Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:35:13.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-effectiveness of Herceptin®: A standard cost model for breast-cancer treatment in a Belgian university hospital

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2005

Mattias J. Neyt ,
Johan A. Albrecht ,
Bart Clarysse  and
Véronique F. Cocquyt
Mattias J. Neyt
Affiliation:
Ghent University
Johan A. Albrecht
Affiliation:
Ghent University
Bart Clarysse
Affiliation:
Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School
Véronique F. Cocquyt
Affiliation:
University Hospital Gent
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of Herceptin® from the hospital's point of view. This new biotechnological pharmaceutical is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets the HER2 receptor, an important anti-cancer target.

Methods: A cost model with standard diagnostic and treatment options for breast cancer was set up for a Belgian university hospital in close collaboration with its specialists. Direct and indirect costs were calculated for each diagnostic and treatment option using the micro-costing method. Effectiveness was estimated through a literature study. The model allowed us to take cost consequences in other stages of the model into account and to calculate changes in monthly treatment costs from different “starting points.” With an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, differences in costs and effectiveness with and without Herceptin® were compared.

Results: Over the complete treatment period from diagnosis until the metastatic phase, monthly costs for the hospital rose from €85.07 to €90.35 for stage I diagnosed breast cancer when adding Herceptin® to the model. In the metastatic phase alone, these costs rose from €1,132.33 to €1,256.23. With Herceptin®, we found an extra cost of €3,981.44 per extra life-month.

Conclusions: This cost-effectiveness ratio was rather high, because Herceptin® was quite expensive and the product was additive in its current use and did not replace existing treatments. Future research will concentrate on alternative applications of Herceptin® based on ongoing Herceptin® trials and expert opinions.

Keywords

Herceptin®Breast cancerMonthly costsIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio
Type
RESEARCH REPORTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 132 - 137
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berger M, Locher G, Saurer S, et al. 1988 Correlation of c-erbB-2 gene amplification and protein expression in human breast carcinoma with nodal status and nuclear grading. Cancer Res. 48: 1238– 1243.Google Scholar
Berkowitz N, Gupta S, Silberman G. 2000 Estimates of the lifetime direct costs of treatment for metastatic breast cancer. Value Health. 3: 23– 30.Google Scholar
Cobleigh M, Vogel C, Tripathy D, et al. 1999 Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol. 17: 2639– 2648.Google Scholar
Cramer J, Spilker B. 1997. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics: An introduction. Philadelphia: Lippincott Raven Publishers;
Hess G, Watrous M, Strutton D, Bower A. 1999: The role of pharmacoeconomics in response to globalization and increased competition in the pharmaceutical industry. In: Salek S, ed. Pharmacoeconomics and outcome assessment, a global issue. Haslemere, UK: Euromed Communications Ltd; 119– 142.
Honig S. 1996 Treatment of metastatic disease: Hormonal therapy and chemotherapy. In: Harris J, Lippman M, Morrow M, Hellman S, eds. Diseases of the breast. Philadelphia: Lippincott Raven Publishers; 669– 734.
Hummel M, Rossum W, Verkerke G, Rakhorst G. 2000 Assessing medical technologies in development: A new paradigm of medical technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 1214– 1219.Google Scholar
Nuijten M. 1999 Pharmacoeconomics in European decision-making. Value Health. 2: 319– 322.Google Scholar
Roche. 2002. Personal communication with Dr. N. Delens on 7 December 2002 concerning registration and reimbursement of Herceptin® in Belgium,
Slamon D, Clark G, Wong S, et al. 1987 Human breast cancer: Correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 235: 177– 182.Google Scholar
Will B, Berthelot J, Le Petit C, et al. 2000 Estimates of the lifetime costs of breast cancer treatment in Canada. Eur J Cancer. 36: 724– 735.Google Scholar