Search

Background: Tamoxifen (TAM) is recommended as the first-line strategy for men with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive early breast cancer who are candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy in ASCO guideline. Our study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy with TAM compared to no TAM, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of using TAM with high adherence over low adherence for ER-positive early male breast cancer in the USA., Methods: Two Markov models comprising three mutually exclusive health states were constructed: (1) the first Markov model compared the cost-effectiveness of adding TAM with not using TAM (TAM versus Not-TAM); (2) the second model compared the cost-effectiveness of receiving TAM with high adherence and low adherence (High-adherence-TAM versus Low-adherence-TAM). The simulation time horizon for both models was the lifetime of patients. The efficacy and safety data of two models were elicited from the real-world studies. Model inputs were derived from the US website and published literature. The main outcomes of two models both included the total cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)., Results: In the first model, TAM yielded an ICER of $5707.29 per QALY compared to Not-TAM, which was substantially below the WTP threshold of $50,000.00 per QALY in the USA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results demonstrated a 100.00% probability of cost-effectiveness for this strategy. In the second model, High-adherence-TAM was dominated absolutely compared to Low-adherence-TAM. The High-adherence-TAM was cost-effective with a 99.70% probability over Low-adherence-TAM when WTP was set as $50,000.00/QALY. All of these parameters within their plausible ranges did not reversely change the results of our models., Conclusions: Our study will offer valuable guidance for physicians or patients when making treatment decisions and provide an effective reference for decision-making to consider the appropriate allocation of funds to this special group., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Japanese Breast Cancer Society.)

Objectives: Metastatic prostate cancer is the most common malignant cancer and the second leading cause of death due to various types of cancer among men after lung cancer. This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of triptorelin, goserelin, and leuprolide in the treatment of the patients with metastatic prostate cancer from the societal perspective in Iran in 2020., Methods: This is a cost-effectiveness study in which a 20-year Markov transition modeling was applied. In this study, local cost and quality-of-life data of each health state were gathered from cohort of patients. The TreeAge pro 2020 and Microsoft Excel 2016 software were used to simulate cost-effectiveness of each treatment in the long term. The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed to measure robustness of the model outputs., Results: The findings indicated that the mean costs and utility gained over a 20-year horizon for goserelin, triptorelin, and leuprolide treatments were $ 13 539.13 and 6.365 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), $ 18 124.75 and 6.658 QALY, and $ 26 006.92 and 6.856 QALY, respectively. Goserelin was considered as a superior treatment option, given the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the study outcomes., Conclusions: According to the results of the present study, goserelin was the most effective and cost-effective strategy versus 2 other options. It could be recommended to policy makers of the Iran healthcare system to prioritize it in clinical guidelines and reimbursement policies., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2024 International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating recent phase III clinical trial (MONALEESA-7) data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib (RIB) as a first-line treatment for premenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) from the United States healthcare payer perspective. In addition, because RIB has not been marketed in China, we identified the range of drug costs for which RIB could be considered cost effective from a Chinese healthcare system perspective., Patients and Methods: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding RIB to endocrine therapy over a lifetime. The clinical outcomes and utility data were obtained from published literature. Costs data were obtained from United States and Chinese official websites, and we determined the potential price for RIB in China based on its price in the United States. The main outcomes of this study were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)., Results: The model projected that mean outcome was better with RIB and endocrine combined (3.83366 QALYs) than with endocrine therapy alone (2.71203 QALYs). In the United States, RIB and endocrine therapy cost an additional $604,960.06, resulting in an ICER of $539,357.95/QALY compared with endocrine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses indicated that, in China, the projected mean outcomes were better for RIB and endocrine therapy (6.37 QALYs) than for endocrine monotherapy (2.71 QALYs). The corresponding incremental costs were $224,731.88943. Thus, the ICER comparing RIB and endocrine therapy with endocrine therapy alone represented a $61,454.96/QALY gain., Conclusion: Additional use of RIB is estimated to not be cost effective as a first-line treatment for premenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative ABC in the United States. A value-based price for the cost of RIB is less than $31.74/200 mg for China., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Approximately 20% of UK women aged 70+ with early breast cancer receive primary endocrine therapy (PET) instead of surgery. PET reduces surgical morbidity but with some survival decrement. To complement and utilize a treatment dependent prognostic model, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of surgery plus adjuvant therapies versus PET for women with varying health and fitness, identifying subgroups for which each treatment is cost-effective., Methods: Survival outcomes from a statistical model, and published data on recurrence, were combined with data from a large, multicenter, prospective cohort study of over 3400 UK women aged 70+ with early breast cancer and median 52-month follow-up, to populate a probabilistic economic model. This model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of surgery plus adjuvant therapies relative to PET for 24 illustrative subgroups: Age {70, 80, 90} × Nodal status {FALSE (F), TRUE (T)} × Comorbidity score {0, 1, 2, 3+}., Results: For a 70-year-old with no lymph node involvement and no comorbidities (70, F, 0), surgery plus adjuvant therapies was cheaper and more effective than PET. For other subgroups, surgery plus adjuvant therapies was more effective but more expensive. Surgery plus adjuvant therapies was not cost-effective for 4 of the 24 subgroups: (90, F, 2), (90, F, 3), (90, T, 2), (90, T, 3)., Conclusion: From a UK perspective, surgery plus adjuvant therapies is clinically effective and cost-effective for most women aged 70+ with early breast cancer. Cost-effectiveness reduces with age and comorbidities, and for women over 90 with multiple comorbidities, there is little cost benefit and a negative impact on quality of life., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine the different levels of copayment assistance and treatment adherence among Medicare and Medicaid dual eligible beneficiaries with breast cancer in the U.S., Research Design: Propensity Score methodology was adopted to minimize potential selection bias from the nonrandom allocation of the treatment group (i.e., full Medicaid beneficiaries) and control group (i.e., Medicare Savings Programs [MSPs] beneficiaries). Longitudinal hierarchical model and Cox proportional-hazard model were adopted to examine patients' adherence over their full five-year course of adjuvant hormone therapy., Results: Our study cohort consisted of 1,133 dual eligible beneficiaries diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive early stage breast cancer in years 2007 -mid 2009. About 80.5% of them received MSPs benefits, while the rest received full Medicaid benefits. On average for a standardized 30-day hormone therapy medication, full Medicaid beneficiaries spent $0.5-$2.0 and MSP beneficiaries spent $1.4-$4.8 in copayment. After adjusting for other factors, this copayment reduction wasn't associated with a significantly better adherence. However, when the catastrophic coverage threshold was reached (copayments reduced to zero), significant improvement in adherence was found in both groups., Conclusions: Our study found that small amount of cost-sharing reduction did not affect Medicare and Medicaid dual eligible patients' medication treatment adherence, however, the elimination of cost-sharing (even a minimal amount) was associated with improved adherence. Future legislative and advocacy efforts should be paid on eliminating cost sharing for dual eligibles, and possibly even a broader group of financially vulnerable patients., Competing Interests: S. Ma, C. Thomas, G. Ritter, and R. Martell and have no conflicts of interest. D. Shepard reports grants from Sanofi Pasteur, grants from Takeda Vaccines, Inc, outside the submitted work. These relate to grants to studying the economics of other viral diseases, with no relation to cancer. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

BACKGROUND: The 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend first-line treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer with endocrine therapy plus or minus palbociclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitor. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ribociclib, a new orally available selective CDK4/6 inhibitor. While gains in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from ribociclib are important for clinical and treatment outcomes, trade-offs in adverse events (AEs) and additional costs necessitate cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to assist consideration by third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients. OBJECTIVES: To (a) develop a Markov model and (b) determine the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone as treatment for premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. METHODS: A lifetime 3-state Markov model ("stable," "progressed," and "dead" health states) was developed using a U.S. payer perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated based on OS and PFS outcomes from the randomized controlled phase 3 trial MONALEESA-7. These Kaplan-Meier curves were extended to lifetime by estimating best-fit distributions using loglogistic distribution for ribociclib curves and Weibull distribution for placebo curves. Costs were obtained from national data sources using 2019 U.S. dollars (USD) and discounted by 3%. Utilities were obtained via published breast cancer literature and were included for each health state and for time spent with each AE. Results were expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as USD per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Treatments were assumed to be cost-effective based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Base-case, 1-way sensitivity tornado diagrams and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated changes in the ICER and were driven by the cost of ribociclib and the utility of remaining in the stable health state. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy was cost-effective at an ICER of $124,513 per QALY when compared with endocrine therapy alone at a WTP threshold of $150,000. The ribociclib plus endocrine therapy arm had an effectiveness of 5.28 QALYs and a total cost of $385,112, while placebo plus endocrine therapy provided only 2.46 QALYs at a lower total cost of $67.246. The model was sensitive to the cost of ribociclib and the utility of time spent in the stable health state. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that endocrine therapy alone was cost-effective until a WTP of $125,000 and was cost-effective 72% of the time at the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy is more cost-effective than endocrine therapy alone. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic benefits of ribociclib for the treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer as they make value-based formulary decisions. Further CEAs should be considered as direct treatment comparison trials between CDK4/6 inhibitors are completed in the future. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Objective: The S0226 trial demonstrated that the combination of half-dose fulvestrant (FUL) and anastrozole (ANA) (F&A) caused a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) versus ANA monotherapy for first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (PMW-MBC (HR+)). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of F&A in the first-line treatment for PMW-MBC (HR+) in China., Design: We constructed a Markov model over a life-time horizon. The clinical outcomes and utility data were obtained from published literature. Cost data were obtained from official Chinese websites. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test result uncertainty., Setting: Chinese healthcare system perspective., Population: A hypothetical cohort of adult patients presenting with PMW-MBC (HR+)., Interventions: F&A compared with full-dose FUL and ANAmonotherapy., Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY)., Results: ANA was estimated to have the lowest cost and minimum life-years. The ICER of F&A versus ANA was US$15 665.891/QALY with incremental cost and QALY of US$12 401.120 and 0.792, respectively, which was less than the willingness-to-pay of US$29 383/QALY. Compared with F&A, FUL yielded a higher cost and a shorter lifetime; hence, it was identified as a dominated strategy. The univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the price of FUL was the most influential factor in our study. The probability that F&A was cost-effective at a threshold of US$29 383/QALY in China was 86.5%., Conclusion: F&A is a cost-effective alternative to FUL and ANA monotherapy for the first-line treatment of PMW-MBC (HR+) in China. F&A is a promising first-line treatment for PMW-MBC (HR+), and more research is needed to evaluate the economy of using F&A in other countries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Endocrine therapy adherence remains a barrier to optimal estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer outcomes. We theorized that experience navigating difficult medication regimen factors, such as route of administration complexity, might improve subsequent adherence after stressful cancer diagnoses but not for patients with bipolar and psychotic disorders at risk of poor access and nonadherence., Materials and Methods: We included 21,894 women aged ≥ 68 years at their first surgically treated stage I-IV estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (2007-2013) from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data set, of whom 5.8% had bipolar or psychotic disorders. We required continuous fee-for-service Medicare (parts A and B) data for ≥ 36 months before and 18 months after the cancer diagnosis. The medication regimen factors in the part D claims for 4 months before included the number of all medications used, pharmacy visits, and administration complexity (medication regimen complexity index subscale). Cox regression analysis was used to model the time to initiation and discontinuation, with longitudinal linear regression for adherence to endocrine therapy., Results: Women with more frequent previous medication use and pharmacy visits were more likely to initiate, 4+ medications and 2+ visits versus no medication (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-1.63), to adhere (6.0%; 95% CI, 4.3-7.6), and to continuously use their endocrine therapy (discontinuation HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.39-0.59). Medication administration complexity had modest effects. Difficult medication regimens were more common for patients with bipolar and psychotic disorders but had no statistically significant effects., Conclusions: Experience with frequent previous medication use and pharmacy visits might increase the likelihood of endocrine therapy use for most patients but not for those with bipolar and psychotic disorders., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In a recent randomized, open-label trial (S0226), the addition of fulvestrant to anastrozole therapy decreased the risk of progression and death in patients with hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. However, the cost-effectiveness of incorporating fulvestrant into the first-line setting is unknown., Methods: We developed a Markov model to assess the costs and clinical outcomes of fulvestrant plus anastrozole compared with anastrozole as a first-line therapy in a cohort of patients with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. The transition probabilities were estimated from the fitted survival curves in the S0226 trial. Health care costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for fulvestrant plus anastrozole compared with anastrozole from US payer's perspective., Results: Fulvestrant plus anastrozole led to an improvement of 0.11 QALYs compared with treatment with anastrozole alone. However, incorporating fulvestrant into the first-line therapy produced significantly higher health care costs ($72,496 vs. $38,959 for all eligible patients, and $73,728 vs. $37,239 for patients with no previous hormonal adjuvant therapy), resulting in ICERs of $300,564 and $194,450/QALY, respectively. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that when the cost of fulvestrant decreased to $1.5/mg for all eligible patients or $3.5/mg for patients with no previous hormonal adjuvant therapy, at the perfect health in progression-free status, the ICER became $141,320 and $145,543 per QALY., Conclusion: Substituting fulvestrant as a first-line therapy for hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer is not cost-effective compared with anastrozole based on the willing-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second leading cause of cancer death among US men and accounts for considerable healthcare expenditures. We evaluated economic outcomes in men with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abiraterone)., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis on 3174 men (18 years or older) utilizing the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2018. Men with mCRPC were included if they had at least one pharmacy claim for enzalutamide or abiraterone (first claim date = index date) following surgical or medical castration, had no chemotherapy treatment within 12 months prior to the index date, and had continuous VHA enrollment for at least 12 months pre- and post-index date. Men were followed until death, disenrollment, or end of study and were 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM). All-cause and PC-related resource use and costs per patient per month (PPPM) in the 12 months post index were compared between matched cohorts., Results: We identified 1229 men with mCRPC prescribed enzalutamide and 1945 prescribed abiraterone with mean ages of 74 and 73 years, respectively. After PSM, each cohort had 1160 patients. The enzalutamide cohort had fewer all-cause (2.51 vs 2.86; p < 0.0001) and PC-related outpatient visits (0.86 vs 1.03; p < 0.0001), with corresponding lower all-cause ($2588 vs $3115; p < 0.0001) and PC-related ($1356 vs $1775; p < 0.0001) PPPM outpatient costs compared with the abiraterone cohort. All-cause total costs (medical and pharmacy) PPPM ($8085 vs $9092; p = 0.0002) and PC-related total costs PPPM ($6321 vs $7280; p < 0.0001) were significantly lower in the enzalutamide cohort compared with the abiraterone cohort., Conclusions: Enzalutamide-treated men with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC had significantly lower resource utilization and healthcare costs compared with abiraterone-treated men.

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the gold standard for metastatic prostate cancer, which can be achieved either by surgical or medical castration. In this study, we evaluated the trends of utilization of surgical castration and also assess the survival differences of patients who underwent surgical castration when compared with those who underwent medical castration., Materials and Methods: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with metastatic prostate cancer from 2004 to 2014. Cochran-Armitage tests were used to assess temporal trends in the proportion of patients receiving surgical castration relative to medical castration. Logistic and Cox regression models were utilized to estimate the odds of utilization of surgical castration and the effect of castration on overall survival (OS)., Results: A total of 33,585 patients with metastatic prostate cancer were identified; 31,600 (94.1%) had medical castration, and 1985 (5.9%) underwent surgical castration. There was significant decline in the trend of utilization of surgical castration from 8.6% in 2004 to 3.1% in 2014. On multivariable analysis, being of a non-Caucasian race, having lower median income levels, having non-private insurance, and earlier years of diagnosis were found to be associated with increased odds of choosing surgical castration over medical castration. Notably, the odds of surgical castration were lower at academic centers. On univariable analysis, a survival difference between castration modality was evidenced (P < .01); 5-year OS for medical castration and surgical castration were 24.3% and 18.2%, respectively. However, on multivariable analysis, there was no OS difference between surgical castration and medical castration (P = .13)., Conclusions: In this large contemporary analysis, the utilization of surgical castration has declined over time, with no OS difference when compared with medical castration. Increasing the utilization of surgical castration could help reduce health care expenditures. With rising health care costs, patients and physicians need to be aware of treatment options and their financial implications., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In recent years, the treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) have expanded significantly. In addition to androgen deprivation therapy, the systemic treatments now include docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide. Radiation to the primary is also an option for select low-volume patients., Methods: We conducted a review of the pivotal trials that have changed the practice of mHSPC., Results: We describe an overview of the trials that investigated docetaxel (CHAARTED and STAMPEDE-Docetaxel), abiraterone (LATTITUDE and STAMPEDE-Abiraterone), enzalutamide (ARCHES, ENZAMET), apalutamide (TITAN), and radiation to the primary (STAMPEDE-Radiation)., Discussion: The treatment of mHSPC is a complex topic, and treatment choice should be individualized. Patient preferences, cost, volume of disease, and side effect profiles are important in determining which option is the best for an individual patient.

In December 2017, ESMO Open-Cancer Horizons convened a round-table discussion on the background and latest data regarding cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitors with endocrine therapy (ET) in the treatment of endocrine-sensitive breast cancer (BC). A review on this discussion was published in summer 2018 (https://esmoopen.bmj.com/content/3/5/e000368).Endocrine-sensitive BC with non-visceral disease and limited spread of the metastases.Endocrine-sensitive BC with non-life-threatening visceral involvement. Several open questions were identified, which led to a second ESMO Open discussion on CDK4/6 inhibitors, taking place in December 2018 and covered in this article. The panel discussed two important clinical scenarios and the pro and cons of a treatment approach with CDK4/6 inhibitors for each scenario:Endocrine-sensitive BC with non-visceral disease and limited spread of the metastases.Endocrine-sensitive BC with non-life-threatening visceral involvement. Regarding scenario 1, the panel agreed that CDK4/6 inhibitors should be recommended in first-line therapy for most patients if cost and practicality allow. However, the use of single-agent ET with an aromatase inhibitor in the first-line treatment of these patients is still a possibility for a small group of patients with very limited disease, such as one or two bone lesions or limited lymph node involvement. Regarding scenario 2, chemotherapy is the first approach for patients with endocrine-sensitive metastatic BC with life-threatening visceral involvement because of the need for a faster response. The therapeutic approaches for patients with non-life-threatening visceral involvement are still under debate. Nevertheless, CDK4/6 inhibitors are currently the treatment of choice for most patients with a close follow-up of tumour response. A treatment algorithm has been suggested at the round table., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MP: honoraria for lectures, consultation or advisory board participation from the following for-profit companies: Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG), CMC Contrast, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Roche, Astra Zeneca, AbbVie, Lilly, Medahead, Daiichi Sankyo and Merck Sharp & Dome. JG: research support from Eisai, Genomic Health, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; travel grants from Eisai, Genomic Health, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; honoraria for advisory boards and speaker fees from Daiichi, Eisai, Genomic Health, Ipsen, Macrogenics, MSD, Novartis, Onxeo, Pfizer and Roche. GJ: grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis and Roche; personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, Lilly, Amgen, BMS, Astra-Zeneca; personal fees from Celgene, Puma Technology, Daiichi Sankyo and Abbvie. AA: advisory boards, travel grants, speaker fees: Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Amgen, Eisai, BMS, MSD, LeoPharma, Genomic Health and Ipsen. CS: honoraria for lectures, consultation or advisory board participation from the following for-profit companies: Novartis, Gerson Lehrman Group, Astra-Zeneca, Lilly, Roche, Amgen, Pfitzer, Merck KGaA, and Tesaro. CCZ: honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Imugene, Ariad, Pfizer, Merrimack, Merck KGaA, Fibrogen, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Gilead, Servier and Shire., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Purpose: Hormone therapy without radiation therapy is considered appropriate for women age 70 or above with low-risk, hormone-positive breast cancer after partial mastectomy. However, some patients may prefer radiation without hormone therapy, for which there is minimal modern data. We modeled the comparative efficacy of aromatase inhibition alone without radiation versus radiation alone without hormone therapy., Methods and Materials: We constructed a patient-level Markov model and compared 5 years of anastrozole to a 15-fraction course of radiation without boost or anastrozole. The relative effectiveness between treatments was based on the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-21 trial, which was further adjusted such that the endocrine-alone arm matched the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9343 and PRIME II trials. Common or severe side effects were considered. Eight survival metrics were assessed and validated against clinical trial data. The cost-efficacy of each strategy was considered using the quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)., Results: The model's predicted outcomes matched those demonstrated by modern trials. Aromatase inhibitors were superior in preventing contralateral cancers, with a small impact on the risk of distant metastatic disease. Radiation was superior in preventing ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence with a small impact on regional failure. No clinically significant differences were seen in the other 4 oncologic endpoints. Differences in quality-adjusted life years were small, but radiation therapy was $3809 more expensive over the average lifetime. The ICER suggested anastrozole was cost-effective in 62% of probabilistic simulations. However, the ICER was unstable owing to a denominator that approached zero., Conclusions: Women age 70 or above with low-risk early breast cancer who are reluctant or unable to pursue adjuvant aromatase inhibition can safely pursue adjuvant radiation alone with limited differences in outcome and a modest increase in costs., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To estimate the use of intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) therapy in patients with prostate cancer (PCa)., Methods: Retrospective, non-interventional study based on electronic pharmacy dispensation data of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogs and anti-androgens in Catalonia (Spain). Intermittency was defined as the percentage of time off treatment (%IAD), which was calculated for the whole sample by dividing the sum of all off-IAD periods by the total time on any LHRH analog regimen. The prevalence of patients on an IAD regimen (P IAD ) was also estimated. A small validation study based on data from clinical records confirmed the excellent sensitivity and specificity of this approach., Results: A total of 515 803 prescriptions for LHRH analog were dispensed over a 5-year period (2008 to 2012) to 35 089 PCa patients. The mean age (±SD) was 77 years (±9). The %IAD in the cohort was 1.7% whereas the 5-year prevalence (P IAD ) was 4.2%. Only 2.5% of patients on IAD were on IAD for >6 months. Of the physicians (n = 1638) who prescribed hormonal treatment, 24% used IAD at least once. Total expenditures for LHRH analogs were 1.2% of total drug expenditure in this population., Conclusions: This study confirms the validity of the method developed to estimate IAD use based on electronic pharmacy dispensation data. Given the large potential clinical and economic benefits that greater use of IAD could provide, future studies are needed to confirm these findings and to identify new strategies to increase the use of IAD., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of chemotherapy or abiraterone to androgen deprivation., Methods: We developed an analytical model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. Direct and indirect costs were included in the model. The effects were expressed in Quality-Adjusted Life Years adjusted for side effects., Results: Compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone, the addition of chemotherapy and of abiraterone generated 0.492 and 0.999, respectively, in Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Abiraterone led to a Quality-Adjusted Life Years gain of 0.506 compared to docetaxel. The incremental costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Years were R$ 133.649,22 for docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 for abiraterone and R$ 571.379,42 for abiraterone compared to docetaxel, respectively., Conclusion: The addition of chemotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy is more cost-effective than the addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy. However, discounts on abiraterone cost might improve cost-effectiveness.

Background: Adherence to endocrine therapy for breast cancer is often inadequate, in part because of out-of-pocket costs for medication. Numerous states have enacted parity laws to limit patient cost-sharing for oral anticancer drugs. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of these laws on patient copayments for and adherence to oral endocrine therapy for breast cancer., Methods: Administrative health insurance claims data from 2007 to 2014 derived from a US health care database were used to identify female patients aged 18 to 64 years with invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast who initiated endocrine therapy and were enrolled in fully insured health plans in states that either enacted parity legislation between 2008 and 2013 or had not yet enacted such legislation by 2015. Differences-in-differences analysis was used to compare copayments for and adherence to endocrine therapy during the 1-year period before and after each year of legislation enactment., Results: In total, 6900 individuals who received 7778 unique drug therapy courses were identified. Parity legislation was associated with significant decreases in the 25th percentile of copayments for anastrozole of $4.39 (95% confidence interval [CI], -$4.52 to -$4.26; P < .001) and for exemestane of $3.08 (95% CI, -$4.80 to -$1.35; P < .001). The median copayment for exemestane decreased by $10.25 (95% CI, -$12.61 to -$7.89; P < .001). A higher median monthly copayment was significantly associated with a greater risk of medication nonadherence (adjusted risk ratio, 1.006 per dollar increase; P < .001)., Conclusions: Parity laws had a modest effect on lowering the cost of anastrozole and exemestane, but more focused efforts to limit out-of-pocket costs for endocrine therapy may have a greater impact on medication adherence., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women worldwide. Recurrence rates in breast cancer are considered to be dependent on the serum concentration of endoxifen, the active metabolite of tamoxifen. The goal of this study is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of periodically monitoring serum concentrations of endoxifen in adjuvant estrogen receptor alfa (ERα) positive breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen in the Netherlands., Methods: A Markov model with disease-free survival (DFS), recurrent disease (RD), and death states was constructed. The benefit of drug monitoring was modeled via a difference in the fraction of patients achieving adequate serum concentrations. Robustness of results to changes in model assumptions were tested through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Results: Monitoring of endoxifen added 0.0115 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and saved € 1564 per patient in the base case scenario. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a large effect on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the differences in costs and utilities between the DFS and RD states. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay of € 0 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was 89.8%., Conclusions: Based on this model, monitoring of endoxifen in adjuvant ERα + breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen is likely to add QALYs and save costs from a healthcare payer perspective. We advise clinicians to consider integrating serum endoxifen concentration monitoring into standard adjuvant tamoxifen treatment of ERα + breast cancer patients.

Objective: To determine how out-of-pocket costs for adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) medication affects adherence among newly diagnosed breast cancer survivors with private health insurance who initiate therapy., Materials and Methods: We examined medical and pharmacy claims for the 1-year period after initiating AET using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan database. Adherence was defined as ≥80% proportion of days covered. Mean out-of-pocket costs for AET fill were measured as the sum of copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles and adjusted to 30-day amounts. Using a multivariable logistic regression model we calculated adjusted risk ratios controlling for age, comorbidities, type of surgery, use of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, average out-of-pocket costs for other services, and pharmacy use characteristics., Results: Of the 6863 women 64 years and younger who were diagnosed with breast cancer and initiated AET, 73.9% were adherent (proportion of days covered≥80%). A total of 19% of patients had <$5 monthly out-of-pocket costs for AET, 30% had $5 to $9.99, 17% had $10 to $14.99, 10% had $15 to $19.99, and 25% had $20 or greater. Patients with out-of-pocket costs for AET between $10 and $14.99, $15 and $19.99, and >$20 were 6% to 8% less likely to be adherent compared with patients paying <$5.00, after controlling for covariates (P<0.05). Out-of-pocket costs for inpatient, outpatient, and other pharmacy services were not associated with adherence., Conclusions: A substantial proportion of privately insured patients are nonadherent to AET and out-of-pocket costs for AET medication are significantly associated with a greater likelihood of nonadherence.

Purpose: The objective of this study is to understand an impact of financial burden on the adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT) adherence and persistence for insured women aged 18-64 with early breast cancer in Texas., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using claims data for population insured by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas from the year 2008 to 2013. Outcomes include adherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy, which was measured by medication possession ratio and persistence on AHT, which is the duration of time from initiation to discontinuation of therapy. Multivariate logistic regression models with repeated regional-level adjustments were used to explore the odds of AHT adherence. Cox proportional hazards model was conducted to assess time to the first 90+-day gap for persistence and a Kaplan-Meier curve were used to estimate probabilities to calculate the percentages of women who experienced 90+-day gaps in AHT., Results: Of the 938 women in the cohort, 627 (66.8%) initiated the treatment. By year 1, 66.9% of women were adherent to the therapy, and by year 5, only 29% of those were adherent. The percentage of women with no gap in therapy greater than 90 days was 80.8%. Both higher out-of-pocket costs spent on all prescription drugs except AHT and AHT-specific out-of-pocket costs were negatively associated with adherence to AHT as well as continuing AHT as recommended., Conclusions: Financial burdens including both non-AHT medication and AHT-specific out-of-pocket costs were significantly associated with adherence and persistence to the therapy.

Background and Purpose: Short-course radiotherapy (25 Gy in five fractions) was recently shown in a randomized phase III trial to be non-inferior to 40 Gy in 15 fractions in elderly and/or frail patients with glioblastoma multiforme. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of the two regimens., Material and Methods: The direct unit costs of imaging, radiotherapy (RT), and dexamethasone were collected from the five primary contributing countries to the trial, constituting the data of 88% of all patients. Effectiveness was measured by the restricted mean overall survival (RMOS) and progression free survival (RMPFS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Indirect costs were also estimated for comparison., Results: The median OSs for the short-course and commonly used RTs were 8.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.1-10.3) and 7.7 (95% CI 5.5-9.9) months, respectively (log rank p = 0.340). Median PFSs were also not different (p = 0.686). The differences in the RMOS and the ICER, however, were +0.11 life-years and -$3062 United States dollars (USD) per life-year gained, respectively. The differences in the RMPFS and the ICER were +0.02 PFS and -$17,693 USD, respectively., Conclusion: The ICER of -$3062 per life-year gained and -$17,693 per PFS gained indicates that the short-course RT is less costly compared to the longer RT regimen., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Histologically, node-negative breast cancer generally have a good prognosis. However, 10 to 30% of the cases present local relapses or metastasis. This group of people has high chances of remission if detected early. The aim of this study is to identify financial affordability for developing countries to adjust treatment., Methods: We selected 405 patients with histologically confirmed node-negative breast cancer in our institution between January 2001 and December 2003. Patients with metastasis were excluded. The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS ver. 18 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois)., Results: The medial age was 51 years old. The medial tumor size was 35.4 mm. Clinically, 67.2% of the patients were staged cT2 and 63.2%, cN1i. Breast conservation was achieved in 41% of cases. In the histologic examination, the medial size was 30 mm. Grade III tumors were found in 50.1% of patients and positive hormonal receptors in 53.4%. The mean number of lymph nodes was 14. Eight patients had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Adjuvant locoregional radiation and adjuvant chemotherapy were prescribed respectively in 70.6 and 64.4% of cases. 59.7% had adjuvant hormonal therapy. The follow-up showed 17.7% cases of relapse either locally or in a metastatic way in a mean time of 57.4 months. The disease-free survival at 5 years was 82.1%, and the overall survival for the same period was 91.5%. The histologic tumor size and the grade and number of lymph node dissected were shown to be influencing the disease-free survival. Radiation therapy and hormone therapy showed improved disease-free survival and overall survival., Conclusion: Our study found interesting results that may help personalize the treatment especially for patient living in underdeveloped countries, but further studies are needed to evaluate those and more accessible prognostic factors for a more accessible healthcare.

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.)

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the economic value for leuprorelin acetate 6-month depot compared with leuprorelin acetate 3-month depot from a societal perspective in Japanese prostate cancer patients., Methods: The cost analysis estimated the reduction in direct and indirect costs as well as intangible costs saved by having one less injection. Claims data were used for the analyses of direct and indirect costs reduction. A discrete choice experiment based on a web-based survey estimated the monetary value of the intangible costs for one injection. Another web-based survey of prostate cancer patients, who had received treatment with leuprorelin acetate injections, was carried out to calibrate the results of the discrete choice experiment., Results: Reductions in medical costs and loss of productivity for having one less injection in prostate cancer patients receiving leuprorelin acetate were JPY 5,670 and JPY 1,723, respectively. Intangible costs saved by using a 6-month depot formulation instead of a 3-month depot formulation for the injection of leuprorelin acetate were estimated to be JPY 19,872, including the values for a reduction in pain (JPY 3,131), injection site reactions (JPY 11,545), waiting time (JPY 9,479), and subtracting the value of medical consultation (JPY 4,283). The total cost reduction for having one less injection was JPY 27,265., Limitations: The respondents from the internet panel provided by a survey company are not necessarily a representative population of Japanese society., Conclusions: Leuprorelin acetate 6-month depot has an advantage in monetary value in the reduction in medical costs, loss of productivity, and intangible costs for having one less injection in prostate cancer patients compared with leuprorelin acetate 3-month depot. In the costs for treating with leuprorelin acetate, the percentage of intangible costs might not be negligible. The intangible costs will probably be actively evaluated to proceed to patient-centered healthcare in society.

Aims: The aim in this study is to evaluate economic value for leuprorelin acetate 6-month depot compared with leuprorelin acetate 3-month depot in Japanese pre-menopausal breast cancer patients from a societal perspective., Methods: The cost analysis was conducted by estimating direct and indirect cost, and intangible costs associated with one 6-month injection compared with two 3-month injections. Claims data were used for the analyses of direct and indirect cost and Medical Fee Schedule Table for direct cost. Discrete choice experiments were conducted by web-based survey to determine the intangible costs. Another web-based survey was also conducted on premenopausal breast cancer patients with injections of leuprorelin acetate, to calibrate the results of discrete choice experiments., Results: The medical costs saved for having one less injection in pre-menopausal breast cancer patients with leuprorelin acetate injection were JPY 6,183. The productivity loss saving was JPY 1,419. An estimation of intangible costs saved for having one less injection of leuprorelin acetate was JPY 58,430, which included the disbenefit due to pain (JPY 8,535), injection site reactions (JPY 44,051), waiting time (JPY 9,595), and subtracting value in medical consultation (JPY 3,751). The total cost saved for having one less injection was JPY 66,032., Limitations: The respondents from the internet panel provided by a survey company do not necessarily reflect a population of Japanese society., Conclusions: Leuprorelin acetate 6-month depot demonstrates a higher value than leuprorelin acetate 3-month depot through saving medical costs and loss of productivity, as well as intangible costs saved for having one less injection when treating pre-menopausal breast cancer patients. In the costs for treating with leuprorelin acetate, the percentage of intangible costs might not be negligible. The intangible costs will probably be actively evaluated to proceed to patient-centered healthcare in society.

The aim of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) compared to neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist and estramustine. We retrospectively analyzed data within Michinoku Urological Cancer Study Group database containing 2971 PC patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) at four institutes between July 1996 and July 2017. We identified 237 and 403 high-risk patients who underwent RP and ePLND (ePLND group), and neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy followed by RP and limited PLND (neoadjuvant group), respectively. The oncological outcomes and cost-effectiveness were compared between groups. Medical cost calculation focused on PC-related medication and adjuvant radiotherapy. Biochemical recurrence-free and overall survival rates in the neoadjuvant group were significantly higher than those in the ePLND group. Significantly higher number of patients progressed to castration-resistant PC in the ePLND group than in the neoadjuvant group. Background-adjusted multivariate Cox regression analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) revealed that neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy independently reduced the risk of biochemical recurrence after RP. The 5-year cost per person was significantly higher in the ePLND group than in the neoadjuvant group. Although the present study was retrospective, neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy followed by RP as a concurrent strategy has potential to improve oncological outcome and cost-effectiveness.

Aim: To assess the resource use and associated costs of treating patients with metastatic prostate cancer with a focus on skeletal-related events (SREs)., Methods: We performed a bottom-up cost of illness study in The Netherlands., Results: A total of 136 patients were studied. The mean total costs were €17,931 per patient. SREs that required hospitalization (n = 53) were, at median costs of €2039-9346, depending on care. These SREs had median costs of €200-1912., Conclusion: Our data provide a basis to investigate the cost-effectiveness of novel treatment options for metastatic prostate cancer. The impact of SREs on total costs could justify policy aimed at actively preventing SREs, possibly resulting in better quality of life and cost-reduction.

Background: After completing 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer benefit from 5 more years of endocrine therapy, either with tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor (AI). For premenopausal women, ovarian ablation (OA) would be required before starting an AI (OA/AI). According to the SOFT/TEXT studies, OA/AI improves 5-year disease-free survival compared with tamoxifen alone, suggesting that OA/AI could be superior to tamoxifen as extended endocrine therapy. The long-term costs and consequences of premature menopause from OA are unknown, but could be estimated through a cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: A Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation model estimated the costs and benefits of 3 extended endocrine strategies in a hypothetical cohort of premenopausal women with ER-positive early breast cancer: (1) no further treatment; (2) tamoxifen for 5 years (extended tamoxifen); or (3) OA/AI for 5 years. Effectiveness was measured in years of life expectancy gain. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty surrounding various parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated the number of adverse events and deaths from each strategy in the US population over a 40-year period. Results: Extended tamoxifen yielded a higher average life expectancy gain than OA/AI (17.31 vs 17.06 years) at lower average cost ($3,550 vs $14,312). For 18,000 premenopausal ER-positive women, the simulation estimated 13,236, 12,557, and 11,338 deaths with no further treatment, extended tamoxifen, and OA/AI, respectively, but an additional 1,897 deaths from OA, for a total of 13,235 deaths associated with OA/AI. After 24.6 years of follow-up, more women are expected to die from OA/AI than extended tamoxifen. Conclusions: For premenopausal women with ER-positive cancer who have completed adjuvant tamoxifen, another 5 years of tamoxifen is the preferable extended endocrine strategy. The potential long-term health consequences of OA could affect overall survival when it precedes the use of an AI., (Copyright © 2017 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.)

Background: Recent studies suggest that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk for patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa) and pre-existing CV disease. This risk seems to be different for the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists leuprolide and goserelin and GnRH antagonists, whereas the slightly more expensive GnRH antagonist shows a beneficial risk profile. The present study assesses the cost effectiveness of degarelix compared to leuprolide for PCa patients with increased CV risk., Methods: This analysis is based on a pooled analysis of six phase III, randomized, controlled trials comparing the GnRH agonists leuprolide and goserelin with the GnRH antagonist degarelix. For the combined endpoint of CV events or death a superiority of degarelix was determined with a Number-Needed-to-Treat of 12. From the perspective of German statutory health insurance, this evaluation estimates and compares the additional drug costs of degarelix treatment to the cost of one (avoided) CV event. The CV event costs were estimated via emergency treatment and transportation, inpatient treatment, and rehabilitation. The difference of these two cost pools divided by 12 yields the average saving per patient and year., Results: For every 12 PCa patients with CV history that are treated with GnRH antagonists to prevent one CV event, there will be additional drug costs in comparison with leuprolide treatment of € 3111 per year. Costs of € 8447 per year are prevented. Therefore, each patient with a history of CV who is treated with degarelix instead of a leuprolide generates savings of € 445 per patient and year., Conclusions: Compared to leuprolide, degarelix is cost effective for patients with increased CV risk.

Objective: Enzalutamide (ENZA) and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) are approved second-generation hormone therapies for chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study compared ENZA with AA in chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC by calculating the number needed to treat (NNT) and associated incremental costs to achieve one additional chemotherapy-naïve patient with mCRPC free of radiographic progression, chemotherapy, or death over a 1-year time horizon., Methods: Clinical outcomes were obtained from the PREVAIL and COU-AA-302 trials. Three outcomes were evaluated: radiographic progression-free survival, time to cytotoxic chemotherapy initiation, and overall survival at 1 year. NNT was calculated as the reciprocal of the outcome event rate difference for ENZA compared with AA. The incremental costs to achieve one additional outcome at 1 year were calculated as the difference in cost per treated patient multiplied by the NNT. Per-treated-patient costs were considered from a US payer perspective and included medications, monitoring, adverse events, post-progression treatments, and end-of-life care., Results: Within a 1-year time horizon, the total cost per treated patient for ENZA was $2,666 less than AA. Compared with AA, treating 14 patients with ENZA resulted in one additional patient free of progression or death over 1 year; treating 26 patients with ENZA resulted in one additional patient with chemotherapy delayed over 1 year; and treating 91 patients with ENZA resulted in one additional patient free of death over 1 year. Therefore, ENZA is cost-effective compared with AA for all three outcomes evaluated, and the modeled results suggest ENZA is associated with potentially improved clinical outcomes in delaying chemotherapy initiation and disease progression for chemotherapy-naïve patients. The results are robust in sensitivity analyses, where the effect of changes in key model inputs and assumptions were tested., Conclusion: The results modeled in the present study suggest ENZA is cost-effective compared with AA for treating chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC.

Purpose Previous studies suggest that adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for patients with breast cancer is suboptimal, especially among minorities, and is associated with out-of-pocket medication costs. This study aimed to determine whether there are racial/ethnic differences in 1-year adherence to AET and whether out-of-pocket costs explain the racial/ethnic disparities in adherence. Methods This retrospective cohort study used the SEER-Medicare linked database to identify patients ≥ 65 years of age with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who were enrolled in Medicare Part D from 2007 to 2009. The cohort included non-Hispanic whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Out-of-pocket costs for AET medications were standardized for a 30-day supply. Adherence to tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors (AIs), and overall AET (tamoxifen or AIs) was assessed using the medication possession ratio (≥ 80%) during the 12-month period. Results Of 8,688 patients, 3,197 (36.8%) were nonadherent to AET. Out-of-pocket costs for AET medication were associated with lower adjusted odds of adherence for all four cost categories compared with the lowest category of ≤ $2.65 ( P < .01). In the univariable analysis, Hispanics had higher odds of adherence to any AET at initiation (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.57), and blacks had higher odds of adherence to AIs at initiation (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.54) compared with non-Hispanic whites. After adjusting for copayments, poverty status, and comorbidities, the association was no longer significant for Hispanics (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17) or blacks (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.19). Blacks had significantly lower adjusted odds of adherence than non-Hispanic whites when they initiated AET therapy with tamoxifen (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.93) after adjusting for socioeconomic, clinic, and prognostic factors. Conclusion Racial/ethnic disparities in AET adherence were largely explained by women's differences in socioeconomic status and out-of-pocket medication costs.

Purpose To investigate the role of out-of-pocket cost supports through the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy on disparities in breast cancer hormonal therapy persistence and adherence by race or ethnicity. Methods A nationwide cohort of women age ≥ 65 years with a breast cancer operation between 2006 and 2007 and at least one prescription filled for oral breast cancer hormonal therapy was identified from all Medicare D enrollees. The association of race or ethnicity with nonpersistence (90 consecutive days with no claims for a hormonal therapy prescription) and nonadherence (medication possession rate < 80%) was examined. Survival analyses were used to account for potential differences in age, comorbidity, or intensity of other treatments. Results Among the 25,111 women in the study sample, 77% of the Hispanic and 70% of the black women received a subsidy compared with 21% of the white women. By 2 years, 69% of black and 70% of Hispanic patients were persistent compared with 61% of white patients. In adjusted analyses, patients in all three unsubsidized race or ethnicity groups had greater discontinuation than subsidized groups (white patients: hazard ratio [HR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.70 to 1.95; black patients: HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.73 to 2.51; Hispanic patients: HR, 3.00; 95% CI, 2.37 to 3.89). Racial or ethnic persistence disparities that were present for unsubsidized patients were not present or reversed among subsidized patients. All three subsidized race or ethnicity groups also had higher adherence than all three unsubsidized groups, although with the smallest difference occurring in black women. Conclusion Receipt of a prescription subsidy was associated with substantially improved persistence to breast cancer hormonal therapy among white, black, and Hispanic women and lack of racial or ethnic disparities in persistence. Given high subsidy enrollment among black and Hispanic women, policies targeted at low-income patients have the potential to also substantially reduce racial and ethnic disparities.

Background: The shift towards earlier stages of disease advancement at diagnosis when introducing mammography screening is expected to affect the treatment costs of breast cancer., Materials and Methods: We collected data on hospital resource use in Norway following a breast cancer diagnosis for the period 1 January, 2008 through 31 December, 2009 for women aged 50-69 years, diagnosed with breast cancer during the period 1 January, 1999 through 31 December, 2009. We estimated treatment costs using a function that included the probability of being at risk for receiving treatment, estimated by means of the Cox proportional hazard model., Results: In total, 16,045 patients were included for the analyses among which 10.5 % died during the study period. The mean 10-year per-person treatment cost was €31,940 (95 % CI €31,030-32,880), and lower for cancers detected within the public screening program (€30,730) than for those detected elsewhere (€36,230). For ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and cancers in stages I thru IV, treatment costs were €15,740, €23,570, €46,550, €55,230 and €60,430, respectively. Interval cancers occurring within the screening program were generally more resource demanding than both cancers detected at screening or elsewhere., Conclusions: Ten-year treatment costs increased by increasing stage at diagnosis. Patients whose cancer was detected within the public screening program had lower treatment costs than those detected elsewhere. Interval cancers had higher costs than others.

The TEXT and SOFT trials concluded that an aromatase inhibitor (AI) with ovarian ablation (OA) yields a higher 5-year disease-free survival than tamoxifen alone in premenopausal ER+ high-risk early breast cancer. However, the long-term health consequences and costs of OA, either by GnRH agonist or oophorectomy, have not been evaluated. The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing tamoxifen to OA with AI. Markov Monte Carlo simulation model estimated the costs and benefits of 3 endocrine strategies: (1) tamoxifen; (2) GnRH agonist with AI (GnRHa-AI); (3) bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with AI (BSO-AI). Effectiveness was measured in life expectancy gain (years), and costs were averaged over a lifetime (USD 2015). Adverse events and deaths from each strategy were modeled in the United States population over a time horizon of 40 years. For women without prior chemotherapy (low-risk), tamoxifen alone was more effective (18.03 years) and less costly ($1566) than GnRHa-AI (17.66 years, $93,692) or BSO-AI (17.63 years, $25,892). For those with prior chemotherapy (high-risk), BSO-AI was more costly but more effective (16.78 years, $25,368) than tamoxifen alone (16.55 years, $1523) with an ICER of $102,290, while GnRHa-AI yielded an ICER of $443,376. The simulation estimated 787 and 577 deaths attributable to OA among 9320 high-risk women after BSO-AI and GnRHa-AI, respectively. There may be a role for ovarian ablation in premenopausal women with ER+ high-risk early breast cancer; however, this analysis raises concerns about the long-term health consequences of ovarian ablation and the potential effects on overall survival.

Purpose: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently initiated small reimbursement adjustments to improve the value of care delivered under fee-for-service. To estimate the degree to which reimbursement influences physician decision making, we examined utilization of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists among urologists as Part B drug reimbursement varied in a fee-for-service environment., Methods: We analyzed treatment patterns of urologists treating 15,128 men included in SEER-linked Medicare claims who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2003. We calculated a reimbursement generosity index to measure differences in GnRH agonist reimbursement among regional Medicare carriers and over time. We used multilevel analysis to control for patient and provider characteristics., Results: Among urologists treating early-stage and lower grade prostate cancer, variation in reimbursement was not associated with overuse of GnRH agonists from 2000 to 2003, a period of guideline stability (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.00)., Conclusion: Small differences in androgen-deprivation therapy reimbursement generosity were not associated with differential use. Fee-for-service reimbursement changes currently being implemented to improve quality in fee-for-service Medicare may not affect patterns of cancer care., (Copyright © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Objectives: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in developed countries. We developed a model (the Oncotyrol breast cancer outcomes model) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a 21-gene assay when used in combination with Adjuvant! Online to support personalized decisions about the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. The goal of this study was to perform a cross-model validation., Methods: The Oncotyrol model evaluates the 21-gene assay by simulating a hypothetical cohort of 50-year-old women over a lifetime horizon using discrete event simulation. Primary model outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We followed the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research-Society for Medical Decision Making (ISPOR-SMDM) best practice recommendations for validation and compared modeling results of the Oncotyrol model with the state-transition model developed by the Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative. Both models were populated with Canadian THETA model parameters, and outputs were compared., Results: The differences between the models varied among the different validation end points. The smallest relative differences were in costs, and the greatest were in QALYs. All relative differences were less than 1.2%. The cost-effectiveness plane showed that small differences in the model structure can lead to different sets of nondominated test-treatment strategies with different efficiency frontiers. We faced several challenges: distinguishing between differences in outcomes due to different modeling techniques and initial coding errors, defining meaningful differences, and selecting measures and statistics for comparison (means, distributions, multivariate outcomes)., Conclusions: Cross-model validation was crucial to identify and correct coding errors and to explain differences in model outcomes. In our comparison, small differences in either QALYs or costs led to changes in ICERs because of changes in the set of dominated and nondominated strategies., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

The global burden of breast cancer highlights the need for primary prevention strategies that demonstrate both favorable clinical benefit/risk profile and good value for money. Endocrine therapy with selective estrogen-receptor modulators (SERMs) or aromatase inhibitors (AIs) has been associated with a favorable clinical benefit/risk profile in the prevention of breast cancer in women at high risk of developing the disease. The available endocrine therapy strategies differ in terms of their relative reductions of breast cancer risk, potential side effects, and upfront drug acquisition costs, among others. This review highlights the clinical trials of SERMs and AIs for the primary prevention of breast cancer, and the cost-effectiveness /cost-utility studies that have examined their "value for money" in various health care jurisdictions.

Background: When analyzing the use of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues for different clinical indications, current available evidence does not support a presumed drug class effect among the various LHRH in the treatment of prostate cancer., Methods: The following search key words were entered in the PubMed database and the NICE and FDA websites: “LHRH agonist AND prostatic cancer”, “androgen deprivation therapy”, “androgen suppression”, “buserelin”, “leuprorelin”, “goserelin”,“triptorelin”, “degarelix”. The direct costs included the following items: follow-up visits, diagnostic exams (e.g. prostate-specific antigen PSA) and drug costs. The indirect costs included working days lost by the patient., Results: With intermittent therapy as a reference, leuprorelin injectable solution of 22,25 mg was associated with the lowest cost and degarelix with the highest cost. However, given the mandatory presence of a nurse for drug injection, the buserelin depot formulation was associated with the lowest cost. If the costs for hospital visits were added to drug costs, differences between the various therapeutic strategies were less remarkable., Conclusions: Our study showed how various factors (e.g. route of administration, frequency of administration, presence of a nurse for drug reconstitution and injection) should be taken into account by decision makers in addition to the price of drugs.

FederAnziani Senior Italia and SIU - Italian Society of Urology - have decided to work together to draft a document focussing on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH), and to stress the importance of adherence with pharmacological treatment in this setting, from both a scientific and a patient standpoint. Starting from a literature search, the two associations analysed to what extent an increase in treatment adherence amongst these patients influences hospital savings and to what extent therapy persistence levels are affected by monotherapy rather than free drug combinations. These estimates were performed only on patients taking medicinal products belonging to the 5 α-reductase inhibitors (5ARI) class that, although not indispensable, are the compounds that bring the greatest benefits, especially in the elderly and for which we know that every additional 30 days of therapy reduced the likelihood of acute urinary retention (AUR) and surgery by 14% and 11% respectively *. The results show that the use of fixed combination therapy would involve an increase in persistence due to the lower rate of patients abandoning treatment over time. Each 30 day-increment of 5ARI therapy, i.e. for an expenditure of 10.6 million euros extra per year for 5ARI medication, savings of approximately 24.3 million euros in hospital costs could be achieved.

Aim: To compare treatment costs with alternative luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist preparations and determine whether a leuprorelin solid implant is associated with potential cost savings., Patients & Methods: A hypothetical population of 1000 prostate cancer patients was apportioned between the three most commonly-prescribed LHRH agonist preparations. Differentiated annual costs for 1- and 3-monthly formulations were calculated for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK (EU5) and Sweden, and compared with the leuprorelin solid implant., Results: Compared with alternative formulations, leuprorelin solid implants had potential annual cost savings/1000 patients of €353,000 (EU5) and €699,000 (Sweden; 1-month formulations), and €259,000 (EU5) and €300,000 (Sweden; 3-month formulations)., Conclusion: The leuprorelin solid implant was associated with potential cost savings compared with the most commonly used LHRH agonist preparations.

Background: Nonadherence to hormonal therapy is common and is associated with increased copayment amount. We investigated the change in adherence after the introduction of generic aromatase inhibitors (AIs) in 2010., Methods: Using deidentified pharmacy and claims data from OptumInsight, we identified women older than 50 years on brand-name AIs (BAIs) and/or generic AIs (GAIs) for early breast cancer between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2012. Clinical, demographic, and financial variables were evaluated. Adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio (MPR) 80% or greater., Results: We identified 5511 women, 2815 (51.1%) on BAI, 1411 (25.6%) on GAI, and 1285 (23.3%) who switched from BAI to GAI. The median 30-day copayment was higher for BAI ($33.3) than for GAI ($9.04). In a multivariable Cox-proportional hazard analysis, women who took GAI were less likely to discontinue therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.57 to 0.84) compared with BAI. Discontinuation was positively associated with a higher monthly copayment of $15 to $30 (HR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.44) and more than $30 (HR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.23 to 1.80) compared with less than $15. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, adherence (medication possession ratio ≥ 80%) was positively associated with GAI use (odds ratio = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.22 to 1.91) compared with BAI and inversely associated with increased monthly copayment. In addition, adherence was associated with a high annual income of more than $100k/year (odds ratio = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.17 to 2.11)., Conclusions: Higher prescription copayment amount was associated with nonadherence and discontinuation of AIs. After controlling for copayment, discontinuation was higher and adherence was lower with Brand AIs. Because nonadherence is associated with worse survival, efforts should be directed towards reducing out-of-pocket costs for these life-saving medications., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Five years of Tamoxifen (Standard TAM) is a common treatment option for early-stage, hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). Extending Standard TAM by 5 additional years (Extended TAM) can improve survival and BC recurrences. In postmenopausal women, the use of extended aromatase inhibitors (Extended AI) after Standard TAM is an alternative to Extended TAM. This study examines the cost-effectiveness (CE) of extending Standard TAM with Extended TAM vs. Extended AI in postmenopausal HR+ early-stage BC patients. Three treatments were assessed: (1) Standard TAM; (2) Extended TAM; (3) Extended AI through a Markov model using a Canadian health system perspective, lifetime time-horizon, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and a 5 % discount rate for future costs and utilities. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and the impact of parameter uncertainty was assessed through probabilistic sensitivity analyses (SA) using conventional CE thresholds. The estimated total per person costs in 2012 Canadian dollars [$1.00 CAD = $0.99 US 2012] were the least for Extended TAM ($8,623 CAD) and most for Extended AI ($9,432 CAD). Extended AI was the most effective regimen, while Standard TAM was the least. Extended AI was cost-effective at conventional thresholds vs. Extended TAM (ICER: $3,402 CAD/QALY) which was robust to the SA. This study suggests that Extended AI and Extended TAM result in improved QALYs and lower healthcare costs vs Standard TAM. Extended AI results in the greatest improvement in QALYs and is the most cost-effective treatment alternative despite its higher drug costs.

Objective: To assess clinical practice of intermittent hormone therapy (IHT) among urologists members of the French Association of Urology., Methods: Internet-based observational survey evaluating IHT modalities in prostate cancer using questionnaire sent to 941 urologists., Results: Two hundred and sixty nine urologists participated in the survey (response rate 28.6 %) including 90.3 % prescribing IHT. The main reasons for IHT were improvement of quality of life in 94.2 %, clinical tolerance in 73.7 %, decreased costs and oncological equivalence in 44 %. The indications were localized prostate cancer (low risk 22.6 %, intermediate 19.8 %, high 14 %), locally advanced (59.7 %), metastatic (63.4 %), biochemical recurrence after local treatment (prostatectomy 62.1 %, radiotherapy 73.7 %). A PSA <2 ng/mL was considered as the threshold for androgen deprivation therapy break in 70 % of cases regardless of the IHT indication. The PSA threshold selected for the re-initiation of treatment was 4 ng/mL in 37.9 % and 10 ng/mL in 36.6 % of cases. The cycle of IHT was 6 months in 60 % of cases., Conclusion: This survey provided a snapshot of the practice of IHT in France. Even in the absence of level of evidence 1 trials in the literature, most urologists used IHT in their clinical practice, for many indications, especially in case of biochemical recurrence after local treatment., Level of Proof: 3., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer with degarelix compared to luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists in the UK using the latest available evidence and the model submitted to AWMSG., Methods: A cost-effectiveness model was developed from the perspective of the UK National Health Service evaluating monthly injection of degarelix against 3-monthly leuprorelin therapy plus anti-androgen flare cover for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced (locally advanced or metastatic) hormone-dependent prostate cancer. A Markov process model was constructed using the patient population characteristics and efficacy information from the CS21 Phase III clinical trial and associated extension study (CS21A). The intention-to-treat (ITT) population and a high-risk sub-group with a PSA level >20 ng/mL were modeled., Results: In the base-case analysis using the patient access scheme (PAS) price, degarelix was dominant compared to leuprorelin with cost savings of £3633 in the ITT population and £4310 in the PSA > 20 ng/mL sub-group. The chance of being cost-effective was 95% in the ITT population and 96% in the PSA > 20 ng/mL sub-group at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In addition, degarelix remained dominant when PSA progression was assumed equal and only the benefits of preventing testosterone flare were taken into account. Treatment with degarelix also remained dominant in both populations when the list price was used. The additional investment required to treat patients with degarelix could be offset in 19 months for the ITT population and 13 months for the PSA > 20 ng/mL population. The model was most sensitive to the hazard ratio assumed for PSA progression between degarelix and leuprorelin and the quality-of-life (utility) of patients receiving palliative care., Conclusion: Degarelix is likely to be cost-effective compared to leuprorelin plus anti-androgen flare cover in the first-line treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer.

Background: A 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay provides a method of guiding treatment decisions in women with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). We investigated the cost effectiveness of using the RS assay versus current clinical practice (CCP) in post-menopausal women with estrogen- or progesterone-receptor-positive, one to three positive axillary lymph-node ESBC from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system., Methods: We developed a decision analytic model to project the lifetime clinical and economic consequences of ESBC. We assumed that the RS assay would classify patients among risk levels (low, intermediate and high) and corresponding adjuvant treatment regimens. The model was parameterized using 7-year follow-up data from the Manitoba Cancer Registry, cost data from Manitoba Health administrative databases and secondary sources. Costs are presented in 2012 Canadian dollars, and future costs and benefits were discounted at 5 %., Results: In the base case analysis, the RS assay compared with CCP led to an increase of 0.08 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and an increase in cost of Can$36.2 per person, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Can$464/QALY gained. The ICER was most sensitive to the proportion of women classified to intermediate risk by the RS assay who received adjuvant chemotherapy, and absolute risk of relapse among patients receiving the RS assay., Conclusions: The RS assay is likely to be cost effective in the Canadian healthcare system. Field evaluations of the assay in this patient population will help reduce uncertainty in clinical guidelines for intermediate-range RS-assay values and specific disease outcomes by the RS assay, which are important drivers of ICER.

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.