A cost-benefit analysis of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer
Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy increases progression-free survival (PFS), but not overall survival when compared to chemotherapy alone in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Recently in November, 2011 the Food and drug administration revoked approval of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel for the treatment of MBC. The European Medicines Agency, in contrast, maintained its approval of bevacizumab in MBC. While neither agency considers health economics in their decision-making process, one of the greatest challenges in oncology practice today is to reconcile hard-won small incremental clinical benefits with exponentially rising costs. To inform policy-makers in the US, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab/paclitaxel in MBC, from a payer perspective. We created a decision analytical model using efficacy and adverse events data from the ECOG 2100 trial. Health utilities were derived from available literature. Costs were obtained from the Center for Medicare Services Drug Payment Table and Physician Fee Schedule and are represented in 2010 US dollars. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Bevacizumab added 0.49 years of PFS and 0.135 QALY with an incremental cost of $100,300, and therefore a cost of $204,000 per year of PFS gained and an ICER of $745,000 per QALY. The main drivers of the model were drug acquisition cost, PFS, and health utility values. Using a threshold of $150,000/QALY, drug price would have to be reduced by nearly 80% or alternatively PFS increased by 10 months to make bevacizumab cost-effective. The results of the model were robust in sensitivity analyses. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is not cost-effective in treating MBC. Value-based pricing and the development of biomarkers to improve patient selection are needed to better define the role of the drug in this population.
KeywordsBreast cancer Cost-benefit analysis Pharmacoeconomics Bevacizumab Economics Metastatic breast cancer QALY
Conflicts of interest
Gilberto Lopes has received honorarium and grant funding from Roche. Stefan Gluck has received research funding from Genentech. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
- 1.Society AC (2011) In: Cancer Facts & Figures 2011. American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
- 3.Montero AJ, Escobar M, Lopes G, Gluck S, Vogel C (2011) Bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: friend or foe? Curr Oncol Rep. doi: 10.1007/s11912-011-0202-z
- 6.Proposal to withdraw approval for the breast cancer indication for Avastin (bevacizumab). [http://www.fda.gov/downloads/NewsEvents/Newsroom/UCM280546.pdf]
- 8.Miles DW, Chan A, Romieu G, Dirix LY, Cortes J, Pivot X, et al. (2008) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of bevacizumab with docetaxel or docetaxel with placebo as first-line therapy for patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (mBC): AVADO. American Society Clinical Oncology Meeting. J Clin Oncol 2026(2043s)Google Scholar
- 9.Robert NJ, Dieras V, Glaspy J, Brufsky AM, Bondarenko I, Lipatov ON, Perez EA, Yardley DA, Chan SY, Zhou X et al (2011) RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(10):1252–1260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Patient benefits of breast cancer drug bevacizumab are too small to justify its high cost. [http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/pressreleases/BevacizumabForMetastaticBreastCancer.jsp]
- 12.Will Antibody Biosimilars See the Light of Day? [http://www.pharmafeed.com/will-antibody-biosimilars-see-the-light-of-day]