Search

Although recent studies demonstrated that fulvestrant is superior to anastrozole as first-line treatment for hormone receptor (HR)-positive advanced breast cancer, the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant versus anastrozole remained uncertain. Thus, the current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant compared with anastrozole in the first-line setting. A Markov model consisting of three health states (stable, progressive and dead) was constructed to simulate a hypothetical cohort of patients with HR-positive advanced breast cancer. Costs were calculated from a Chinese societal perspective. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as incremental cost per QALY gained. Model results suggested that fulvestrant provides an additional effectiveness gain of 0.11 QALYs at an incremental cost of $32,654 compared with anastrozole, resulting in an ICER of $296,855/QALY exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold of $23,700/QALY. Hence, fulvestrant is not a cost-effective strategy compared with anastrozole as first-line treatment for HR-positive advanced breast cancer., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Structural uncertainty relates to differences in model structure and parameterization. For many published health economic analyses in oncology, substantial differences in model structure exist, leading to differences in analysis outcomes and potentially impacting decision-making processes. The objectives of this analysis were (1) to identify differences in model structure and parameterization for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing tamoxifen and anastrazole for adjuvant breast cancer (ABC) treatment; and (2) to quantify the impact of these differences on analysis outcome metrics., Methods: The analysis consisted of four steps: (1) review of the literature for identification of eligible CEAs; (2) definition and implementation of a base model structure, which included the core structural components for all identified CEAs; (3) definition and implementation of changes or additions in the base model structure or parameterization; and (4) quantification of the impact of changes in model structure or parameterizations on the analysis outcome metrics life-years gained (LYG), incremental costs (IC) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)., Results: Eleven CEA analyses comparing anastrazole and tamoxifen as ABC treatment were identified. The base model consisted of the following health states: (1) on treatment; (2) off treatment; (3) local recurrence; (4) metastatic disease; (5) death due to breast cancer; and (6) death due to other causes. The base model estimates of anastrazole versus tamoxifen for the LYG, IC and ICER were 0.263 years, €3,647 and €13,868/LYG, respectively. In the published models that were evaluated, differences in model structure included the addition of different recurrence health states, and associated transition rates were identified. Differences in parameterization were related to the incidences of recurrence, local recurrence to metastatic disease, and metastatic disease to death. The separate impact of these model components on the LYG ranged from 0.207 to 0.356 years, while incremental costs ranged from €3,490 to €3,714 and ICERs ranged from €9,804/LYG to €17,966/LYG. When we re-analyzed the published CEAs in our framework by including their respective model properties, the LYG ranged from 0.207 to 0.383 years, IC ranged from €3,556 to €3,731 and ICERs ranged from €9,683/LYG to €17,570/LYG., Conclusion: Differences in model structure and parameterization lead to substantial differences in analysis outcome metrics. This analysis supports the need for more guidance regarding structural uncertainty and the use of standardized disease-specific models for health economic analyses of adjuvant endocrine breast cancer therapies. The developed approach in the current analysis could potentially serve as a template for further evaluations of structural uncertainty and development of disease-specific models.

Objectives: To demonstrate how value of information (VOI) analysis can be used to establish research priorities regarding the use of pharmacogenetic tests using CYP2D6 testing to select adjuvant hormonal therapy in early stage breast cancer as a case study., Methods: The following four treatment pathways are compared in a Markov model: tamoxifen treatment; CYP2D6 test and treat homozygous and heterozygous wild type patients (wt/wt; wt/*4) with tamoxifen and *4/*4 patients with anastrozole (HetTam); CYP2D6 test and treat homozygous wild type patients with tamoxifen and others with anastrozole (HomTam); and anastrozole treatment. Pharmacogenetic testing efficacy is estimated by synthesizing randomized controlled trial data comparing tamoxifen to anastrozole with observational data linking CYP2D6 genotype to tamoxifen outcomes., Results: In order of increasing effectiveness the comparators are tamoxifen, HetTam, HomTam, anastrozole. Health outcomes for test and treatment strategies are highly uncertain. Differences in comparator costs depend on assumptions made regarding anastrozole patent expiry. The expected value of a decision taken with perfect information is £69 to £106 million (pound sterling) for the United Kingdom depending on patent expiry assumptions and the acceptable cost-effectiveness threshold. The most valuable research (VOI £53-£82 million) elucidates the relationship between CYP2D6 genotype and tamoxifen effectiveness. It is uncertain whether values of other research designs would exceed their costs., Conclusions: Retrospective analysis of one of the large adjuvant aromatase inhibitor trials is warranted to better understand any association between CYP2D6 genotype and tamoxifen outcomes. VOI approaches may be helpful for prioritising evidence needs and structuring coverage with evidence development agreements for pharmacogenetics., (Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In high-income countries, tamoxifen has been replaced by aromatase inhibitors such as anastrozole in adjuvant hormone therapy for early breast cancer. These drugs target patients with positive hormone receptors, due to the better results achieved for disease-free survival. The cost-effectiveness of this treatment change has not been evaluated in middle income countries., Objective: The cost effectiveness of anastrozole vs tamoxifen was assessed during five-years of adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor-positive, post-menopausal early breast cancer patients., Materials and Methods: This is a literature-based analysis. The natural history of the breast cancer and the effects of treatment were modeled as a Markov process. Effectiveness was defined as disease-free survival. Transition probabilities for the disease and adverse effects were obtained from the literature. Costs were defined as the median of actual costs provided by health insurance companies and the Colombian National Cancer Institute expressed in 2007 Colombian pesos. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed, along with one way sensitivity analysis was for the costs., Results: Compared with tamoxifen, anastrazol results in an additional relapse-free period of 0.5 years. Each relapse-free year obtained by tamoxifen cost 27,210,604 pesos, or with anastrazol 37,071,337 pesos with a discount rate of 3%. The cost for a sustained-effects scenario were 23,617,400 pesos for tamoxifen and $16,140.282 for anastrazol., Conclusions: The use of anastrazol has an additional cost per relapse-free year of 7,521,363 pesos (2007). Therefore, for postmenopausal, early breast cancer hormone receptor positive women in Colombia, the cost-effective alternative is tamoxifen used as adjuvant therapy for five years.

Prescribing anastrozole instead of tamoxifen increases initial adjuvant drug costs but there is an eventual saving as fewer patients will relapse. The effect of this saving depends on an accurate understanding of the cost of breast cancer relapse. We identified 232 patients relapsing between March 2000 and 2005. Seventy-seven were randomly selected for analysis of their entire hospital and community management costs from the date of relapse until death, or the end of the evaluation period (01/01/07). The mean cost per patient was 25,186 pounds (95% CI 13,705 pounds- 33,821 pounds). The median survival from time of relapse was 40.07 months (range 0.5-73 months) and median total cost per patient was 31,402.62 pounds. Equating this figure with the difference in relapse rate (4.1%), initial drug cost (4,773 pounds) gives an extra cost of 17,244 pounds/life year saved. This was the first adjuvant cost effectiveness analysis which included the community management activity of a subsequent relapse.

Objectives: Carry out an economic analysis of the incorporation of anastrozole as adjuvant hormone therapy in postmenopausal women with breast cancer in a Brazilian setting., Methods: The cost-effectiveness estimate comparing anastrozole to tamoxifen was made from the perspectives of the patient, private health insurance, and government. A Markov model was designed based on data from ATAC trial after 100 months follow-up in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 postmenopausal women in Brazil, using outcomes projections for a 25-year period. Resource utilization and associated costs were obtained from preselected sources and specialists' opinions. Treatment costs varied according to the perspective used. The incremental benefit was inserted in the model to obtain the cost of quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY)., Results: Benefit extrapolations for a 25-year time line showed an estimate of 0.29 QALY gained with anastrozole compared to tamoxifen. The cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained depended on which perspective was used. There was an increment of R$ 32.403,00/QALY in the public health system/government, R$ 32.230,00/QALY for private health system, and R$ 55.270,00/QALY for patients., Conclusion: The benefit from adjuvant anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer is associated to major differences in cost-effectiveness ratio and varies with the different perspectives. According to current WHO parameters, the increment is considered acceptable under public and private health system perspectives, but not from that of the patient.

Objective: Breast cancer, a leading type of cancer in many developing countries, is the most frequent non-cutaneous tumor in Brazil. Hormone therapy is the standard of care in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage, hormone-receptor-positive disease, and both tamoxifen and third-generation aromatase inhibitors are options in postmenopausal women. The comparative cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies is of considerable interest in societies facing limited resources., Methods: In an attempt to compare cost-effectiveness of upfront treatment with tamoxifen or anastrozole, the medical and economic results in a hypothetical cohort of 64-year-old postmenopausal women, was analyzed considering the Brazilian healthcare system in 2005, the primary perspective of the private sector, and a lifetime horizon. Data from the ATAC Trial, Markov modeling, a modified Delphi panel, and microcosting (in Brazilian R$) were used to estimate costs and effectiveness of the two upfront strategies., Results: The model estimated a gain of 0.55 discounted life-years for patients receiving anastrozole, relative to those treated with tamoxifen. With an incremental cost of R$ 15,141.15, the model estimated that the cost-effectiveness of anastrozole, in relation to tamoxifen, was R$ 27,326.80. Monte Carlo simulations showed that approximately 50% of the cases fell below the threshold of R$ 29,229.00 per life-year gained, which is recommended by the World Health Organization for Brazil., Conclusion: It was concluded that upfront anastrozole is a cost-effective option compared with tamoxifen in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer.

Five years with the aromatase inhibitors letrozole or anastrozole is clinically superior to 5 years tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. This paper analyses the cost-effectiveness of the aromatase inhibitors compared to tamoxifen using the same health economic model. A Markov model describes lifetime incidence of breast cancer events and treatment-related adverse events. Probabilities of disease progression, adverse events, and utility values were estimated using secondary sources; costs of breast-cancer care were obtained from a primary costing study. The incremental cost per QALY gained of letrozole vs. tamoxifen is 10,379pounds (95% CI 6,705-23,574pounds), and of anastrozole versus tamoxifen is 11,428pounds (95% CI 6,211-48,795pounds). If a 5-year carry over effect for the reduction in breast cancer events is assumed, the incremental costs per QALY gained compared to tamoxifen are 6,253pounds (95% CI 3,675-14,766pounds) for letrozole and 7,015pounds (95% CI 3,316-31,997pounds) for anastrozole. Five years of letrozole or anastrozole therapy is cost-effective in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. Though the respective confidence intervals show significant overlap, letrozole has a 95% probability of being more cost-effective than tamoxifen at a 20,000pounds QALY value, whilst anastrozole has an 85% probability.

Background: In the primary core analysis of BIG 1-98, a randomized, double-blind trial comparing 5 years of initial adjuvant therapy with letrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer, letrozole significantly improved disease-free survival by 19% and reduced the risk of breast cancer recurrence by 28% and distant recurrence by 27%., Methods: A Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with 5 years of initial adjuvant therapy with letrozole versus tamoxifen from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. Probabilities of recurrence and side effects for tamoxifen were based on published results of BIG 1-98 and other published population-based studies. Corresponding probabilities for letrozole were calculated by multiplying probabilities for tamoxifen by estimated relative risks for letrozole versus tamoxifen from BIG 1-98. Other probabilities, costs of breast-cancer care and treatment of side effects, and health-state utilities were obtained from published studies. Costs and QALYs were estimated over the lifetime of a cohort of postmenopausal women with HR+ early breast cancer, aged 60 years at initiation of therapy, and discounted at 5% annually., Results: Compared with tamoxifen, letrozole yields an additional 0.368 life-years (12.453 vs. 12.086) and 0.343 QALYs (11.582 vs. 11.239). These benefits are obtained at an additional cost of Can$ 8,110 (Can$ 30,819 vs. Can$ 22,709). Cost per QALY gained for letrozole versus tamoxifen is Can$ 23,662 (95% CI Can$ 15,667-Can$ 52,014)., Conclusion: In postmenopausal women with HR+ early breast cancer, initial adjuvant treatment with letrozole is cost-effective from the Canadian healthcare system perspective.

Treatment choices for metastatic prostate cancer are complex and can involve men balancing survival versus quality of life. The present study aims to elicit patient preferences with respect to the attributes of treatments for metastatic prostate cancer through a discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire. Men with recently diagnosed localized prostate cancer were asked to envisage that they had metastatic disease when completing a survey. As expected, men with prostate cancer placed considerable importance on gains in survival; however, avoiding side effects of treatment was also clearly important. Survival gains should be considered alongside side effects when discussing treatment options in metastatic disease.

Background: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of anastrozole versus generic tamoxifen for primary adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer (EBC), from a US healthcare perspective., Methods: A probabilistic Markov model was developed using the 5-year completed treatment analysis of the ATAC ('Arimidex', Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination) trial (ISRCTN 18233230) to project outcomes for anastrozole and tamoxifen to 25 years. Resource utilization data were obtained primarily from published literature and a physician survey (including expert opinion from ATAC Steering Committee members). Drug costs were taken from published wholesale acquisition costs (anastrozole $6.56/day, generic tamoxifen $1.33/day). Other unit costs ($US 2003-4) were from standard sources. Utility estimates of relevant health states, used to compute quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), were collected using the standard gamble technique in a cross-sectional sample of 44 patients. Costs and benefits were discounted 3% annually., Results: In a cohort of 1000 postmenopausal women with HR+ EBC, the model showed anastrozole treatment (versus tamoxifen) would lead to 257 QALYs gained (0.26 QALYs gained per patient), at an additional cost of $5.21 million over 25 years ($5,212 per patient). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anastrozole compared with tamoxifen was $20,246 per QALY gained ($23,541 per life-year gained). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated a >90% probability that the cost per QALY gained with anastrozole would be <$50,000. Results were robust in a sensitivity analysis., Conclusion: Anastrozole is a cost-effective alternative to tamoxifen for the primary adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+ EBC.

Results from the completed treatment analysis of the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen alone or in combination) trial indicated that anastrozole was significantly superior to tamoxifen in terms of efficacy and safety in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer. On the basis of these results, this study estimated the cost-effectiveness of anastrozole vs tamoxifen, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). A Markov model was developed using the 5-year completed treatment analysis from the ATAC trial (ISRCTN18233230), as well as data obtained from published literature and expert opinion. Resource utilisation data and associated costs (2003-4 UK pound) were compiled from standard sources and expert opinion. Utility scores for a number of health states were obtained from a cross-sectional study of 26 representative patients using the standard gamble technique. The utility scores were then inserted into the model to obtain cost per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Costs and benefits were discounted at recommended annual rates of the UK Treasury (3.5%). Modelled for 25 years, anastrozole, relative to generic tamoxifen, was estimated to result in 0.244 QALYs gained per patient at an additional cost of pound4315 per patient). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness of anastrozole compared with tamoxifen was pound17 656 per QALY gained. There was a greater than 90% probability that the cost-effectiveness of anastrozole was below pound30 000 per QALY gained and of the order of 65% that it was below pound20 000 per QALY gained. The results were robust to all parameters tested in sensitivity analysis. Compared with commonly accepted thresholds, anastrozole is a cost-effective alternative to generic tamoxifen in adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+ early breast cancer from the UK NHS perspective.

Background: To determine cost-effective (CE) strategies comparing adjuvant upfront aromatase inhibitor (AI) with sequential tamoxifen (TAM) AI in postmenopausal (PM) women with breast cancer (BC)., Design: A Markov model was constructed to calculate cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains for upfront AI and TAM-AI in a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old PM women with BC. Costs, utilities and probabilities were derived from the literature. The hazard ratios (HRs) of AI strategies were applied to a baseline cancer recurrence risk (RR) to determine CE strategies at the $50,000/QALY gain threshold. A direct payer perspective is utilized, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3%., Results: Two-way sensitivity analyses are presented to determine CE strategies across a wide range of HRs and in different clinical scenarios including varying RRs (low, average, high and very high). TAM-AI is the preferred CE strategy at low and average RR, while upfront AI is CE at very high RR. The CE strategy in patients with high RR was dependent on the scenario examined., Conclusions: This model may help health care providers select CE-adjuvant AI strategies in PM women with BC, until further direct evidence is available from randomized clinical trials.

Objective: To compare the efficiency of adjuvant therapy with aromatase inhibitors or with tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with operable breast cancer and positive estrogen receptors., Material and Methods: A cost-utility analysis was performed based on a Markov model, from the Spanish National Health Care System perspective, comparing the treatment with exemestane (EXE: 25 mg/day) or tamoxifen (TAM: 20 mg/day) after 2-3 years of monotherapy with TAM; anastrozole (ANA, 1 mg/day) or TAM (20 mg/day) without previous TAM therapy; and letrozole (LET: 2.5 mg/day) or placebo after 5 years of monotherapy with TAM. The follow-up of a hypothetical cohort of women starting treatment at 63 years of age was simulated during 10 and 20 years. The probabilities of transition between health states and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from the literature, and the unit costs (euro corresponding to 2004) from a Spanish database., Results: After 10 and 20 years of follow-up, more QALYs per patient would be gained with the EXE scheme (0.230-0.286 and 0.566-0.708, respectively) than with ANA (0.114 and 0.285) and LET (0.176 and 0.474). The cost of gaining one QALY was lower with the EXE scheme (50,801-62,522 euro and 28,849- 35,371 euro, respectively) than with ANA (104,272 euro and 62,477 euro) and LET (91,210 euro and 49,460 euro). The result was stable for the cost per life-year gained (LYG) and in the sensitivity analysis., Conclusions: The EXE scheme after TAM is more cost-effective than the ANA and LET schemes.

The 5-year completed treatment analysis of the Anastrozole and Tamoxifen-Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial showed the superiority of anastrozole over tamoxifen for reduction of disease progression in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer (EBC). The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anastrozole versus tamoxifen in this setting. A health economic model was developed comparing the natural history of EBC patients treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen. The perspective of the Belgian health care system was taken. Disease progression from EBC was obtained from the ATAC trial and further progression beyond the clinical trial from published literature. Resource use data were obtained from the ATAC study and from published local retrospective data. Anastrozole was cost-effective versus tamoxifen, provided that a time horizon of at least 9 years is taken. This sensitivity to time horizon is inherently associated with the adjuvant setting due to the different evolution of costs and outcomes over time. Costs are incurred solely during the first 5 years, whereas outcomes are cumulated beyond adjuvant treatment. In conclusion, provided that a sufficient time horizon is taken and that long-term model predictions are confirmed from further follow-up from the ATAC study, anastrozole is a highly cost-effective adjuvant therapy compared to tamoxifen.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of letrozole compared with tamoxifen as first-line therapy in post-menopausal women with advanced breast cancer in Japan. A Markov analytical model was developed to estimate life-year (LY) expectancies, using key transition probabilities obtained from the results of a multinational phase III trial, a literature review and a Japanese medical expert panel. Direct medical costs were estimated, from the payer's perspective, using the expected resource utilization provided by the expert panel, the medical fee table and drug tariff under the national health insurance system. The expected overall life-years (LYs) obtained were 3.68 years for letrozole arm and 3.09 years for tamoxifen arm, showing incremental LYs of 0.59 years in patients receiving letrozole. The total expected costs were 3,644,588 yen (33,133 US dollars) for letrozole arm and 3,322,111 yen (30,201 US dollars) for tamoxifen arm, resulting in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 546,571 yen (4,969 US dollars) per life-year gained, while the 5 th percentile of ICER showed letrozole dominating tamoxifen and the 95th percentile was 2,310,593 yen (21,005 US dollars). The results suggest that letrozole is a clinically beneficial and cost-effective treatment option when compared with tamoxifen in first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in Japan.

Background: In a recent trial of first-line therapy in 353 postmenopausal women with predominantly hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (the North American trial), anastrozole 1 mg QD produced a significantly longer time to disease progression (TTP) than tamoxifen 20 mg QD (11.1 months vs 5.6 months; P = 0.005). Both treatments were well tolerated, but there were fewer thromboembolic events and a reduced incidence of vaginal bleeding with anastrozole., Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct an economic analysis of anastrozole versus tamoxifen based on data from the North American trial., Methods: Quality-adjusted TTP (QATTP) was determined by combining TTP values with uniform or graded weights for adverse events using the Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms and Toxicity method. Direct health care costs before and after disease progression were determined from the perspective of 4 types of health care insurers in the United States: health maintenance organizations (HMOs), indemnity plans, preferred provider organizations (PPOs), and point-of-service (POS) plans., Results: Median QATTP with graded weights was 9.7 months for anastrozole, compared with 4.6 months for tamoxifen (P = 0.003). A resultant reduction in health care resource utilization was observed, particularly the requirements for hospitalization, outpatient visits, and chemotherapy, but the statistical significance of this observation was not assessed. Incremental cost savings per patient before and after disease progression were observed with anastrozole compared with tamoxifen (9064 dollars for HMO, 9678 dollars for indemnity plan, 14,273 dollars for PPO, and 12,715 dollars for POS; all P < 0.01)., Conclusions: In the US managed care setting, anastrozole produced a higher QATTP and incurred lower treatment costs than tamoxifen in a population of postmenopausal women with predominantly hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Therefore, anastrozole was more cost-effective than tamoxifen as first-line endocrine therapy in the population studied.

Recent randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing anastrozole (Arimidex) and letrozole (Femara) to tamoxifen in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-sensitive breast cancer have demonstrated that both agents were at least as effective as tamoxifen. In addition, one RCT has revealed significant superiority of letrozole to tamoxifen with regard to tumor response rate and time to progression. Based on the efficacy and toxicity data, anastrozole or letrozole may replace tamoxifen. A cost effectiveness analysis was undertaken to determine whether the new agents are economically acceptable alternatives to tamoxifen. In the absence of a randomized three-arm trial, a decision model was developed to simulate and compare the most common therapeutic outcomes. The clinical data were obtained from a meta analysis of modern (i.e., post-1990) randomized trials. Clinical outcomes data from the various trials were statistically pooled using a random effects model to provide point estimates and 95% confidence intervals. Total hospital resource consumption was collected from the charts of 87 patients with advanced disease who had failed tamoxifen therapy. The model suggested a comparable duration of quality-adjusted progression-free survival between letrozole and anastrozole, both being superior to tamoxifen (179 days vs. 172 days vs. 161 days). Letrozole and anastrozole had overall costs of Can2,883 dollars and 2,847 dollars per patient, respectively, which were marginally higher than tamoxifen at Can2,258 dollars per patient. When the costs and benefits were combined, the data generated an incremental cost per quality-adjusted progression-free year of 12,500 dollars and 19,600 dollars for letrozole and anastrozole, respectively, relative to tamoxifen. Letrozole and anastrozole are both economically acceptable alternatives to tamoxifen in the first-line treatment setting. However, when efficacy and cost effectiveness are considered together, letrozole could be preferentially considered.

Background: Letrozole is a third-generation aromatase inhibitor that is a feasible alternative to tamoxifen as a first-line hormonal therapy for patients with advanced breast cancer., Objective: This paper presents the results of an economic evaluation comparing letrozole and tamoxifen as first-line hormonal therapies in postmenopausal women diagnosed with advanced breast cancer., Perspective: UK National Health Service., Design: A decision model (Markov process) was built describing possible patient pathways from the point of diagnosis to death. The model was populated using patient-specific clinical trial data, data from the existing literature, and expert opinion. Stochastic analyses of the model were undertaken, whereby the majority of the input parameters were described as probability distributions to represent the uncertainty about their true value. Costs were presented in year 2000 values., Results: The baseline results showed that letrozole is a cost-effective alternative to tamoxifen with a mean incremental cost per life-year gained of pound 2342, whilst the incremental cost increases to just over pound 10,000 at the 95th percentile of the cost-effectiveness range (2000 values)., Conclusions: The results of the economic analysis indicate that letrozole is a cost-effective alternative first-line therapy compared with tamoxifen for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer, achieving additional life-years with a modest increase in costs.