Liver Resection for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases: A Cost-utility Analysis

Gaya Spolverato, Alessandro Vitale, Fabio Bagante, Roisin Connolly, Timothy M. Pawlik

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by adjuvant systemic therapy relative to systemic therapy alone for patients with breast cancer liver metastasis. BACKGROUND:: Data on cost-effectiveness of liver resection for advanced breast cancer with liver metastasis are lacking. METHODS:: A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by postoperative conventional systemic therapy (strategy A) versus conventional therapy alone (strategy B) versus newer targeted therapy alone (strategy C). The implications of using different chemotherapeutic regimens based on estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was also assessed. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit (NHB). RESULTS:: NHB of strategy A was 10.9 QALMs compared with strategy B when letrozole was used as systemic therapy, whereas it was only 0.3 QALMs when docetaxel?+?trastuzumab was used as a systemic therapy. The addition of newer biological agents (strategy C) significantly decreased the cost-effectiveness of strategy B (conventional systemic therapy alone). The NHB of strategy A was 31.6 QALMs versus strategy C when palbociclib was included in strategy C; similarly, strategy A had a NHB of 13.8 QALMs versus strategy C when pertuzumab was included in strategy C. Monte-Carlo simulation demonstrated that the main factor influencing NHB of strategy A over strategy C was the cost of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS:: Liver resection in patients with breast cancer liver metastasis proved to be cost-effective when compared with systemic therapy alone, particularly in estrogen receptor-positive tumors or when newer agents were used.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAnnals of Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Mar 18 2016

Fingerprint

Liver Neoplasms
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Breast Neoplasms
Neoplasm Metastasis
Liver
Insurance Benefits
Quality of Life
Therapeutics
letrozole
docetaxel
Estrogen Receptors
Costs and Cost Analysis
Biological Factors

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Spolverato, G., Vitale, A., Bagante, F., Connolly, R., & Pawlik, T. M. (Accepted/In press). Liver Resection for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases: A Cost-utility Analysis. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001715

Liver Resection for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases : A Cost-utility Analysis. / Spolverato, Gaya; Vitale, Alessandro; Bagante, Fabio; Connolly, Roisin; Pawlik, Timothy M.

In: Annals of Surgery, 18.03.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Spolverato, Gaya ; Vitale, Alessandro ; Bagante, Fabio ; Connolly, Roisin ; Pawlik, Timothy M. / Liver Resection for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases : A Cost-utility Analysis. In: Annals of Surgery. 2016.
@article{f1ea2026b8d943079a9afd4e00a2b07e,
title = "Liver Resection for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases: A Cost-utility Analysis",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE:: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by adjuvant systemic therapy relative to systemic therapy alone for patients with breast cancer liver metastasis. BACKGROUND:: Data on cost-effectiveness of liver resection for advanced breast cancer with liver metastasis are lacking. METHODS:: A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by postoperative conventional systemic therapy (strategy A) versus conventional therapy alone (strategy B) versus newer targeted therapy alone (strategy C). The implications of using different chemotherapeutic regimens based on estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was also assessed. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit (NHB). RESULTS:: NHB of strategy A was 10.9 QALMs compared with strategy B when letrozole was used as systemic therapy, whereas it was only 0.3 QALMs when docetaxel?+?trastuzumab was used as a systemic therapy. The addition of newer biological agents (strategy C) significantly decreased the cost-effectiveness of strategy B (conventional systemic therapy alone). The NHB of strategy A was 31.6 QALMs versus strategy C when palbociclib was included in strategy C; similarly, strategy A had a NHB of 13.8 QALMs versus strategy C when pertuzumab was included in strategy C. Monte-Carlo simulation demonstrated that the main factor influencing NHB of strategy A over strategy C was the cost of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS:: Liver resection in patients with breast cancer liver metastasis proved to be cost-effective when compared with systemic therapy alone, particularly in estrogen receptor-positive tumors or when newer agents were used.",
author = "Gaya Spolverato and Alessandro Vitale and Fabio Bagante and Roisin Connolly and Pawlik, {Timothy M.}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "18",
doi = "10.1097/SLA.0000000000001715",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Annals of Surgery",
issn = "0003-4932",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Liver Resection for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases

T2 - A Cost-utility Analysis

AU - Spolverato, Gaya

AU - Vitale, Alessandro

AU - Bagante, Fabio

AU - Connolly, Roisin

AU - Pawlik, Timothy M.

PY - 2016/3/18

Y1 - 2016/3/18

N2 - OBJECTIVE:: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by adjuvant systemic therapy relative to systemic therapy alone for patients with breast cancer liver metastasis. BACKGROUND:: Data on cost-effectiveness of liver resection for advanced breast cancer with liver metastasis are lacking. METHODS:: A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by postoperative conventional systemic therapy (strategy A) versus conventional therapy alone (strategy B) versus newer targeted therapy alone (strategy C). The implications of using different chemotherapeutic regimens based on estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was also assessed. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit (NHB). RESULTS:: NHB of strategy A was 10.9 QALMs compared with strategy B when letrozole was used as systemic therapy, whereas it was only 0.3 QALMs when docetaxel?+?trastuzumab was used as a systemic therapy. The addition of newer biological agents (strategy C) significantly decreased the cost-effectiveness of strategy B (conventional systemic therapy alone). The NHB of strategy A was 31.6 QALMs versus strategy C when palbociclib was included in strategy C; similarly, strategy A had a NHB of 13.8 QALMs versus strategy C when pertuzumab was included in strategy C. Monte-Carlo simulation demonstrated that the main factor influencing NHB of strategy A over strategy C was the cost of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS:: Liver resection in patients with breast cancer liver metastasis proved to be cost-effective when compared with systemic therapy alone, particularly in estrogen receptor-positive tumors or when newer agents were used.

AB - OBJECTIVE:: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by adjuvant systemic therapy relative to systemic therapy alone for patients with breast cancer liver metastasis. BACKGROUND:: Data on cost-effectiveness of liver resection for advanced breast cancer with liver metastasis are lacking. METHODS:: A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by postoperative conventional systemic therapy (strategy A) versus conventional therapy alone (strategy B) versus newer targeted therapy alone (strategy C). The implications of using different chemotherapeutic regimens based on estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was also assessed. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit (NHB). RESULTS:: NHB of strategy A was 10.9 QALMs compared with strategy B when letrozole was used as systemic therapy, whereas it was only 0.3 QALMs when docetaxel?+?trastuzumab was used as a systemic therapy. The addition of newer biological agents (strategy C) significantly decreased the cost-effectiveness of strategy B (conventional systemic therapy alone). The NHB of strategy A was 31.6 QALMs versus strategy C when palbociclib was included in strategy C; similarly, strategy A had a NHB of 13.8 QALMs versus strategy C when pertuzumab was included in strategy C. Monte-Carlo simulation demonstrated that the main factor influencing NHB of strategy A over strategy C was the cost of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS:: Liver resection in patients with breast cancer liver metastasis proved to be cost-effective when compared with systemic therapy alone, particularly in estrogen receptor-positive tumors or when newer agents were used.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84961393747&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84961393747&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001715

DO - 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001715

M3 - Article

C2 - 28266967

AN - SCOPUS:84961393747

JO - Annals of Surgery

JF - Annals of Surgery

SN - 0003-4932

ER -