Display options
Share it on

Breast Care (Basel). 2009;4(6):389-396. doi: 10.1159/000255840. Epub 2009 Dec 11.

Cost Effectiveness of Exemestane versus Tamoxifen in Post-Menopausal Women with Early Breast Cancer in Germany.

Breast care (Basel, Switzerland)

Sebastian Braun, Thomas Mittendorf, Thomas Menschik, Wolfgang Greiner, Johann-Matthias von der Schulenburg

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Economics, Leibniz University of Hanover, Germany.

PMID: 20877674 PMCID: PMC2942002 DOI: 10.1159/000255840

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medical studies have shown that switching to exemestane after 2-3 years of adjuvant treatment with tamoxifen is effective when looking at overall survival. No cost effectiveness study of exemestane has been conducted in the German health care context. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To assess the cost effectiveness of switching to exemestane vs. continued tamoxifen therapy for early-stage breast cancer, a Markov model was developed. The model population was set as postmenopausal women who are in remission from early-stage breast cancer. Upon model entry, either a continuing daily therapy with 20 mg tamoxifen or a switch to 25 mg exemestane for the next 2-3 years takes place. The model takes a German health care perspective. RESULTS: The total incremental costs of exemestane on a lifetime basis are 4,195 Euro, resulting in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of 17,632 Euro per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY), or 16,857 Euro per life year gained. Incremental costs per disease-free year of survival are 12,851 Euro. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses proved the robustness of these findings. CONCLUSION: Compared to extended tamoxifen therapy, switching to exemestane after 2-3 years turned out to be a cost-effective strategy in adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer in postmenopausal women within the German health care context.

References

  1. Lancet. 2005 Aug 6-12;366(9484):455-62 - PubMed
  2. J Clin Oncol. 1993 Jan;11(1):44-8 - PubMed
  3. Cancer. 2007 Aug 1;110(3):499-508 - PubMed
  4. Lancet. 2005 May 14-20;365(9472):1687-717 - PubMed
  5. N Engl J Med. 1993 Sep 2;329(10):696-702 - PubMed
  6. Value Health. 2008 Jul-Aug;11(4):539-44 - PubMed
  7. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jan 20;23(3):619-29 - PubMed
  8. Value Health. 2007 Sep-Oct;10(5):367-76 - PubMed
  9. J Clin Oncol. 1993 Apr;11(4):777-82 - PubMed
  10. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Sep;104(3):433-42 - PubMed
  11. Med Decis Making. 1998 Apr-Jun;18(2):213-9 - PubMed
  12. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 1;25(19):2664-70 - PubMed
  13. Lancet. 2007 Feb 17;369(9561):559-70 - PubMed
  14. Ann Oncol. 2006 Jun;17 Suppl 7:vii10-4 - PubMed
  15. N Engl J Med. 2004 Mar 11;350(11):1081-92 - PubMed
  16. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004 Dec;13(12):2043-52 - PubMed
  17. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 May;102(3):289-99 - PubMed
  18. N Engl J Med. 2005 Dec 29;353(26):2747-57 - PubMed
  19. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Sep 7;97(17):1262-71 - PubMed
  20. Osteoporos Int. 2005 Jan;16(1):15-25 - PubMed
  21. Cancer. 2003 Feb 1;97(3):545-53 - PubMed
  22. N Engl J Med. 1991 Jan 17;324(3):160-8 - PubMed

Publication Types