Introduction: The aim of our analysis was to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in addition to taxane treatment versus taxane monotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer compared with the cost-effectiveness based on the efficacy results from a trial.
Methods: A state transition model was built to estimate costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatments. Two scenarios were examined: a real-world scenario and a trial-based scenario in which transition probabilities were primarily based on a real-world cohort study and the E2100 trial, respectively. In both scenarios, costs and utility parameter estimates were extracted from the real-world cohort study. Moreover, the Dutch health care perspective was adopted.
Results: In both the real-world and trial scenarios, bevacizumab-taxane is more expensive (incremental costs of (sic)56,213 and (sic)52,750, respectively) and more effective (incremental QALYs of 0.362 and 0.189, respectively) than taxane monotherapy. In the real-world scenario, bevacizumab-taxane compared to taxane monotherapy led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of (sic)155,261 per QALY gained. In the trial scenario, the ICER amounted to (sic)278,711 per QALY gained.
Conclusion: According to the Dutch informal threshold, bevacizumab in addition to taxane treatment was not considered cost-effective for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer both in a real-world and in a trial scenario. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
- Metastatic breast cancer
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Trial based
- Cost-benefit analysis
- RANDOMIZED PHASE-III
- 1ST-LINE TREATMENT
- PLUS DOCETAXEL