At What Cost Does a Potential Survival Advantage of Bevacizumab Make Sense for the Primary Treatment of Ovarian Cancer? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Purpose To determine whether the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel and carboplatin for the primary treatment of advanced ovarian cancer can be cost effective. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis compared the three arms of the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 218 study (paclitaxel plus carboplatin [PC], PC plus bevacizumab [PCB], and PCB plus bevacizumab maintenance [PCB + B]). Actual and estimated costs of treatment plus the potential costs of complications were established for each strategy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and bowel perforation rates were taken from recently reported results of GOG 218. Sensitivity analysis was performed for pertinent uncertainties in the model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS) were estimated. Results For the 600 patients entered onto each arm of GOG 218 at the baseline estimates of PFS and bowel perforation, the cost of PC was $2.5 million, compared with $21.4 million for PCB and $78.3 million for PCB + B. These costs led to an ICER of $479,712 per PF-LYS for PCB and $401,088 per PF-LYS for PCB + B. When the cost of bevacizumab was reduced to 25% of baseline, the ICER of PCB + B fell below $100,000 per PF-LYS. ICERs were not substantially reduced when the perforation rate was equal across all arms. Conclusion The addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer is not cost effective. Treatment with maintenance bevacizumab leads to improved PFS but is associated with both direct and indirect costs. The cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of ovarian cancer is primarily dependent on drug costs.