1. Cost-effectiveness of intensive adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk breast cancer: Is tailored and dose-escalated chemotherapy with growth factor support (GFS) more costly and less effective than marrow-supported high-dose chemotherapy – results from a randomized study
- Author
-
Jonas Bergh, Eeva Salminen, Tom Wiklund, S. Lehtinen, Pasi Aronen, Harri Sintonen, and Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen
- Subjects
Adult ,Risk ,Oncology ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Filgrastim ,Survival ,Cost effectiveness ,Cost-Benefit Analysis ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Antineoplastic Agents ,Breast Neoplasms ,Group B ,law.invention ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Breast cancer ,Randomized controlled trial ,Bone Marrow ,law ,Internal medicine ,Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols ,Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor ,medicine ,Humans ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,Prospective Studies ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Finland ,Chemotherapy ,business.industry ,Hematology ,General Medicine ,Middle Aged ,medicine.disease ,Recombinant Proteins ,3. Good health ,Surgery ,Chemotherapy, Adjuvant ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Female ,business ,Adjuvant ,Tamoxifen ,medicine.drug - Abstract
Based on randomized studies bone-marrow supported (BMS) high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) is not superior to conventional CT as adjuvant treatment for high-risk breast cancer. To compare the cost-effectiveness of these treatments we examined the data of Finnish patients in the SBG9401 trial 1. Patients were randomized to receive either dose-escalated (de FEC) (group A, n =59) or FEC and HDCT+BMS (group B, n =70). They received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) + tamoxifen. All direct health care costs of first line treatment at the oncology units were considered as well as productivity costs within the first 3 years of follow-up. Effectiveness was measured by the number of survival days during 5 years of follow-up. The mean direct health care costs were significantly higher in group B (25829 euro in group A vs. 36605 euro in group B, p0.001), mainly due to a higher number of hospital days. Half of the costs in group A was due to the use of filgrastim (15335 euro in A and 2969 euro in B, p0.001). The costs of RT were only 5% of total costs. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the number of survival days, but sensitivity analysis based on bootstrapping suggested that treatment A would be a less costly and more effective alternative in a great majority of cases.
- Published
- 2007
- Full Text
- View/download PDF