Cost-benefit evaluation of advanced therapy lines in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in Germany

• DOI: 10.1186/s12962-024-00528-1
• Publication Date: 2024-03-08T14:02:11Z
• Authors: Amelie Wickmann; Melina Sophie Kurte; Julia Jeck; Luisa Camacho; Dennis Klinkhammer; Florian Kron; Robert Dengler
• Keywords: Medicine (General); 03 medical and health sciences; Efficiency frontier; R5-920; 0302 clinical medicine; Triple-negative breast cancer; Health-related quality of life; Research; Medizin; Eribulin; Sacituzumab-govitecan; Capecitabine

Abstract Background Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is responsible for 10–20% cases of breast cancer and is resulting in rising healthcare costs. Thus, health-economic evaluations are needed to relate clinical outcomes and costs of treatment options and to provide recommendations of action from a health-economic perspective.

Methods We investigated the cost-benefit-ratio of approved treatment options in metastatic TNBC in Germany by applying the efficiency frontier approach. These included sacituzumab-govitecan (SG), eribulin, vinorelbine, and capecitabine. Clinical benefit was measured as (i) median overall survival (mOS) and (ii) health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in terms of time to symptom worsening (TSW). To assess medical benefits, literature was systematically reviewed in PubMed for (i) and (ii), respectively. Treatment costs were calculated considering annual direct outpatient treatment costs from a statutory healthcare payer perspective. It was intended that both, (i) and (ii), yield an efficiency frontier.

Results Annual direct outpatient treatment costs amounted to EUR 176,415.21 (SG), EUR 47,414.14 (eribulin), EUR 13,711.35 (vinorelbine), and EUR 3,718.84 (capecitabine). Systematic literature review of (i) and statistical analysis resulted in OS values of 14.3, 9.56, 9.44, and 7.46 months, respectively. Capecitabine, vinorelbine, and SG are part of the efficiency frontier including OS. The highest additional benefit per additional cost was determined for vinorelbine, followed by SG. Systematic review of (ii) revealed that no TSW data of TNBC patients receiving vinorelbine were available, preventing the presentation of an efficiency frontier including HRQoL.

Conclusions Vinorelbine is most cost-effective, followed by SG. Health-economic evaluations support decision-makers to assess treatment options within one indication area. In Germany, the efficiency frontier can provide decision support for the pricing of innovative interventions. Results of our analysis may thus guide reimbursement determination.