Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Therapy for Operable Breast Cancer from a Chinese Perspective: Doxorubicin plus Cyclophosphamide versus Docetaxel plus Cyclophosphamide

• Published in: PharmacoEconomics 2009-01, Vol.27 (10), p.873-886
• Main Authors: Liubao, Peng, Xiaomin, Wan, Chongqing, Tan, Karnon, Jon, Gannong, Chen, Jianhe, Li, Wei, Cui, Xia, Luo, Junhua, Cao
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Antineoplastic agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols - economics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols - therapeutic use; Biological and medical sciences; Breast cancer; Breast Neoplasms - economics; Breast Neoplasms - therapy; Cancer therapies; Care and treatment; Chemotherapy; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant - economics; China; Clinical trials; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost analysis; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Cyclophosphamide; Cyclophosphamide - administration & dosage; Discount rates; Dosage and administration; Doxorubicin; Doxorubicin - administration & dosage; Drug therapy; Economic theory; Expenditures; Female; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics; Health Administration; Health care; Health care expenditures; Health Economics; Humans; Mammary gland diseases; Management; Markov Chains; Medical care, Cost of; Medical sciences; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Miscellaneous; Mortality; Oncology; Original Research Article; Patients; Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Probability; Public Health; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Quality of Life Research; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Remission (Medicine); Sensitivity analysis; Studies; Taxoids - administration & dosage; Tumors; Willingness to pay; Womens health
• ISSN: 1170-7690; 1179-2027
• DOI: 10.2165/11314750-000000000-00000

Background: An oncology trial compared four cycles of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) with four cycles of docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) in operable breast cancer patients (71% were diagnosed with hormone receptor positive and 48% with node-negative breast cancer). The objective of this study was to estimate the lifetime cost effectiveness of AC versus TC, from a Chinese healthcare provider perspective, based on a clinical trial. Methods: A lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a Markov model. Events rates and utilities in the Markov model were derived from published papers. Data on cost of breast cancer care were obtained from the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, PR China. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Cost estimates were valued in Chinese yuan (Y), year 2008 values. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Results: Patients receiving TC gained 14.45 QALYs, 0.41 QALYs more than patients receiving AC. The lifetime costs of patients receiving TC were Y93 511, Y10 116 more than that of AC patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were Y26 742 per life-year gained (£2719.8 per year) and Y24 305 per QALY gained (£2471.9 per QALY). The most sensitive parameter in the model was the cost of primary cancer treatments in the TC arm. At a threshold willingness to pay of Y86514 per QALY, the probability of TC being cost effective was 90%. Conclusions: Our model suggests that TC may be considered cost effective from a Chinese healthcare provider perspective, according to the threshold defined by the WHO.