Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp 1115–1123 | Cite as

Cost-utility of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in node-negative and node-positive breast cancer

  • Nathan W. D. Lamond
  • Chris Skedgel
  • Daniel Rayson
  • Lynn Lethbridge
  • Tallal Younis
Epidemiology

Abstract

The 21-gene recurrence score (Oncotype DX®: RS) appears to augment clinico-pathologic prognostication and is predictive of adjuvant chemotherapy benefit in node-negative (N−) and node-positive (N+), endocrine-sensitive breast cancer. RS is a costly assay that is associated with good ‘value for money’ in N− disease, while economic evaluations in N+ disease based on most recent data have not been conducted. We examined the cost-utility (CU) of a RS-guided adjuvant strategy, compared to current practice without RS in N− and N+, endocrine-sensitive, breast cancer from a Canadian health care system perspective. A generic state-transition model was developed to compute cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 25-year horizon. Patient outcomes with and without chemotherapy in RS-untested cohorts and in those with low, intermediate and high RS were examined based on the reported prognostic and predictive impact of RS in N− and N+ disease. Chemotherapy utilization (current vs. RS-guided), unit costs and utilities were derived from a Nova Scotia Canadian population-based cohort, local unit costs and the literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually, and costs were reported in 2011 Canadian dollars ($). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for key model parameters. Compared to a non-RS-guided strategy, RS-guided adjuvant therapy was associated with $2,585 and $864 incremental costs, 0.27 and 0.06 QALY gains, and resultant CUs of $9,591 and $14,844 per QALY gained for N− and N+ disease, respectively. CU estimates were robust to key model parameters, and were most sensitive to chemo utilization proportions. RS-guided adjuvant therapy appears to be a cost-effective strategy in both N− and N+, endocrine-sensitive breast cancer with resultant CU ratios well below commonly quoted thresholds.

Keywords

Breast cancer 21-RS assay Cost-utility analysis Economic evaluation Adjuvant chemotherapy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study has been supported by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation—Atlantic Chapter. The authors would like to thank Mrs. Marlene Sellon for her help with drug costing.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. The CU study was not supported by pharmaceutical companies or Genomic Health, Inc.

Supplementary material

10549_2012_1989_MOESM1_ESM.tif (161 kb)
Online Resource Figure 1: Incremental Costs and QALYs in Node-negative and node-positive Breast Cancer. The Y axis shows the incremental costs (in $) associated with RS testing, while the X axis shows the incremental QALYs gained. Abbreviations – RS: recurrence score. QALY: quality-adjusted life year (TIFF 161 kb)
10549_2012_1989_MOESM2_ESM.doc (54 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 54 kb)
10549_2012_1989_MOESM3_ESM.doc (26 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 26 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Burstein HJ, Prestrud AA, Seidenfeld J et al (2010) American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline: update on adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:3784–3796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS et al (2011) Strategies for subtypes—dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 22:1736–1747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carlson RW, Allred DC, Anderson BO et al (2009) Breast cancer—clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 7:122–192Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barron JJ, Quimbo R, Nikam PT, Amonkar MM (2008) Assessing the economic burden of breast cancer in a US managed care population. Breast Cancer Res Treat 109:367–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broekx S, Den Kond E, Torfs R et al (2011) The costs of breast cancer prior to and following diagnosis. Eur J Health Econ 12:311–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dowsett M, Goldhirsch A, Hayes DF, Senn HJ, Wood W, Viale G (2007) International web-based consultation on priorities for translational breast cancer research. Breast Cancer Res 9:R81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R et al (2007) American society of clinical oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:5287–5312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al (2004) A multigene assay to predict the recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351:2817–2826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paik S, Tang G, Shak S et al (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:3726–3734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S et al (2010) Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 11:55–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lo SS, Mumby P, Norton J et al (2010) Prospective multicenter study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on medical oncologist and patient adjuvant breast cancer treatment selection. J Clin Oncol 28:1671–1676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oratz R, Paul D, Cohn AL, Sedlacek SL (2007) Impact of a commercial reference laboratory test recurrence score on decision making in early-stage breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 3:182–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hornberger J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH (2005) Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21- gene RT-PCR assay in Lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 11:313–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lyman GH, Cosler LE, Kuderer NM, Hornberger J (2007) Impact of a 21-gene RT-PCR Assay on treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer: an economic analysis based on prognostic and predictive validation studies. Cancer 109:1011–1018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Ishiguro H, Yoshibayashi H, Toi M (2008) Economic evaluation of 21-gene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer Res Treat 112(1):175–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cosler LE, Lyman GH (2009) Economic analysis of gene expression profile data to guide adjuvant treatment in women with early-stage breast cancer. Cancer Investig 27:953–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tsoi DT, Inoue M, Kelly CM, Verma S, Pritchard KI (2010) Cost-effectiveness analysis of recurrence score-guided treatment using a 21-gene assay in early breast cancer. The Oncologist 15:457–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klang SH, Hammerman A, Liebermann N, Efrat N, Doberne J, Hornberger J (2010) Economic implications of 21-gene breast cancer risk assay from the perspective of an israeli-managed health-care organization. Value Health 13:381–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kondo M, Hoshi S, Yamanaka T, Ishiguro H, Toi M (2011) Economic evaluation of the 21-gene signature (Oncotype DX) in lymph node-negative/positive, hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer based on Japanese validation study (JBCRG-TR03). Breast Cancer Res Treat 127:739–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Snow S, Rayson D, Barnes PJ, Sellon M, Thompson K, Younis T. (2008) Does Her2/neu status affect adjuvant chemotherapy utilization? A population based analysis. Poster Presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Symposium: Washington, DC. Sept 2008Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ademuyiwa FO, Miller A, Edge SB et al (2011) The effects of oncotype DX recurrence scores on chemotherapy utilization in a multi-institutional breast cancer cohort. Breast Cancer Res Treat 126(797):802Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Habel LA, Shak S, Jacobs MK et al (2006) A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients. Breast Cancer Res 8:R25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kamal AH, Loprinzi CL, Reynolds C et al (2007) How well do standard prognostic criteria predict oncotype DX (ODX) scores? J Clin Oncol 25:18sGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Asad J, Jacobson AF, Estabrook MD et al (2008) Does oncotype DX recurrence score affect the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer? Am J Surg 196:527–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Erb C, Fox KR, Patel M, et al. (2007) Evaluation of practice patterns in the treatment of node-negative, hormone-receptor positive breast cancer patients with the use of the Oncotype DX assay at the University of Pennsylvania. Presented at the 30th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. December 13–16, 2007; San Antonio, TX. Abstract #3082Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klang S, Liebermann N, Rizel L et al (2010) The recurrence score and chemotherapy treatment in node-positive, ER+ early-stage breast cancer patients in Israel (Abstract). J Clin Oncol 28:15sGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group [EBCTCG] (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 365:1687–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Statistics Canada. Life Tables—Canada, provinces and territories, 1995–1997. Cat. No. 84–537. Government of Canada. 2003 Statistics, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith RE, Bryant J, DeCillis A, Anderson S (2003) Acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome after doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer: the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project experience. J Clin Oncol 21:1195–1204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Younis T, Rayson D, Sellon M, Skedgel C (2008) Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a cost-utility analysis of FEC-D vs. FEC 100. Breast Cancer Res Treat 111:261–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Younis T, Rayson D, Skedgel C (2012) The cost utility of adjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide compared with adriamycin and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer. Curr Oncol 18(6):e288–e296Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Diamandidou E, Buzdar AU, Smith TL, Frye D, Witjaksono M, Hortobagyi GN (1996) Treatment-related leukemia in breast cancer patients treated with fluorouracil-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide combination adjuvant chemotherapy: the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. J Clin Oncol 14:2722–2730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Swain SM, Whaley FS, Ewer MS (2003) Congestive heart failure in patients treated with doxorubicin: a retrospective analysis of three trials. Cancer 97:2869–2879PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Towns K, Bedard PL, Verma S (2008) Matters of the heart: cardiac toxicity of adjuvant systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Curr Oncol 15:S16–S29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Skedgel C, Rayson D, Dewar R et al (2007) Cost-utility of adjuvant hormone therapies for breast cancer in post-menopausal women: sequential tamoxifen-exemestane and upfront anastrazole. Breast Cancer Res Treat 101:325–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Younis T, Rayson D, Dewar R et al (2007) Modeling for cost effective adjuvant aromatase inhibitor strategies for post-menopausal women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 18:293–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Skedgel C, Rayson D, Younis T (2009) The cost-utility of sequential adjuvant trastuzumab in women with Her2/Neu-positive breast cancer: an analysis based on updated results from the HERA trial. Value Health 12:641–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bonneterre J, Roche H, Kerbrat P et al (2005) Epirubicin increases long-term survival in adjuvant chemotherapy of patients with poor-prognosis, node-positive, early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of the French adjuvant study group 05 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 23:2686–2693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Roche H, Fumoleau P, Spielman M et al (2006) Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS 01 trial. J Clin Oncol 24:5664–5671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Will BP, Berthelot JM, Le Petit C, Tomiak EM, Verma S, Evans WK (2000) Estimates of the lifetime costs of breast cancer treatment in Canada. Eur J Cancer 36:724–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tufts-New England Medical Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies: The CEA Registry. Available at https://research.tufts-nemc.org/cear/Default.aspx. Cited 5 Aug 2010
  42. 42.
    Tengs TO, Wallace A (2000) One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 38:583–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ward S, Simpson E, Davis S, Hind D, Rees A, Wilkinson A (2007) Taxanes for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 11:1–144Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lachaine J, Yelle L, Kaizer L, Dufour A, Hopkins S, Deuson R (2005) Chemotherapy-induced emesis: quality of life and economic impact in the context of current practice in Canada. Support Cancer Ther 2:181–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dranitsaris G, Tran TM, McGeer A, Narine L (1995) Pharmacoeconomic analysis of empirical therapy with ceftazidime alone or combination antibiotics for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients. Pharmacoeconomics 7:49–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Launois R, Reboul-Marty J, Henry B, Bonneterre J (1996) A cost–utility analysis of second-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. Docetaxel versus paclitaxel versus vinorelbine. Pharmacoeconomics 10:504–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kasteng F, Sobocki P, Svedman C, Lundkvist J (2007) Economic evaluations of leukemia: a review of the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23:43–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Levy AR, Briggs AH, Demers C, O’Brien BJ (2001) Cost-effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy with metoprolol or with carvedilol for treatment of heart failure in Canada. Am Heart J 142:537–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Barr R, Furlong W, Henwood J et al (1996) Economic evaluation of allogeneic bone marrow transplantation: a rudimentary model to generate estimates for the timely formulation of clinical policy. J Clin Oncol 14:1413–1420PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V (2006) Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Mak 26:410–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Statistics Canada. Consumer Price Index (Health Care). Available at http://cansim2.statcan.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.exe?Lang=E&RootDir=CII/&ResultTemplate=CII/CII_pick&Array_Pick=1&ArrayId=326-0002. Cited 1 Aug 2010
  52. 52.
    Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG (2000) Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Mak 20:332–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mason H, Baker R, Donaldson C (2008) Willingness to pay for a QALY: past, present and future. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 8:575–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Meropol NJ, Schrag D, Smith TJ et al (2009) American society of clinical oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care. J Clin Oncol 27:3868–3874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Greenberg D, Earle C, Fang CH, Eldar-Lissai A, Neumann PJ (2010) When is cancer care cost-effective? A systematic overview of cost-utility analyses in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:82–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sridhara R, Johnson JR, Justice R, Keegan P, Chakravarty A, Pazdur R (2010) Review of oncology and hematology drug product approvals at the US food and drug administration between July 2005 and December 2007. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:230–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Murray CJ, Evans DB, Acharya A, Baltussen RM (2000) Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 9:235–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vanderlaan BF, Broder MS, Chang EY, Oratz R, Bentley TGK (2011) Cost-effectiveness of 21-gene assay in node-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 17:455–464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zujewski JA, Kamin L (2008) Trial assessing individualized options for treatment for breast cancer: the TAILORx trial. Future Oncol 4:603–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan W. D. Lamond
    • 1
  • Chris Skedgel
    • 2
  • Daniel Rayson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lynn Lethbridge
    • 3
  • Tallal Younis
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MedicineDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Atlantic Clinical Cancer Research Unit (ACCRU) at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreHalifaxCanada
  3. 3.Department of Community Health and EpidemiologyDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations