Skip Navigation



Annals of Oncology Advance Access published online on November 2, 2005
Annals of Oncology, doi:10.1093/annonc/mdj048
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
17/2/217    most recent
mdj048v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lønning, P. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lønning, P. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2005 European Society for Medical Oncology
Received June 14, 2005
Revised August 10, 2005
Accepted September 19, 2005

original article

Comparing cost/utility of giving an aromatase inhibitor as monotherapy for 5 years versus sequential administration following 2-3 or 5 years of tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for postmenopausal breast cancer

P. E. Lønning 1*

1 Section of Oncology, Institute of Medicine, University of Bergen, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
P. E. Lønning, E-mail: per.lonning{at}helse-bergen.no


  Abstract

Background: Several studies have shown aromatase inhibitors administered as monotherapy or sequentially to tamoxifen to improve relapse-free survival in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. Any difference in cost/utility between the strategies may be of importance to therapy selection.

Methods: Cost/utility was compared between the different regimens based on the theoretical assumption that costs, benefits and side-effects were similar for each drug and independent of whether it was administered as monotherapy or sequentially.

Results: Tamoxifen for 2-3 years followed by an aromatase inhibitor for 3 or 2 years provided the lowest cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) estimates, while administration of an aromatase inhibitor subsequent to 5 years on tamoxifen provided the highest values. The difference between strategies increased with patient age. Cost/QALY estimates were sensitive to an increase in hip fracture risk and to cost reductions due to relapse prevention. Adding oral bisphosphonates increased costs moderately.

Conclusions: While tamoxifen for 2-3 years followed by an aromatase inhibitor provided the lowest cost/QALY estimates, a further improvement of relapse-free survival of 1% if the aromatase inhibitor is given upfront provides an acceptable cost/QALY. In contrast, additional benefits achieved by administering an aromatase inhibitor subsequent to 5 years of tamoxifen provided unacceptable costs.

Keywords: adjuvant therapy; aromatase inhibition; breast cancer; costs; utility.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
T Younis, D Rayson, R Dewar, and C Skedgel
Modeling for cost-effective-adjuvant aromatase inhibitor strategies for postmenopausal women with breast cancer
Ann. Onc., February 1, 2007; 18(2): 293 - 298.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
E Lonning
Reply to 'Conclusions regarding relative cost-utility of alternative strategies for use of aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer are premature' by Delea et al.
Ann. Onc., January 1, 2007; 18(1): 198 - 199.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
T. Delea, J Karnon, and P. Goss
Conclusions regarding relative cost-utility of alternative strategies for use of aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer are premature
Ann. Onc., January 1, 2007; 18(1): 197 - 198.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.