Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
J Clin Oncol. 2023 Jan 1;41(1):32-42. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02473. Epub 2022 Sep 2.
Treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are modestly effective at prolonging life and improving quality of life but can be extremely expensive. Given these tradeoffs in quality of life and cost, the optimal choice of treatment sequencing is unclear. Cost-effectiveness analysis can explicitly quantify such tradeoffs, enabling more informed decision making. Our objective was to estimate the societal cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic alternatives in the first- to third-line sequences of single-agent chemotherapy regimens among patients with endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC.
Using three dynamic microsimulation models of 10,000 patients each, three cohorts were simulated, based upon prior chemotherapy exposure: (1) unexposed to either taxane or anthracycline, (2) taxane- and anthracycline-exposed, and (3) taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive. We focused on the following single-agent chemotherapy regimens as reasonable and commonly used options in the first three lines of therapy for each cohort, based upon feedback from oncologists treating endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC: (1) for taxane- and anthracycline-unexposed patients, paclitaxel, capecitabine (CAPE), or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin; (2) for taxane- and anthracycline-exposed patients, Eribulin, CAPE, or carboplatin; and (3) for taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive patients, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, CAPE, or Eribulin.
In each cohort, accumulated quality-adjusted life-years were similar between regimens, but total societal costs varied considerably. Sequences beginning first-line treatment with paclitaxel, carboplatin, and CAPE, respectively, for cohorts 1, 2, and 3, had lower costs and similar or slightly better outcomes compared with alternative options.
In this setting where multiple single-agent chemotherapy options are recommended by clinical guidelines and share similar survival and adverse event trajectories, treatment sequencing approaches that minimize costs early may improve the value of care.
对于内分泌治疗耐药或三阴性转移性乳腺癌(mBC)患者,治疗方法在延长生命和提高生活质量方面的效果有限,但费用却非常高。鉴于这些在生活质量和成本方面的权衡取舍,最佳的治疗方案顺序尚不清楚。成本效益分析可以明确量化这些权衡取舍,从而做出更明智的决策。我们的目的是估计在接受内分泌治疗耐药或三阴性 mBC 治疗的患者中,一线至三线单药化疗方案中的不同治疗选择的社会成本效益。
使用三个包含 10000 名患者的动态微观模拟模型,模拟了三个队列,基于先前的化疗暴露情况进行分组:(1)既未接受紫杉醇也未接受蒽环类药物治疗的患者,(2)接受过紫杉醇和蒽环类药物治疗的患者,(3)仅接受过紫杉醇治疗/未接受蒽环类药物治疗的患者。我们基于治疗内分泌治疗耐药或三阴性 mBC 的肿瘤医生的反馈,针对每个队列的前三线治疗选择,重点关注以下单药化疗方案:(1)对于既未接受紫杉醇也未接受蒽环类药物治疗的患者,选择紫杉醇、卡培他滨(CAPE)或聚乙二醇化脂质体多柔比星;(2)对于接受过紫杉醇和蒽环类药物治疗的患者,选择艾瑞布林、CAPE 或卡铂;(3)对于仅接受过紫杉醇治疗/未接受蒽环类药物治疗的患者,选择聚乙二醇化脂质体多柔比星、CAPE 或艾瑞布林。
在每个队列中,不同方案的累积质量调整生命年相似,但总社会成本差异很大。对于队列 1、2 和 3,分别以紫杉醇、卡铂和 CAPE 作为一线治疗的方案序列,与其他方案相比,具有更低的成本和相似或稍好的结局。
在这种情况下,多种单药化疗方案均被临床指南推荐,且具有相似的生存和不良事件轨迹,早期降低成本的治疗方案可能会提高治疗的价值。