Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session 2

5442 - Meta-analysis in HER2+ early breast cancer therapies and cost-effectiveness in a Brazilian perspective

Date

29 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Display session 2

Topics

Breast Cancer

Presenters

Marcos Magalhaes

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v55-v98. 10.1093/annonc/mdz240

Authors

M. Magalhaes1, P. Aguiar1, B. Haaland2, A. del Giglio1, G. Lopes3

Author affiliations

  • 1 Oncology, ABC Medical School-Santo Andre, 09060-650 - Santo Andre/BR
  • 2 Statistics, Industrial and Systems Engineering, Atlanta/US
  • 3 Oncology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer, Miami/US
More

Resources

Abstract 5442

Background

HER2-targeted therapy was a paradigm shift for breast cancer. However, the optimal duration of adjuvant trastuzumab remain unknown. This issue is important in lower and middle-income countries such as Brazil where financial resources are scarce. The aim of this study is to determine which patients will benefit most with the addition of Pertuzumab to trastuzumab [T+P], trastuzumab for 12 months [T12] or trastuzumab for 6 months [T6].

Methods

Individual data meta-analysis was performed using 5 studies (Persephone, Phare, Horg, Aphinity and Katherine) for the intention to treat (ITT) population. Through pooled analyzes of the Persephone, Phare and Horg studies, we compared 12 months and 6 months of trastuzumab. The comparison between T+P and T6 was performed through an indirect comparison using Bayesian methodology. For cost-effectiveness analysis, we compared the treatment lining up in pairs exclusively considering the data from the Aphinity (T+P vs T12), Persephone (T12 vs T6) and Katherine (T12 vs T-DM1), setting a 30 years period of time and costs of adjuvant treatments and after progression in the Brazilian perspective.

Results

Individual data were analyzed from 12,753 patients. Patients who progressed in a 4-year period were 7.1% for T + P, 10.2% for T12 (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.16-1.63) and 12.9% for T6 (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.45-2.06). Regarding DFS in the N+ subgroup, T+P showed HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.62-0.96) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.49-1.11) compared to T12 and T6, respectively. Among patients N-, T+P compared to T12 showed a HR 1.13 (95%CI 0.68-1.86) and compared to T6 HR 0.83 (95%CI 0.45-1.52). ER+ patients, T+P showed HR 0.86 (95%CI 0.66-1.13) compared to T12 and HR 0.74 (95%CI 0.49-1.11) to T6. Among ER-, the values were HR 0.76 (95%CI 0.56-1.04) and HR 0.59 (95%CI 0.41-0.85), respectively. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, T+P demonstrated an ICER of $ 332,903 compared to T12, while T12 set side by side of T6 resulted in $ 42,774. In the subgroup N+, T+P presented $ 308,019 when compared to T12. T-DM1 was considered a cost-effective treatment with $ 3,031 compared to T12.

Conclusions

The combination T+P presented an benefit in the subgroup N+, but it was not considered cost-effective. T6 may be considered a therapeutic option in low budget scenarios for patients HR+/N-.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.