Background: The aim of the current study was to estimate two protocols for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer patients, bevacizumab combined with paclitaxel versus bevacizumab combined with capecitabine, from the economic view.
Methods: The process of HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer treated with bevacizumab combined with paclitaxel or bevaciz-umab combined with capecitabine made up the decision model in our analysis. The primary objective was to show the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The critical parameters and the robustness of the model on the results of the analysis were assessed by univariate sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
Results: In the analysis, quality-adjusted life year (QALY) increased by 0.4 with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel compared with bevacizumab plus capecitabine, and incremental cost of USD 4,340.46. Therefore, the ICER was USD 27,252.875. The ICER exceeded the commonly accepted willingness to pay on the recommendation of the World Health Organization, which is defined as 3 times of the gross domestic product per capita of China in the model (USD 25,840.88 per QALY). On univariate analysis, it is found that the most significant affecting factor is the cost of progression-free survival state in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group. Besides, bevacizumab plus paclitaxel had a 47.8% probability of being cost-effective versus bevacizu-mab plus capecitabine according to probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
Conclusions: Based on the results of the analysis, bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer compared with bevacizumab plus capecitabine.
Keywords: Bevacizumab; Capecitabine; Cost-effectiveness; Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios; Locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.
© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.