Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T02:12:57.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of uncertainty on cost-effectiveness analysis of medical strategies: The case of high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2005

Patricia Marino ,
Carole Siani ,
Henri Roché  and
Jean-Paul Moatti
Patricia Marino
Affiliation:
University of Méditerranée and INSERM U379
Carole Siani
Affiliation:
University of Méditerranée and INSERM U379
Henri Roché
Affiliation:
Institut Claudius Régaud
Jean-Paul Moatti
Affiliation:
University of Méditerranée and INSERM U379
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The object of this study was to determine, taking into account uncertainty on cost and outcome parameters, the cost-effectiveness of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) compared with conventional chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer patients.

Methods: An analysis was conducted for 300 patients included in a randomized clinical trial designed to evaluate the benefits, in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival, of adding a single course of HDC to a four-cycle conventional-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer patients with axillary lymph node invasion. Costs were estimated from a detailed observation of physical quantities consumed, and the Kaplan–Meier method was used to evaluate mean survival times. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were evaluated successively considering disease-free survival and overall survival outcomes. Handling of uncertainty consisted in construction of confidence intervals for these ratios, using the truncated Fieller method.

Results: The cost per disease-free life year gained was evaluated at 13,074€, a value that seems to be acceptable to society. However, handling uncertainty shows that the upper bound of the confidence interval is around 38,000€, which is nearly three times higher. Moreover, as no difference was demonstrated in overall survival between treatments, cost-effectiveness analysis, that is a cost minimization, indicated that the intensive treatment is a dominated strategy involving an extra cost of 7,400€, for no added benefit.

Conclusions: Adding a single course of HDC led to a clinical benefit in terms of disease-free survival for an additional cost that seems to be acceptable, considering the point estimate of the ratio. However, handling uncertainty indicates a maximum ratio for which conclusions have to be discussed.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness analysisUncertaintyHigh-dose chemotherapyBreast cancer
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 342 - 350
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agro K, Bradley C, Mittmann N, et al. 1997 Sensitivity analysis in health economic and pharmacoeconomic studies: An appraisal of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 11: 75– 88.Google Scholar
Astier M, Mayordomo J, Abad J, et al. 2000 Cost Analysis of high-dose chemotherapy and blood stem-cell support in patients with solid tumors. Ann Oncol. 11: 603– 606.Google Scholar
Bercez C, Lebrun T, Bonneterre ME, et al. 1999 Advanced breast cancer: An evaluation of the cost of recurrence. Bull Cancer. 86: 585– 590.Google Scholar
Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. 1994 Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: The role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ. 3: 95– 104.Google Scholar
Briggs AH, Fenn P. 1998 Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ. 7: 723– 740.Google Scholar
Briggs AH, Sculpter M. 1995 Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: The review of published studies. Health Econ. 4: 355– 371.Google Scholar
Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. 1997 Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstrap: A non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ. 6: 327– 340.Google Scholar
Bull AA, Meyerowitz BE, Hart S, et al. 1999 Quality of life in women with recurrent breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 54: 47– 57.Google Scholar
Cella DF, Mahon SM, Donovan MI. 1990 Cancer recurrence as a traumatic event. Behav Med. 16: 15– 22.Google Scholar
Chaudhary MA, Stearns SC. 1996 Estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: An example from a randomized trial. Stat Med. 15: 1447– 1458.Google Scholar
De Rosa L, Lalle M, Pandolfi A, Pescador L. 2001 Costs of high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood progenitor cell autograft for breast cancer. Bone Marrow Transplant. 27: 1031– 1035.Google Scholar
Drummond M. 1995 Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: Problems and potential. J Rheumatol. 22: 1403– 1407.Google Scholar
Drummond M, O'Brien B. 1995 Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: Practical considerations. The Economics Workgroup. J Rheumatol. 22: 1418– 1419.Google Scholar
Drummond M, O'Brien B, Stoddart G. 1997. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programs. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford University Press;
Finkler SA. 1982 The distinction between cost and charges. Ann Intern Med. 96: 102– 109.Google Scholar
Garber AM. Advances in CE analysis of health interventions. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, eds. Handbook of health economics, Vol. 1A. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2000 181– 221.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. 1996. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
Hanson Frost M, Suman VJ, Rummans TA, et al. 2000 Physical, psychological and social well-being of women with breast cancer: The influence of disease phase. Psychooncology. 9: 221– 231.Google Scholar
Hillner BE. 1998 Review of cost-effectiveness assessments of chemotherapy in adjuvant and advanced breast cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 9: 843– 847.Google Scholar
Hillner BE, Smith TJ, Desch CE. 1993 Assessing the cost effectiveness of adjuvant therapies in early breast cancer using a decision analysis model. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 25: 97– 105.Google Scholar
Jenkins PL, May VE, Hughes LE. 1991 Psychological morbidity associated with local recurrence of breast cancer. Int J Psychiatry Med. 21: 149– 155.Google Scholar
Johannesson M. 1996. Theory and methods of economic evaluation of health care. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers;
Le Corroller A, Moatti J, Chabannon C, et al. 1999 Optimization of peripheral blood stem cell collection by leukopheresis. Interaction between economic and clinical assessment of an innovation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 15: 161– 172.Google Scholar
Meisenberg BR, Miller WE, McMillan R, et al. 1997 Outpatient high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell rescue for hematologic and nonhematologic malignancies. J Clin Oncol. 15: 11– 17.Google Scholar
O'Brien BJ, Drummond MF, Llabelle BJ, Willan A. 1994 In search of power and significance: Issues in the design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies in health care. Med Care. 32: 150– 163.Google Scholar
Peters WP, Ross M, Vredenburgh JJ, et al. 1994 The use of intensive clinic support to permit outpatient autologous bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 21: 25– 31.Google Scholar
Pinguet F, Savelli K, Petit I, et al. 2001 Pharmaco-economic study of intensive chemotherapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell support for advanced breast cancer. Oncol Rep. 8: 1013– 1017.Google Scholar
Republique Francaise. Decrêt, arrêtés, circulaires. Journal Officiel de la République Française. 1999 1328– 1329.
Rodenhuis S. 2000 The status of high-dose chemotherapy in breast cancer. Oncologist. 5: 369– 375.Google Scholar
Rodenhuis S, Bontenbal M, Beex LV, et al. 2003 High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for high-risk breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 349: 7– 16.Google Scholar
Sculpher M, Drummond M, Buxton M. 1997 The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2: 26– 30.Google Scholar
Siani C, Moatti J. 2003 The handling of uncertainty in economic evaluations of health care strategies. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 51: 255– 276.Google Scholar
Smith TJ, Hillner BE. 2000 Tamoxifen should be cost-effective in reducing breast cancer risk in high-risk women. J Clin Oncol. 18: 284– 286.Google Scholar
Sutherland HJ, Lockwood GA, Boyd NF. 1990 Ratings of the importance of quality of life variables: Therapeutic implications for patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 43: 661– 666.Google Scholar
Towse A, Prirchard C, Devlin N. 2002. Cost-effectiveness thresholds. Economic and ethical issues. London: King's fund and Office of Health Economics;
UCANSS. 1999. Nomencalture Générale des Actes Professionnels. Paris.
Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten FF. 1994 Costs, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 3: 309– 319.Google Scholar
Willan AR, O'Brien BJ. 1996 Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: An application of Fieller's theorem. Health Econ. 5: 297– 305.Google Scholar