A Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evidence in Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer

Author(s)

Cha A1, Du E2, Law E3, Xie J2, Chen J2, Fang H2, Kurosky S4
1Pfizer Inc, Fairfield, CT, USA, 2Analysis Group, Inc, Boston, MA, USA, 3Pfizer, New York, NY, USA, 4Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA

Presentation Documents

Objectives

To systematically summarize evidence on the economic burden of human epidermal growth factor 2-positive (HER2+) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and economic evaluations of first-line (1L) treatments for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2+ mBC.

Methods

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Real-world studies (RWS) evaluating healthcare resource utilization, direct and indirect costs in HER2+ mBC, and economic models evaluating 1L treatment for HR+/HER2+ mBC published from 01/2000-05/2021 in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were included.

Results

Among 813 records screened, 32 RWS of economic burden and 8 economic evaluations were selected. Economic burden studies encompassed 30 retrospective observational studies, 1 prospective observational study, and 1 cross-sectional survey. Patients with HER2+ mBC incurred high direct medical costs, most prominently attributed to treatment costs. High direct medical costs were incurred during the first year after mBC diagnosis and after disease progression, compared to stable disease. Few studies stratified costs by HR biomarker status.

Economic evaluations included 6 cost utility analyses (CUA) in the UK (n=3) and Canada (n=3), 1 cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) in Australia and 1 cost-of-illness (COI) study in Spain. Four CUAs applied a partitioned survival model, 1 CUA applied a Markov model, and the CEA used a decision tree. Other studies did not specify model structure. Included studies varied across treatment strategies, evaluated interventions, patient population, HTA setting. The CUAs and CEA compared anti-HER2 therapy (AHT) + endocrine therapy (ET) or AHT + chemotherapy with another AHT+ET, AHT, or ET alone. Indirect costs were infrequently included.

Conclusions

The evidence on economic burden specific to HR+/HER2+ mBC, though limited, is heterogeneous. The findings of this SLR suggest further research is needed to uncover the full patient and societal cost burden economic burden of HR+/HER2+ mBC in the 1L setting.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2021-11, ISPOR Europe 2021, Copenhagen, Denmark

Value in Health, Volume 24, Issue 12, S2 (December 2021)

Code

POSB384

Topic

Economic Evaluation, Health Policy & Regulatory

Topic Subcategory

Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis, Reimbursement & Access Policy

Disease

Oncology

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×