multiple arc VMAT (MA-VMAT), Tomotherapy (TOMO), mixed beam therapy (MIXED), and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Methods: Using a Markov model, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of various techniques over 15 years. A cohort of women (55-year-old) was simulated in the model, and radiogenic side effects were considered. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs for each health state were obtained from literature and Medicare data. Model outcomes include quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: For the patient cohort, STD-VMAT has ICER of $32,617 relative to SOC; TOMO is dominated by STD-VMAT; IMRT has ICER of 19,081 $/QALY relative to STD-VMAT; NC-VMAT, MA-VMAT, MIXED are dominated by IMRT; IMPT has ICER of 151,741 $/QALY relative to IMRT. One-way analysis shows that the probability of cardiac toxicity has the most significant impact on the model outcomes. The probability sensitivity analyses show that all advanced PMRT techniques are more cost-effective than SOC at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 100,000 $/QALY, while almost none of the advanced techniques is more cost-effective than SOC at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY. Conclusion: Advanced PMRT techniques are more cost-effective for breast cancer patients at a WTP threshold of 100,000 $/QALY, and IMRT might be a cost-effective option for PMRT patients.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques for Post-Mastectomy Breast Cancer Patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yibo Xie ◽  
Beibei Guo ◽  
Rui Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Tumor Control ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Mixed Beam

Abstract Background: Prior cost-effectiveness studies of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) only compared conventional radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy and only considered tumor control. The goal of this study was to perform cost-effectiveness analyses of standard of care (SOC) and advanced PMRT techniques including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), standard volumetric modulated arc therapy (STD-VMAT), non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT), multiple arc VMAT (MA-VMAT), Tomotherapy (TOMO), mixed beam therapy (MIXED), and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT).Methods: Using a Markov model, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of various techniques over 15 years. A cohort of women (55-year-old) was simulated in the model, and radiogenic side effects were considered. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs for each health state were obtained from literature and Medicare data. Model outcomes include quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and SOC was used as the reference.Results: For the patient cohort, IMRT is the most cost-effective technique with an ICER value of 27,310 $/QALY, and IMPT has the highest ICER of 74,564 $/QALY. One-way analysis shows that the probability of cardiac toxicity has the most significant impact on the model outcomes. The probability sensitivity analyses show that all advanced PMRT techniques are more cost-effective than SOC at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 100,000 $/QALY, while almost none of the advanced techniques is more cost-effective than SOC at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY.Conclusion: Advanced PMRT techniques are more cost-effective for breast cancer patients at a WTP threshold of 100,000 $/QALY, and IMRT might be the most cost-effective option for PMRT patients.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques for Post-Mastectomy Breast Cancer Patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yibo Xie ◽  
Beibei Guo ◽  
Rui Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Mixed Beam ◽  
Effective Option

Abstract Background: Prior cost-effectiveness studies of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) only compared conventional radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy and only considered tumor control. The goal of this study was to perform cost-effectiveness analyses of standard of care (SOC) and advanced PMRT techniques including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), standard volumetric modulated arc therapy (STD-VMAT), non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT), multiple arc VMAT (MA-VMAT), Tomotherapy (TOMO), mixed beam therapy (MIXED), and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Methods: Using a Markov model, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of various techniques over 15 years. A cohort of women (55-year-old) was simulated in the model, and radiogenic side effects were considered. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs for each health state were obtained from literature and Medicare data. Model outcomes include quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and SOC was used as the reference. Results: For the patient cohort, IMRT is the most cost-effective technique as it dominates NC-VMAT, MA-VMAT, MIXED, and has ICER of 27,310 $/QALY, 19,081 $/QALY and 3,067 $/QALY compared with SOC, STD-VMAT and TOMO, respectively. IMPT has the highest ICER of 74,564 $/QALY and 151,741 $/QALY compared with SOC and IMRT, which shows IMPT is the least cost-effective option. One-way analysis shows that the probability of cardiac toxicity has the most significant impact on the model outcomes. The probability sensitivity analyses show that all advanced PMRT techniques are more cost-effective than SOC at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 100,000 $/QALY, while almost none of the advanced techniques is more cost-effective than SOC at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY. Conclusion: Advanced PMRT techniques are more cost-effective for breast cancer patients at a WTP threshold of 100,000 $/QALY, and IMRT might be the most cost-effective option for PMRT patients.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of using protons in breast cancer patients aiming at reducing cardiotoxicity: A risk-stratification analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guo Li ◽  
Yun-Fei Xia ◽  
Yi-Xiang Huang ◽  
Deniz Okat ◽  
Bo Qiu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cardiac Risk ◽  
Cardiac Risk Factor ◽  
General Level ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Intensity Modulated

Abstract Purpose Incidental exposure of heart to ionizing irradiation is associated with an increased risk of ischemic heart disease (IHD) in breast cancer patients after radiotherapy. Intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT) offers a promise in limiting the mean heart dose (MHD) in breast irradiation to a negligible level. However, the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness hinders its use. This cost-effectiveness analysis aims to identify patients in appropriate risk groups as targets for IMPT. Methods A Markov decision model was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IMPT versus intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy (IMRT) in reducing the irradiation-related IHD risk. Baseline evaluation was performed on 50-year-old women patient without preexisting cardiac risk factor (CRF). Stratified for preexisting cardiac risk and photon MHD, cost-effective scenarios under different proton cost and willingness-to-pay (WTP) were identified for 40-, 50- and 60-year-old patients. Results With baseline set-ups, incremental effectiveness (IE) ranged from 0.025 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) to 0.135 QALY when photon MHD varied from 3 to 16 Gy; IE increased from 0.043 QALY to 0.964 QALY when preexisting cardiac risk increased from the baseline level to its 10 times. IMPT was not cost-effective to patients without preexisting CRF. At the WTP of China, once proton cost reduced to $20,000, IMPT would be cost-effective to ≤ 50-year-old women patients having preexisting cardiac risk of general-population level. Conclusion Patient’s preexisting cardiac risk level should be a main consideration for the clinical decision of using protons; protons may become cost-effective to general-level patients if a substantial decrease in proton cost occurs in the future.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of radiotherapy techniques for whole breast irradiation

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0248220
Author(s):  
Yibo Xie ◽  
Beibei Guo ◽  
Rui Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Advanced Technology ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Tumor Control ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Whole Breast Radiotherapy ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Background The current standard of care (SOC) for whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) in the US is conventional tangential photon fields. Advanced WBRT techniques may provide similar tumor control and better normal tissue sparing, but it is controversial whether the medical benefits of an advanced technology are significant enough to justify its higher cost. Objective To analyze the cost-effectiveness of six advanced WBRT techniques compared with SOC. Methods We developed a Markov model to simulate health states for one cohort of women (65-year-old) with early-stage breast cancer over 15 years after WBRT. The cost effectiveness analyses of field-in-field (FIF), hybrid intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), full IMRT, standard volumetric modulated arc therapy (STD-VMAT), multiple arc VMAT (MA-VMAT), non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT) compared with SOC were performed with both tumor control and radiogenic side effects considered. Transition probabilities and utilities for each health state were obtained from literature. Costs incurred by payers were adopted from literature and Medicare data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainties on the final results. Results FIF has the lowest ICER value of 1,511 $/QALY. The one-way analyses show that the cost-effectiveness of advanced WBRT techniques is most sensitive to the probability of developing contralateral breast cancer. PSAs show that SOC is more cost effective than almost all advanced WBRT techniques at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50,000 $/QALY, while FIF, hybrid IMRT and MA-VMAT are more cost-effective than SOC with a probability of 59.2%, 72.3% and 72.6% at a WTP threshold of 100,000 $/QALY, respectively. Conclusions FIF might be the most cost-effective option for WBRT patients at a WTP threshold of 50,000 $/QALY, while hybrid IMRT and MA-VMAT might be the most cost-effective options at a WTP threshold of 100,000 $/QALY.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and trastuzumab versus docetaxel, cisplatin and trastuzumab in new adjuvant therapy of breast cancer in china

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiaoping Xu ◽  
Li Yuanyuan ◽  
Zhu Jiejing ◽  
Liu Jian ◽  
Li Qingyu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Partial Response ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Half Cycle ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in China. Amplification of the Human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) gene is present and overexpressed in 18–20% of breast cancers and historically has been associated with inferior disease-related outcomes. There has been increasing interest in de-escalation of therapy for low-risk disease. This study analyzes the cost-effectiveness of Doxorubicin/ Cyclophosphamide/ Paclitaxel/ Trastuzumab (AC-TH) and Docetaxel/Carboplatin/Trastuzumab(TCH) from payer perspective over a 5 year time horizon. Methods A half-cycle corrected Markov model was built to simulate the process of breast cancer events and death occurred in both AC-TH and TCH armed patients. Cost data came from studies based on a Chinese hospital. One-way sensitivity analyses as well as second-order Monte Carlo and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.The transition probabilities and utilities were extracted from published literature, and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results We identified 41 breast cancer patients at Hangzhou First People’s Hospital, among whom 15 (60%) had a partial response for AC-TH treatment and 13 (81.25%) had a partial response for TCH treatment.No cardiac toxicity was observed. Hematologic grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed in 1 of 28 patients.Nonhematologic grade 3 or 4 toxicities with a reverse pattern were observed in 6 of 29 patients. The mean QALY gain per patient compared with TCH was 0.25 with AC-TH, while the incremental costs were $US13,142. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AC-TH versus TCH was $US 52,565 per QALY gained. Conclusions This study concluded that TCH neoadjuvant chemotherapy was feasible and active in HER2-overexpressing breast cancer patients in terms of the pathological complete response, complete response, and partial response rates and manageable toxicities.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Tailored Exercise Prescription for Women with Breast Cancer with 8-Year Follow-Up

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (22) ◽  
pp. 8608
Author(s):  
Louisa G. Gordon ◽  
Elizabeth G. Eakin ◽  
Rosalind R. Spence ◽  
Christopher Pyke ◽  
John Bashford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Exercise Intervention ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Care Groups ◽  
Life Years

Studies show conflicting results on whether exercise interventions to improve outcomes for women with breast cancer are cost-effective. We modelled the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Exercise for Health intervention compared with usual care. A lifetime Markov cohort model for women with early breast cancer was constructed taking a societal perspective. Data were obtained from trial, epidemiological, quality of life, and healthcare cost reports. Outcomes were calculated from 5000 Monte Carlo simulations, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Over the cohort’s remaining life, the incremental cost for the exercise versus usual care groups were $7409 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were 0.35 resulting in an incremental cost per QALY ratio of AU$21,247 (95% Uncertainty Interval (UI): Dominant, AU$31,398). The likelihood that the exercise intervention was cost-effective at acceptable levels was 93.0%. The incremental cost per life year gained was AU$8894 (95% UI Dominant, AU$11,769) with a 99.4% probability of being cost effective. Findings were most sensitive to the probability of recurrence in the exercise and usual care groups, followed by the costs of out-of-pocket expenses and the model starting age. This exercise intervention for women after early-stage breast cancer is cost-effective and would be a sound investment of healthcare resources.

Cost-effectiveness of filgrastim-sndz as primary prophylaxis (PP) versus secondary prophylaxis (SP) to prevent chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in breast cancer patients at intermediate risk.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 73-73
Author(s):  
Edward C. Li ◽  
Dylan Mezzio ◽  
Kimberley J. Campbell ◽  
Andrew Spargo ◽  
Gary H. Lyman
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Early Stage Breast Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Lifetime Horizon

73 Background: According to clinical practice guidelines, the threshold for routine myeloid growth factor (MGF) PP is a high risk (>20%) of developing FN. However, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a recent recommendation expands this threshold for using MGF PP to include patients at intermediate risk (10-20%) of developing FN, with the goal of reducing emergency room and hospital visits. Patients with breast cancer receiving potentially curative chemotherapy consisting of docetaxel or paclitaxel (every 21 days) are at an intermediate risk (10-20%) of developing FN. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of PP vs. SP using a biosimilar MGF, filgrastim-sndz, in early-stage breast cancer patients at intermediate risk of FN. Methods: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was constructed to evaluate the total costs and clinical outcomes when using filgrastim-sndz as PP vs. SP in 56 year old early-stage breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel (following doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles. Patients had ≥1 FN risk factor (i.e., recent surgery) without the receipt of anti-HER2 therapy, representing a 16% baseline FN risk. Average Sales Price (ASP) calculated from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services July 2020 ASP Drug Pricing File was used as the filgrastim-sndz cost. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for cost per FN event avoided, life-year saved (LYS), and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from a United States payer perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results: Filgrastim-sndz as PP vs. SP provided an additional 0.102 FN events avoided, 0.065 LYS, and 0.056 QALYs at an incremental cost of $2,106. The ICERs were $20,656, $32,624 and $37,333 for cost per FN event avoided, cost per LYS, and cost per QALY gained, respectively. In the PSA, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained was 71.3%. Conclusions: For early-stage breast cancer patients at intermediate risk of FN receiving adjuvant docetaxel with 1 or more risk factors, PP with filgrastim-sndz compared to SP is cost-effective based on a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and trastuzumab versus docetaxel, cisplatin and trastuzumab in new adjuvant therapy of breast cancer in china.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiaoping XU ◽  
LI Yuanyuan ◽  
ZHU Jiejing ◽  
Liu Jian ◽  
LI Qingyu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Partial Response ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Half Cycle ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in China. Amplification of the Human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) gene is present and overexpressed in 18–20% of breast cancers and historically has been associated with inferior disease-related outcomes. There has been increasing interest in de-escalation of therapy for low-risk disease. This study analyzes the cost-effectiveness of Doxorubicin/ Cyclophosphamide/ Paclitaxel/ Trastuzumab (AC-TH) and Docetaxel/Carboplatin/Trastuzumab(TCH) from payer perspective over a 5 year time horizon.Methods: A half-cycle corrected Markov model was built to simulate the process of breast cancer events and death occurred in both AC-TH and TCH armed patients. Cost data came from studies based on a Chinese hospital. One-way sensitivity analyses as well as second-order Monte Carlo and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.The transition probabilities and utilities were extracted from published literature, and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results:We identified 41 breast cancer patients at Hangzhou First People’s Hospital, among whom 15(60%) had a partial response for AC-TH treatment and 13 (81.25%) had a partial response for TCH treatment.No cardiac toxicity was observed. Hematologic grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed in 1 of 28 patients.Nonhematologic grade 3 or 4 toxicities with a reverse pattern were observed in 6 of 29 patients. The mean QALY gain per patient compared with TCH was 0.25 with AC-TH, while the incremental costs were $US13,142.The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AC-TH versus TCH was $US 52,565 per QALY gained.Conclusions: This study concluded that TCH neoadjuvant chemotherapy was feasible and active in HER2-overexpressing breast cancer patients in terms of the pathological complete response, complete response, and partial response rates and manageable toxicities.

scholarly journals Analisis Cost-Effectiveness Seftazidim Generik pada Pasien Kanker Payudara di Rumah Sakit Kanker “Dharmais” Jakarta, 2012

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 113
Author(s):  
NADIA FARHANAH SYAFHAN ◽  
AGUSDINI BANUN SAPTANINGSIH ◽  
MUTIARA JEANY RAHAYU PERTIWI
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Direct Medical Cost ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Medical Cost ◽  
Late Stage ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Total Direct Medical Cost

ABSTRACTAdministration of ceftazidime shortened duration of neutropenia and hospitalization days in breast cancer patients who had infection after myelosupressive chemotherapy. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as one of pharmacoeconomic methods was important to determine treatment attaining effect for lower cost. The aim of this study was to comparethe total direct medical cost and effectiveness, which was measured from length-of-stay (LOS), of generic ceftazidime A and B usage, and to decide which ceftazidime that was more cost-effective in early-stage and late-stage breast cancer patients at National Cancer Center Dharmais Hospital Jakarta year 2012. The study design was non-experimental withcomparative study retrospectively on secondary data from medical records and administrative data in 2012. Samples were taken by using total sampling method. The number of samples were 9 patients, which included 7 patients with generic ceftazidime A and 2 patients with generic ceftazidime B. The total direct medical cost of generic ceftazidime A in early-stage and late-stage breast cancer patients, respectively Rp 15.930.407,45 and Rp 15.962.519,25, were higher than generic B, respectively Rp 6.716.225,21 and Rp 7.147.956,92. Median LOS of generic A ceftazidime in early-stage and late-stage breast cancer patients, respectively 7 days and 10 days, were longer than generic B, respectively 3 days and 4 days. According to CEA result, generic ceftazidime B was more cost-effective than generic A.ABSTRAKPemberian seftazidim dapat mempersingkat durasi neutropenia dan lama hari rawat inap pada pasien kanker payudara yang mengalami infeksi setelah kemoterapi mielosupresif. Analisis cost-effectiveness merupakan salah satu metode farmakoekonomi yang penting untuk menentukan obat efektif dengan biaya yang lebih rendah. Penelitian dilakukan untuk membandingkan total biaya medis langsung dan efektivitas yang dilihat dari lama hari rawat penggunaan seftazidim generik A dan B, serta menentukan seftazidim yang lebih cost-effective pada pasien kanker payudara stadium awal dan lanjut di Rumah Sakit Kanker “Dharmais” Jakarta, 2012. Desain penelitian yang digunakan adalah studi komparatif secara retrospektif terhadap data rekam medis dan administrasi tahun 2012. Pengambilan sampel dilakukan secara total sampling. Jumlah pasien yang dilibatkan dalam analisis 9 pasien, yaitu 7 pasien menggunakan seftazidim generik A dan 2 pasien menggunakan seftazidim generik B. Median total biaya medis langsung kelompok generik A pada pasien kanker stadium awal maupun lanjut berturut-turut sebesar Rp 15.930.407,45 dan Rp 15.962.519,25 lebih tinggi dibanding generik B, berturut-turut sebesar Rp 6.716.225,21 dan Rp 7.147.956,92. Median lama hari rawat kelompok generik A pada pasien kanker stadium awal maupun lanjut berturut-turut 7 hari dan 10 hari, lebih panjang dibanding generik B, berturut-turut 3 hari dan 4 hari. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian disimpulkan bahwa seftazidim generik B lebih cost-effective dibanding generik A.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Paclitaxel, Doxorubicin, Cyclophosphamide and Trastuzumab Versus Docetaxel, Cisplatin and Trastuzumab in New Adjuvant Therapy of Breast Cancer in China.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiaoping XU ◽  
LI Yuanyuan ◽  
ZHU Jiejing ◽  
Liu Jian ◽  
LI Qingyu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Partial Response ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Half Cycle ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in China. Amplification of the Human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) gene is present and overexpressed in 18–20% of breast cancers and historically has been associated with inferior disease-related outcomes. There has been increasing interest in de-escalation of therapy for low-risk disease. This study analyzes the cost-effectiveness of Doxorubicin/ Cyclophosphamide/ Paclitaxel/ Trastuzumab (AC-TH) and Docetaxel/Carboplatin/Trastuzumab(TCH) from payer perspective over a 5 year time horizon.Methods: A half-cycle corrected Markov model was built to simulate the process of breast cancer events and death occurred in both AC-TH and TCH armed patients. Cost data came from studies based on a Chinese hospital. One-way sensitivity analyses as well as second-order Monte Carlo and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.The transition probabilities and utilities were extracted from published literature, and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results: We identified 41 breast cancer patients at Hangzhou First People’s Hospital, among whom 15(60%) had a partial response for AC-TH treatment and 13 (81.25%) had a partial response for TCH treatment.No cardiac toxicity was observed. Hematologic grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed in 1 of 28 patients.Nonhematologic grade 3 or 4 toxicities with a reverse pattern were observed in 6 of 29 patients. The mean QALY gain per patient compared with TCH was 0.25 with AC-TH, while the incremental costs were $US13,142.The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AC-TH versus TCH was $US 52,565 per QALY gained.Conclusions: This study concluded that TCH neoadjuvant chemotherapy was feasible and active in HER2-overexpressing breast cancer patients in terms of the pathological complete response, complete response, and partial response rates and manageable toxicities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document