hurrah! the Swedish beancounters come out for herceptin!

[Lani]

Ann Oncol. 2007 Dec 6 [Epub ahead of print]
Cost-effectiveness of HER2 testing and 1-year adjuvant trastuzumab therapy for early breast cancer.

Lidgren M, Jönsson B, Rehnberg C, Willking N, Bergh J.
Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
BACKGROUND: Clinical studies have demonstrated statistically significant reduction of breast cancer relapse and improved overall survival by adding trastuzumab for 1 year after adjuvant chemotherapy in human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 protein (HER2)/neu-positive breast cancer. The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of HER2/neu testing and the addition of 1-year adjuvant trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy from a societal perspective in a Swedish setting. Material and methods: We used a Markov state transition model to simulate HER2/neu testing and adjuvant trastuzumab treatment in a hypothetical cohort of early breast cancer patients. RESULTS: The cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for immunohistochemical (IHC) testing for all patients with FISH confirmation of IHC 2+ and 3+ and 1-year adjuvant trastuzumab for FISH-positive patients was estimated to euro 36 000. The strategy of FISH testing for all patients, with 1-year adjuvant trastuzumab for FISH-positive patients was associated with the longest quality adjusted survival of all evaluated treatment strategies and the cost per QALY gained was estimated to euro 41 500. The remaining testing and treatment strategies were dominated. CONCLUSION: FISH testing for all patients with 1-year adjuvant trastuzumab for FISH+ patients is a cost-effective treatment option from a societal perspective.
PMID: 18065409 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

[Vic]

Thanks, Lani, and I wonder if they'll do an assessment on the shorter, nine-month Herceptin study.

Love your research,

Vicki Z

[Christine MH-UK]

And herceptin always comes out to be cost effective.

The cost analyses that have been done on the FinnHer study have shown that it is actually cost saving (meaning that there is really no economic reason to reserve herceptin for patients with secondaries since any health care provider that does will end up losing money by having to provide it later). I suppose that is why New Zealand, which is rather backward on breast cancer, has been so quick to adopt it. I would like to see the short treatments tested a bit more, if only because in less wealth countries the cost of a full year prevents women from getting herceptin.

[fullofbeans]

Thanks Lani,

This is a much better argument than the one I have written (under anger ) about the comment of the NHS..