4.7 Article

Assessing the Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Trastuzumab in HER-2/neu Positive Breast Cancer

期刊

ONCOLOGIST
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 164-171

出版社

ALPHAMED PRESS
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0379

关键词

Cost-benefit analysis; Drug costs; Breast neoplasms; Antibodies; Monoclonal

类别

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [162964]
  2. Canadian Cancer Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Among women with surgically removed, high-risk HER-2/neu-positive breast cancer, trastuzumab has demonstrated significant improvements in disease-free and overall survival. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the currently recommended 12-month adjuvant protocol of trastuzumab using a Markov modeling approach and real-world cost data. Methods. A 10-health-state Markov model tracked patients' quarterly transitions between health states in the local and advanced states of breast cancer. Clinical data were obtained from the joint analysis of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project and North Central Cancer Treatment Group, as well as from the metastatic study conducted by Norum et al. Clinical outcomes were adjusted for quality of life using utility estimates published in a systematic review. Real cost data were obtained from the British Columbia Cancer Agency and were evaluated from a payer perspective. Costs and utilities were discounted at 5% per year, respectively, for a 28-year time horizon. Results. In the base case analysis, treatment with a 12-month adjuvant trastuzumab regimen resulted in a gain of 1.38 quality-adjusted life years or 1.17 life years gained at a cost of $18,133 per patient. Thus, the cost per QALY gained for the base case is $13,095. Cost per LYG is $15,492. Conclusions. Over the long term, treatment of HER-2/neu mutation positive breast cancer with a 12-month protocol of trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting is predicted to be cost-effective in a Canadian context. The Oncologist 2012;17:164-171

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据