A cost-benefit analysis of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer

Alberto J. Montero, Kiran Avancha, Stefan Glück, Gilberto Lopes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy increases progression-free survival (PFS), but not overall survival when compared to chemotherapy alone in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Recently in November, 2011 the Food and drug administration revoked approval of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel for the treatment of MBC. The European Medicines Agency, in contrast, maintained its approval of bevacizumab in MBC. While neither agency considers health economics in their decision-making process, one of the greatest challenges in oncology practice today is to reconcile hard-won small incremental clinical benefits with exponentially rising costs. To inform policy-makers in the US, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab/paclitaxel in MBC, from a payer perspective. We created a decision analytical model using efficacy and adverse events data from the ECOG 2100 trial. Health utilities were derived from available literature. Costs were obtained from the Center for Medicare Services Drug Payment Table and Physician Fee Schedule and are represented in 2010 US dollars. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Bevacizumab added 0.49 years of PFS and 0.135 QALY with an incremental cost of $100,300, and therefore a cost of $204,000 per year of PFS gained and an ICER of $745,000 per QALY. The main drivers of the model were drug acquisition cost, PFS, and health utility values. Using a threshold of $150,000/QALY, drug price would have to be reduced by nearly 80% or alternatively PFS increased by 10 months to make bevacizumab cost-effective. The results of the model were robust in sensitivity analyses. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is not cost-effective in treating MBC. Value-based pricing and the development of biomarkers to improve patient selection are needed to better define the role of the drug in this population.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)747-751
Number of pages5
JournalBreast Cancer Research and Treatment
Volume132
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2012

Fingerprint

Paclitaxel
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Breast Neoplasms
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Disease-Free Survival
Costs and Cost Analysis
Therapeutics
Health
Fee Schedules
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Drug Costs
United States Food and Drug Administration
Medicare
Bevacizumab
Combination Drug Therapy
Administrative Personnel
Patient Selection
Decision Making
Biomarkers
Economics

Keywords

  • Bevacizumab
  • Breast cancer
  • Cost-benefit analysis
  • Economics
  • Metastatic breast cancer
  • Pharmacoeconomics
  • QALY

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

A cost-benefit analysis of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. / Montero, Alberto J.; Avancha, Kiran; Glück, Stefan; Lopes, Gilberto.

In: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 132, No. 2, 04.2012, p. 747-751.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Montero, Alberto J. ; Avancha, Kiran ; Glück, Stefan ; Lopes, Gilberto. / A cost-benefit analysis of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. In: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2012 ; Vol. 132, No. 2. pp. 747-751.
@article{bea1c678f4fb4ccba6bed6ece55ce55b,
title = "A cost-benefit analysis of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer",
abstract = "Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy increases progression-free survival (PFS), but not overall survival when compared to chemotherapy alone in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Recently in November, 2011 the Food and drug administration revoked approval of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel for the treatment of MBC. The European Medicines Agency, in contrast, maintained its approval of bevacizumab in MBC. While neither agency considers health economics in their decision-making process, one of the greatest challenges in oncology practice today is to reconcile hard-won small incremental clinical benefits with exponentially rising costs. To inform policy-makers in the US, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab/paclitaxel in MBC, from a payer perspective. We created a decision analytical model using efficacy and adverse events data from the ECOG 2100 trial. Health utilities were derived from available literature. Costs were obtained from the Center for Medicare Services Drug Payment Table and Physician Fee Schedule and are represented in 2010 US dollars. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Bevacizumab added 0.49 years of PFS and 0.135 QALY with an incremental cost of $100,300, and therefore a cost of $204,000 per year of PFS gained and an ICER of $745,000 per QALY. The main drivers of the model were drug acquisition cost, PFS, and health utility values. Using a threshold of $150,000/QALY, drug price would have to be reduced by nearly 80{\%} or alternatively PFS increased by 10 months to make bevacizumab cost-effective. The results of the model were robust in sensitivity analyses. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is not cost-effective in treating MBC. Value-based pricing and the development of biomarkers to improve patient selection are needed to better define the role of the drug in this population.",
keywords = "Bevacizumab, Breast cancer, Cost-benefit analysis, Economics, Metastatic breast cancer, Pharmacoeconomics, QALY",
author = "Montero, {Alberto J.} and Kiran Avancha and Stefan Gl{\"u}ck and Gilberto Lopes",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s10549-011-1919-y",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "132",
pages = "747--751",
journal = "Breast Cancer Research and Treatment",
issn = "0167-6806",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A cost-benefit analysis of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer

AU - Montero, Alberto J.

AU - Avancha, Kiran

AU - Glück, Stefan

AU - Lopes, Gilberto

PY - 2012/4

Y1 - 2012/4

N2 - Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy increases progression-free survival (PFS), but not overall survival when compared to chemotherapy alone in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Recently in November, 2011 the Food and drug administration revoked approval of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel for the treatment of MBC. The European Medicines Agency, in contrast, maintained its approval of bevacizumab in MBC. While neither agency considers health economics in their decision-making process, one of the greatest challenges in oncology practice today is to reconcile hard-won small incremental clinical benefits with exponentially rising costs. To inform policy-makers in the US, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab/paclitaxel in MBC, from a payer perspective. We created a decision analytical model using efficacy and adverse events data from the ECOG 2100 trial. Health utilities were derived from available literature. Costs were obtained from the Center for Medicare Services Drug Payment Table and Physician Fee Schedule and are represented in 2010 US dollars. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Bevacizumab added 0.49 years of PFS and 0.135 QALY with an incremental cost of $100,300, and therefore a cost of $204,000 per year of PFS gained and an ICER of $745,000 per QALY. The main drivers of the model were drug acquisition cost, PFS, and health utility values. Using a threshold of $150,000/QALY, drug price would have to be reduced by nearly 80% or alternatively PFS increased by 10 months to make bevacizumab cost-effective. The results of the model were robust in sensitivity analyses. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is not cost-effective in treating MBC. Value-based pricing and the development of biomarkers to improve patient selection are needed to better define the role of the drug in this population.

AB - Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy increases progression-free survival (PFS), but not overall survival when compared to chemotherapy alone in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Recently in November, 2011 the Food and drug administration revoked approval of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel for the treatment of MBC. The European Medicines Agency, in contrast, maintained its approval of bevacizumab in MBC. While neither agency considers health economics in their decision-making process, one of the greatest challenges in oncology practice today is to reconcile hard-won small incremental clinical benefits with exponentially rising costs. To inform policy-makers in the US, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab/paclitaxel in MBC, from a payer perspective. We created a decision analytical model using efficacy and adverse events data from the ECOG 2100 trial. Health utilities were derived from available literature. Costs were obtained from the Center for Medicare Services Drug Payment Table and Physician Fee Schedule and are represented in 2010 US dollars. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Bevacizumab added 0.49 years of PFS and 0.135 QALY with an incremental cost of $100,300, and therefore a cost of $204,000 per year of PFS gained and an ICER of $745,000 per QALY. The main drivers of the model were drug acquisition cost, PFS, and health utility values. Using a threshold of $150,000/QALY, drug price would have to be reduced by nearly 80% or alternatively PFS increased by 10 months to make bevacizumab cost-effective. The results of the model were robust in sensitivity analyses. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is not cost-effective in treating MBC. Value-based pricing and the development of biomarkers to improve patient selection are needed to better define the role of the drug in this population.

KW - Bevacizumab

KW - Breast cancer

KW - Cost-benefit analysis

KW - Economics

KW - Metastatic breast cancer

KW - Pharmacoeconomics

KW - QALY

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859105892&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859105892&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10549-011-1919-y

DO - 10.1007/s10549-011-1919-y

M3 - Article

C2 - 22200867

AN - SCOPUS:84859105892

VL - 132

SP - 747

EP - 751

JO - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

JF - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

SN - 0167-6806

IS - 2

ER -