From the Journals

Cost paramount when choosing metastatic breast cancer treatment



While efficacy and quality of life outcomes are similar across commonly used treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, the costs of these agents vary widely, a recent analysis reveals.

Notably, the authors found that using standard chemotherapy agents in specific sequences can help reduce overall costs and improve the value of care.

Given “razor thin” differences in outcomes, cost should become a major consideration, the researchers concluded.

“As a society, we urgently need more strategies to reduce cancer drug costs without compromising outcomes, and our analysis provides quantifiable evidence to help providers choose lower priced, but equally effective sequences of drugs,” first author Stephanie B. Wheeler, PhD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained in a press release.

Although the drugs Dr. Wheeler and colleagues studied are reimbursed in the metastatic breast cancer setting, “the optimal sequencing of them has been unclear, which has led to considerable variation in physician preference and practice,” Dr. Wheeler said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic options from the first- to third-line setting for this patient population.

The researchers used three dynamic microsimulation computer models to predict how hypothetical sets of 10,000 patients with specific types of metastatic breast cancer would respond to various therapy types and sequences. The cohorts were grouped according to prior chemotherapy exposure: cohort 1 had no taxane or anthracycline exposure, cohort 2 had taxane and anthracycline exposure, and cohort 3 had taxane exposure but was anthracycline naive.

On the basis of feedback from oncologists, the investigators focused on different agents in the three cohorts: paclitaxel, capecitabine, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for cohort 1; eribulin, capecitabine, or carboplatin for cohort 2; and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, capecitabine, or eribulin for cohort 3.

Overall, the models showed “nearly indistinguishable differences” in quality of life. In fact, the “razor-thin incremental differences in quality-adjusted survival” across the treatment sequences often amounted to differences of only a few days or weeks, the authors noted, adding that, even in the most extreme of cases, 3 weeks separated the best and worst options for quality-adjusted life-years.

But the models did show considerable differences in costs.

The authors found that, for cohort 1, treatment with paclitaxel followed by capecitabine and then pegylated liposomal doxorubicin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and the lowest costs – $686 per month versus the highest cost option of $1,765.

For cohort 2, treatment with carboplatin followed by capecitabine and then eribulin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and lowest costs.

For cohort 3, treatment sequences beginning with capecitabine or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin followed by eribulin was most cost effective.

Notably, the authors found that eribulin – the most expensive treatment with a high expected adverse event burden – performed particularly poorly in the two cohorts in which it was evaluated, “suggesting it should be used last in a sequence, on the basis of cost-effectiveness alone.”

In other words, “more spending on cancer care does not necessarily confer greater health benefits,” said Dr. Wheeler, also a professor of health policy.

“I hope our study will help expand the framework that we use to make these decisions from one where we just think about the biologic action of the drug to one where we also consider the bigger picture of what the treatment experience is like for the patient, including their financial burden, investment of time, and side effects,” study coauthor Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, MD, section chief of breast oncology at UNC, said in the press release.

The results demonstrate that therapeutic decisions in the endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic setting “may prioritize costs without affecting clinical outcomes” and highlight the direct impact that a “high-quality, transparent, and accessible economic analysis” can have on patient care, Scott D. Ramsey, MD, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Following the treatment sequences outlined in this study would “reduce patient financial burden and save our health system hundreds of millions of dollars annually,” the editorialists wrote.

As for next steps, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues have developed a financial navigation program to help patients manage their out-of-pocket cancer care costs and are currently scaling up the intervention in nine rural and nonrural oncology practices across North Carolina.

The study was supported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention through the Prevention Research Centers Program. Dr. Wheeler has received research funding and payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Ramsey has had consulting or advisory roles and has received research funding and/or payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, GRAIL, Seattle Genetics, Biovica, and/or Flatiron Health. Because of their editorial roles at the journal, the Journal of Clinical Oncology recused Dr. Wheeler and Dr. Ramsey from having any role in the peer review of their respective manuscripts.

A version of this article first appeared on

Recommended Reading

Node-negative triple-negative breast cancer prognosis lies within stromal lymphocytes
AstraZeneca says data confirms Enhertu benefit in patients with breast cancer
Tumor-bed radiotherapy boost reduces DCIS recurrence risk
Time to cancer diagnoses in U.S. averages 5 months
A farewell to arms? Drug approvals based on single-arm trials can be flawed