While overall survival (OS) has historically been the primary endpoint for clinical trials in oncology, progression-free survival (PFS) has gained acceptance as a valuable surrogate endpoint. However, there are no known published reports about the value of PFS from the patient's perspective. We developed a questionnaire that included items regarding quality of life (QoL) and the importance of different treatment outcomes and presented hypothetical scenarios for which respondents were asked to indicate their preferences concerning treatments as they relate to PFS. 282 women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), ranging in age from 21 to 80 years completed an online version of this questionnaire. The majority of women (66 %) had been diagnosed with MBC within the previous 3 years and 56 % had been told their MBC had progressed. When asked to rank five treatment characteristics from most important to least important, respondents ranked "extending PFS" as the second most important treatment outcome after OS. When presented with a hypothetical scenario of two women receiving different treatments, respondents preferred the treatment that resulted in longer PFS (16 vs. 12 months), even when OS and side effects were assumed to be equal. Specifically, when asked to consider which woman within the hypothetical scenario had better QoL, physical functioning, and emotional well-being, respondents more often chose the woman who experienced longer PFS (QoL: 40 vs. 6 %; physical functioning: 32 vs. 8 %; emotional well-being: 58 vs. 6 %) compared to the woman within the hypothetical scenario who had a shorter time of progression. Respondents rated their own QoL highest after being told their MBC was responding to treatment (mean score 76.6) versus after the initial diagnosis of breast cancer and MBC (68.5 and 60.3). These findings suggest that extending PFS is an important treatment outcome and, from a patient perspective, improves overall QoL, physical functioning, and emotional well-being.

Background

Existing treatments for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are often effective but can cause adverse events (AEs). This study aimed to identify AEs associated with chemotherapies commonly used in mBC treatment (phase 1) and to quantify the economic impact of these AEs (phase 2).

Materials and methods

Patients in phase 1 had at least one claim for therapy for mBC, with at least one episode with single or multiple agents. The most common chemotherapy-related complications were identified using medical and pharmacy claims data. In phase 2, patients meeting study criteria were divided into four treatment cohorts by the line of treatment and chemotherapy received: first-line taxane-treated patients, second-line taxane-treated patients, first-line capecitabine-treated patients, and second-line capecitabine-treated patients. Average monthly AE-related health care costs per cohort were stratified by cost component. Total monthly costs per number of AEs were also calculated.

Results

On average, patients in phase 1 (n = 1,551) had 2 episodes of treatment, with a mean duration of 131 days. The most frequently noted complications were anemia (50.7% of mBC treatment episodes), bilirubin elevation (26.4%), and leukopenia (24.8%). In phase 2, costs related to AEs were primarily driven by incremental inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy costs. Increases in average monthly costs ranged from $854 (9.0%) to $5,320 (69.5%), according to cohort. Overall costs increased with increasing numbers of AEs.

Conclusion

Chemotherapy-related AEs in patients with mBC are associated with a substantial economic burden that increases with the number of AEs reported.

Purpose

We sought to compare the economic impact of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) using taxane- or capecitabine-based treatment regimens as either first- or second-line (FL or SL) therapy in the US.

Methods

We used healthcare claims data from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® Commercial Databases to conduct a retrospective cohort study comparing the economic impact of AEs amongst taxane- and capecitabine-treated mBC patients in the US. We selected women diagnosed with mBC between 2008-2010 who received a taxane or capecitabine as first- or second-line (FL or SL) chemotherapy. Costs related to hospitalization, outpatient services, emergency department visits, chemotherapy and other medications were tabulated and combined to determine total healthcare costs. The incremental monthly costs associated with the presence of AEs compared to no AEs were estimated using generalized linear models, controlling for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Results

We identified 15,443 mBC patients meeting inclusion criteria. Adjusted total monthly costs were significantly higher in those who experienced AEs than in those without AEs in both lines of treatment (FL incremental cost: taxanes $1,142, capecitabine $1,817; SL incremental cost: taxanes $1,448, capecitabine $4,437). Total costs increased with the number of AEs and were primarily driven by increased hospitalization amongst those with AEs.

Conclusions

Adverse events in taxane- or capecitabine-treated mBC patients are associated with significant increases in costs. Selecting treatment options associated with fewer AEs may reduce costs and improve outcomes in these patients.

Background

The importance of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) as a prognostic and predictive marker in invasive breast cancer is well established. Accurate assessment of HER2 status is essential to determine optimal treatment options.

Methods

Breast cancer tumor tissue samples from the VIRGO observational cohort tissue substudy that were locally HER2-negative were retested centrally with both US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays, using FDA-approved assay cutoffs; results were compared.

Results

Of the 552 unique patient samples centrally retested with local HER2-negative results recorded, tumor samples from 22 (4.0%) patients were determined to be HER2-positive (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5%-5.7%). Of these, 18 had been tested locally by only one testing methodology; 15 of 18 were HER2-positive after the central retesting, based on the testing methodology not performed locally. Compared with the 530 patients with centrally confirmed HER2-negative tumors, the 22 patients with centrally determined HER2-positive tumors were younger (median age 56.5 versus 60.0 years) and more likely to have ER/PR-negative tumors (27.3% versus 22.3%). These patients also had shorter median progression-free survival (6.4 months [95% CI = 3.8-15.9 months] versus 9.1 months [95% CI = 8.3-10.3 months]) and overall survival (25.9 months [95% CI = 13.8-not estimable] versus 27.9 months [95% CI = 25.0-32.9 months]).

Conclusions

This study highlights the limitations of employing just one HER2 testing methodology in current clinical practice. It identifies a cohort of patients who did not receive potentially efficacious therapy because their tumor HER2-positivity was not determined by the test initially used. Because of inherent limitations in testing methodologies, it is inadvisable to rely on a single test to rule out potential benefit from HER2-targeted therapy.