Cost-effectiveness of Sacituzumab Govitecan versus Single-agent Chemotherapy for Patients with Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in China

Lei Wang; Lulu Liu; Zhe Zhang; Fushu Li; Yi Ruan; Yao He; Jingbin Huang; Xiaoyuan Zheng

doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2024.04.010

Cost-effectiveness of Sacituzumab Govitecan versus Single-agent Chemotherapy for Patients with Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in China

Clin Breast Cancer. 2024 Apr 23:S1526-8209(24)00110-1. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2024.04.010. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Lei Wang¹, Lulu Liu², Zhe Zhang², Fushu Li¹, Yi Ruan¹, Yao He¹, Jingbin Huang³, Xiaoyuan Zheng⁴

Affiliations

¹ Pharmacy Department, Chongqing Emergency Medical Center, Chongqing University Central Hospital, Chongqing, China.
² Department of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
³ Department of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University, Chongqing, China. Electronic address: hjb20091364@126.com.
⁴ Pharmacy Department, Chongqing Emergency Medical Center, Chongqing University Central Hospital, Chongqing, China. Electronic address: XiaoyuanZheng20@126.com.

PMID: 38760263
DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2024.04.010

Abstract

Introduction: Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) have poor prognosis and survival outcomes. Sacituzumab govitecan was newly approved into Chinese market for mTNBC. However, whether its price matches the survival benefit still needs exploring. Here, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in patients with mTNBC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

Methods: A partitioned survival model consisting of three discrete health states was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus single-agent chemotherapy. The key clinical data in the model were from the ASCENT trial. Costs and utility inputs were collected from published literatures. Life-years gained, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated between 2 treatment strategies. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for uncertainty and verify model robustness. Subgroup and cost-threshold analysis were also performed.

Results: Sacituzumab govitecan provided an additional 0.25 QALYs and an incremental cost of $ 81,778.61 compared with chemotherapy, which was associated with an ICER of $ 323,603.84/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the model was most sensitive to the cost of sacituzumab govitecan, weight, and utility of progression-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the probability of sacituzumab govitecan being cost-effective was 0%. Considering a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of 3 times GDP, the maximum cost of sacituzumab govitecan that would make it cost-effective was $155.65 per unit (180 mg).

Conclusions: Sacituzumab govitecan was not cost-effective for patients with mTNBC compared with chemotherapy at the commonly adopted WTP threshold of 3 times GDP per capita per QALY in China.

Keywords: CEA; Chinese healthcare system; ICER; Partitioned survival model; mTNBC.