Cost-effectiveness analysis of docetaxel (Taxotere®) vs. 5-fluorouracil in combined therapy in the initial phases of breast cancer

Clinical and Translational Oncology

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 41-47

  Martín Jiménez, Miguel ^a   Rodríguez Lescure, Álvaro ^b   Ruiz Borrego, Manuel ^c   Seguí Palmer, Miguel Ángel ^d   Brosa Riestra, Max ^e,f  

^a HOSPITAL CLÍNICO SAN CARLOS   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL GENERAL UNIVERSITARIO DE ALICANTE   (Spain)

^c HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO VIRGEN DEL ROCÍO   (Spain)

^d Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí   (Spain)

^e Oblikue Consulting   (Spain)

^f NONE   (Spain)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Cost effectiveness; Docetaxel

Indexed keywords

CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOCETAXEL; DOXORUBICIN; FLUOROURACIL; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; TAXOID;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RELAPSE; CANCER SURVIVAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIARRHEA; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; FEBRILE NEUTROPENIA; HUMAN; INFECTION; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; NEUTROPENIA; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STOMATITIS; SURVIVAL TIME; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; MORTALITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOXORUBICIN; FEMALE; FLUOROURACIL; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; TAXOIDS;

EID: 65349143302     PISSN: 1699048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12094-009-0309-y     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Martin M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J et al (2005) Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 352:2302-2313
2. Yee GC (1997) Cost-utility analysis of taxane therapy. Am J Health Syst Pharm 54:S11-15
3. Berdeaux G, Hurteloup P (1997) Cost utility in second-line metastatic breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 11:492-497
4. Launois R, Reboul-Marty J, Henry B, Bonneterre J (1996) A cost-utility analysis of second-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. Docetaxel versus paclitaxel versus vinorelbine. Pharmacoeconomics 10:504-521
5. Verma S, Ilersich AL (2003) Population-based phar macoeconomic model for adopting capecitabine/docetaxel combination treatment for anthra-cycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist 8:232-240
6. National Institute of Clinical Excellence (2006) Paclitaxel for the adjuvant treatment of early node-positive breast cancer. NICE technology appraisal guidance no. 108 (September). [cited 2006 September 21st]; WAvailable from: URL: www.nice.org.uk/TA108
7. Beck JR, Pauker SG (1983) The Markov process in medical prognosis. Med Decis Making 3:419-458
8. Naglie G, Krahn MD, Naimark D et al (1997) Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 5. Working with Markov processes. Med Decis Making 17:152-159
9. Briggs A, Schulper M (1998) An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 13:397-409
10. Fargier M, Pen L, Lemsi W et al (2005) Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel for early breast cancer: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide regimen (TAC) versus 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC) in France. Value Health 8:A36-A37 [Abstract]. ISPOR 8th Annual European Congress, International Society for Pharmacoeconomic Outcomes Research (ISPOR), Florence, November, Abs: PCN12
11. Fonseca M, Araujo G, Saad E, Uehara R (2006) Cost-effectiveness of TAC versus FAC for the treatment of node positive breast cancer in the adjuvant setting. Value Health 9:A208-A393 [Abstract]. ISPOR 9th Annual European Congress, International Society for Pharmacoeconomic Outcomes Research (ISPOR), Copenhagen, October, Abs: PCN41
12. Lee SG, Jee YK, Chung HC et al (2006) A cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy for node positive early breast cancer in Korea: docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) versus 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC). ISPOR 2nd Asia-Pacific Conference, International Society for Pharmacoeconomic Outcomes Research (ISPOR), Shanghai, March, Abs: PCN22
13. GEICAM (Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Mama) (2004) Encuesta de evolución de Pacientes con Cáncer de Mama en Hospitales del Grupo GEICAM: 1994-1997. Proyecto El Álamo II, Madrid
14. INE (2006) Tablas de mortalidad de la población de España 1998-1999. Madrid [cited 21 September]. Available from http://www.ine.es
15. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S et al (2003) A randomized trial of letrozole in postmenopausal women after five years of tamoxifen therapy for early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 349:1793-1802
16. Saphner T, Tormey DC, Gray R (1996) Annual hazard rates of recurrence for breast cancer after primary therapy. J Clin Oncol 14:2738-2746
17. Taylor R, Davis P, Boyages J (2003) Long-term survival of women with breast cancer in New South Wales. Eur J Cancer 39:215-222
18. Martin M, Lluch A, Segui MA et al (2006) Toxicity and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (TAC) or 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC): Impact of adding primary prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to the TAC regimen. Ann Oncol 17:1205-1212
19. Lee JH, Glick HA, Hayman JA, Solin LJ (2002) Decision analytic model and cost-effectiveness evaluation of postmastectomy radiation therapy in high-risk premenopausal breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 20:2713-2725
20. Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos. Base de Datos del medicamento. [cited 21 September 2006]. Available at http://www.portalfarma.com
21. Gisbert R, Brosa M (2006) Base de Datos de Costes Sanitarios Salud. Barcelona [cited 21 September 2006]. Available at http://www.oblikue.com
22. Sacristán JA, Oliva J, Del Llano J, Prieto L et al (2002) ¿Qué es una tecnología sanitaria eficiente en España? Gac San 16:334-343
23. Tengs TO (2004) Cost-effectiveness versus costutility analysis of interventions for cancer: Does adjusting for health-related quality of life really matter? Value Health 7:70-82