Back

Cost effectiveness of CTC guided chemo or endocrine therapy in metastatic breast cancer. Results from a randomized controlled multicenter trial

Berghuis, S.; Koffijberg, H.; Pouwels, X.; Berger, F.; Alix-Panabieres, C.; Jacot, W.; Pierga, J.-Y.; Bidard, F.-C.; IJzerman, M.

2023-10-09 health economics
10.1101/2023.10.09.23296711 medRxiv
Show abstract

Patients with metastatic, Estrogen Receptor (ER) positive, HER2-negative, breast cancer, before initiating CDK4/6 inhibitors, receive either single agent endocrine- or chemotherapy based on their clinical risk. In this first-ever trial-based economic evaluation of Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs), the cost-effectiveness of standardizing the prescription of endocrine- or chemotherapy using a CTC count threshold (with >5 CTCs/7.5mL indicative of unfavorable disease outcomes) was compared to current clinical practice. N=755 ER+ HER2-patients, enrolled in 17 French centres, were randomized to CTC guided or standard of care and were treated according to either through the CTC score or clinical examination. Health state utilities were calculated by mapping the QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D utilities and used to calculate Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) over a 2-year time horizon. Bootstrapping and additional sensitivity analyses were performed to quantify the impact of uncertainty. Health outcomes in both arms were similar, but costs were higher in the CTC guided arm ({euro}19,403) compared to the usual care ({euro}18,254), resulting in an ICER of {euro}104,078/QALY in favor of usual care. However, when the analysis was performed for the clinically high- and low-risk groups separately, CTC enumeration could be a dominant strategy (cost saving) if treatment is de-escalated in clinically high-risk patients as indicated by CTC scores. However, the current analysis was based on the PFS and OS data reported in 2021 and long-term Overall Survival data is collected since then (JCO, 2023 in press). A further analysis of the health economic impact of CTC enumeration in clinically low and high-risk groups is therefore indicated.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
29.7%
2
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.4%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 21%
5.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
5
Journal of Medical Economics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
6
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.2%
7
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.0%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.8%
10
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.8%
11
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
12
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.6%
13
npj Breast Cancer
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
14
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
15
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.3%
16
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
17
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
18
AIDS
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
19
Molecular Systems Biology
142 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
20
Journal of Medical Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
21
BMC Research Notes
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
22
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
24
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
25
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
26
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
27
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 48%
0.5%