Economic Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Treatment Strategies for HER2 Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

authors:

avatar Mohammad Akbari 1 , avatar Maryam Seyednezhad 2 , avatar Saeed Heidari 3 , avatar Mohammad Moradi-joo ORCID 4 , *

Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
National Center for Health Insurance Research, Tehran, Iran
Social Development & Health Promotion Research Center, Health Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran
International Journal of Cancer Management: Vol.16, issue 1; e142814
published online: December 20, 2023
article type: Systematic Review
received: November 14, 2023
revised: November 21, 2023
accepted: November 27, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5812/ijcm-142814

how to cite: Akbari M, Seyednezhad M, Heidari S, Moradi-joo M. Economic Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Treatment Strategies for HER2 Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review. Int J Cancer Manag. 2023;16(1):e142814. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijcm-142814.

Abstract

Context:

There are several neoadjuvant treatment strategies for HER2-positive breast cancer (BC). Studies have investigated different aspects of these strategies and presented different findings.

Objectives:

This study aimed at collecting and interpreting economic evaluation studies related to neoadjuvant treatment strategies for HER2-positive BC.

Methods:

In this systematic review, PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases were searched without a time limit between May and October 2023. Google Scholar search engine was also used to complete the search process. Two authors independently determined the eligibility of the study. To assess the quality of the studies, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines were used. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or consultation with a third researcher. As this review is descriptive, numerical data were not extracted for statistical analysis.

Results:

Out of 234 studies found in the first stage, 21 studies from 14 countries were included. The strategies that have been approved by studies include THP (taxol, trastuzumab, pertuzumab), PTD (Pertuzumab in combination with trastuzumab and docetaxel), TH (docetaxel and trastuzumab), T-DM1 (trastuzumab emtansine), and HP (trastuzumab plus pertuzumab).

Conclusions:

The findings of this systematic review show that the reported strategies in the treatment of HER2-positive BC patients are cost-effective in different settings. While the findings of this review provide largely positive results, the characteristics of each strategy should be considered.

1. Context

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women in the world. BC caused 685 000 deaths worldwide in 2020. About half of BC occurs in women, who have no specific risk factors other than gender and age (1).

Approximately 15 to 30% of patients with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) protein overexpression and/or HER2 gene amplification positive disease, which is associated with a poor prognosis (2-4).

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is used for patients with early and advanced BC. It is also used for locally advanced BC, inflammatory BC, and removal of large tumors to allow breast-conserving treatment (5). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy can also serve as an in vivo testing of chemotherapy sensitivity (6). Furthermore, neoadjuvant chemotherapy provides an opportunity to individualize treatment and an opportunity to assess response to a regimen on a patient-by-patient basis and provide prognostic information based on clinical and pathologic response (5, 7).

In recent decades, neoadjuvant chemotherapy has gained considerable importance for the treatment of BC. There are several neoadjuvant treatment strategies for HER2-positive BC. In addition, drugs are used in the neoadjuvant setting (8). There are various agents to target HER2 positive including trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and antibody-drug combinations (such as T-DM1). These targeted drugs have significantly changed the prognosis of patients with HER2-positive BC over time (9). Since these biological agents are antibodies not chemicals, they are effective but expensive. When these treatments are targeted, they are combined with chemotherapy to be effective in killing cancer cells (1).

Several economic evaluation studies have been conducted regarding neoadjuvant treatment strategies for HER2-positive BC. Each of these studies has presented different findings and examined different aspects. Collecting various economic evaluation evidence on these strategies will help clinicians, policymakers, decision-makers, and other stakeholders to make decisions about resource allocation, prioritization, and optimization of clinical outcomes.

2. Objectives

Therefore, this study aimed at collecting and interpreting economic evaluation studies related to neoadjuvant treatment strategies for HER2-positive BC.

3. Methods

3.1. Design

This systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines for conducting reviews as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook (10). The collection and reporting of the study included the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (11).

3.2. Study Search

An unrestricted literature search was conducted between May and October 2023 in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), ScienceDirect, and Scopus. Google Scholar search engine was used to complete the search process. The search was restricted to English-language publications. Using MeSH (Medical Subject Headings), the following terms were searched together with Boolean operators: (“Breast Cancer” OR “Breast Neoplasm”) AND (“Neoadjuvant”) AND (“Economic Evaluation” OR “Cost-Effectiveness” OR “Cost-Utility” OR “Cost-Consequences” OR “Cost-Benefit”) AND (“HER2”).

3.3. Study Selection and Data Extraction

Two authors (MMJ, MSN) independently selected studies based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted detailed data from eligible studies. Any disagreement regarding eligibility was resolved by consensus.

The inclusion criteria were as follows:

• Studies that compare the cost of at least two strategies

• Studies published in English

The exclusion criteria were as follows:

• Studies, where the outcome was not clearly stated

• Studies, whose data could not be extracted

• Studies that included duplicate data

The items for data extraction were the year of publication, first authors, type of study, study setting, characteristics of participants, model, perspective, time horizon, sample size, strategies/ regimens, outcome/outcomes, and findings. Any dispute regarding study selection and data extraction was resolved by consensus and, if necessary, refereed by a third author.

3.4. Quality Assessment

To assess the quality of the studies, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines (12) were used, which evaluate 24 criteria. The included studies were assessed for quality and classified into 3 categories including high (75% or more), moderate (from 50 to 74.9%), and low quality (less than 50%) (13, 14).

3.5. Data Synthesis

To provide an understandable summary of the included evidence, study characteristics were reviewed and key findings were categorized and presented. The categories of key elements in each study were discussed and agreed upon by the authors. The results of the included studies were tabulated and descriptively summarized. As this review is descriptive, numerical data were not extracted for statistical analysis.

4. Results

From 234 unique citations identified through a literature search, 49 full‐text records were reviewed. Of these, 21 studies have been included and reviewed. The flow of studies through the screening process is presented in Figure 1.

The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flowchart.
The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flowchart.
Figure 1.

The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flowchart.

4.1. Characteristics of Included Studies

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the included studies. The publication year of the included studies was from 2014 to 2023. Twenty-one studies were included from 14 countries. Seven studies were conducted in the United States (3, 15-20), 2 studies were conducted in Taiwan (21, 22), and 12 other studies were conducted in Brazil (23), Canada (24), China (25), Germany (26), Italy (27), Japan (28), Macedonia (29), Mexico (30), Portugal (31), Russia (32), Singapore (33), and Spain (34).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Studies Included in This Systematic Review

Author/Authors (References)YearSettingType of StudyPatientsModelPerspectiveTime HorizonStrategies/RegimensOutcome/OutcomesFindings
Hassett et al. (15)2020United StatesEconomic EvaluationStage II–III HER2-positive BCDecision-analyticPayer (Medicare)5 yearsTwo de-escalated regimens; (1) T-DM1; (2) TH; Three intensive regimens: (1) TCHP; (2) THP+ AC; (3) THPQALYs and costsAmong the de-escalated strategies: TH was the most cost-effective; Among intensive neoadjuvant strategies, THP treatment was more effective and less costly than TCHP or THP + AC.; For HR-positive cancer, neoadjuvant TH dominated the THP strategy.
Hendrix et al. (3)2022United StatesCohort & Economic EvaluationHigh-risk HER2-positive ESBCDecision-analytic-10 years(1) A group of patients treated with T-DM1; (2) A hypothetical group without disease recurrenceRecurrence, BC deaths, direct medical costs, and costs due to lost productivityDespite the impressive benefits of T-DM1 therapy in patients with HER2-positive ESBC, those who do not achieve PCR face a clinically significant risk in the next 10 years, especially in the first 5 years after treatment.
Kunst et al. (16)2020United StatesEconomic EvaluationERBB2-positive BCDecision-analyticPayer-(1) HP; (2) THP; (3) DDAC-THP; (4) TCHPLifetime costs, QALYs and; ICERStrategy 3 was associated with the lowest costs ($415,833) and the highest health benefits (10.73 QALYs), dominating all other strategies.
Sussell et al. (17)2022United StatesEconomic EvaluationHigh-Risk HER2-Positive ESBCHybrid decision-tree/Markov--(1) Adjuvant targeted therapy (T-DM1 or H) in the case of RD; (2) Neoadjuvant targeted therapy (infused PH versus subcutaneous FDC of pertuzumab and trastuzumab versus trastuzumab alone (H)); (3) Use of branded or biosimilar H; (4) Adjuvant targeted therapy if PCR is achieved (PH, FDC, or H)Costs, non-metastatic recurrence, remission, invasive disease-free, and death.Dual targeted therapy strategy via FDC (T-DM1 in the case of RD) is a cost-effective treatment.
Attard et al. (24)2015CanadaCost-utility analysisHER2-positive early BCMarkovPayer28 years(1) With Pertuzumab; (2) Without PertuzumabLife-years, QALYs, and direct medical costsGiven the reasonable cost and improved clinical effectiveness per QALY, the addition of pertuzumab in the neoadjuvant setting is a desirable treatment option for HER2-positive ebc patients.
Krawczyk et al. (26)2023GermanyCompare the treatment costsHER2-positive early BC-Oncological outpatient clinic of a certified breast center at a university hospital-(1) Trastuzumab / pertuzumab; (2) Ttrastuzumab; (3) T-DM1CostThe T-DM1 treatment strategy is associated with a 30% lower contribution margin than the other two strategies.
Borges et al. (31)2021PortugalCost estimateHER2-positive BCBinary logistic regressionHospital-AC-DH regimen comprised 8 cycles of neoadjuvant therapy (4 cycles of cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin followed by 4 cycles trastuzumab + ofdocetaxel) (2012 – 2015); 2-AC-DHP regimen included also pertuzumab as neoadjuvant treatment (2015 - 2017)ICERThe findings obtained in the AC-DHP group, which included Pertuzumab as a neoadjuvant treatment, showed better clinical outcomes compared to the AC-DH group
Zambelli et al. (27)2023ItalyCost-consequence analysisHigh-risk HER2-positive early BCMarkovSocietal5 years(1) PTC; (2) TCLife of years, QALY, direct costs, indirect costs, cumulative incidence of loco-regional/ distant recurrencesPTC strategy can be a cost-saving option for patients with a high risk of recurrence.
Kashiura et al. (23)2019BrazilEstimate the economic impactHER2-positive BC--5 years(1) PTC; (2) TCDirect medical costsPTC strategy in neoadjuvant therapy shows cost savings in patients' next-line treatments.
Kapedanovska Nestorovska et al. (29)2018MacedoniaCost-utilityHER2 positive locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage BCMarkov-20 Years(1) PTD; (2) TDQALYs, direct costs, and ICERPTD is a potentially cost-effective treatment option for HER2-positive BC.
Colomer et al. (34)2016SpainCost-utilityHER2-positive BCMarkov--(1) PTD; (2) TDQALYsCombination of PTD in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy results in QALY gain and cost savings.
Wang et al. (25)2021ChinaCost-effectivenessHER2-positive BCMarkovpayers-(1) PTD; (2) TDQALYs and ICERThe PTD regimen increased patients' life expectancy and improved their quality of life, but medical costs also increased. Based on the current payment threshold in China, the PTD regime had no economic advantage over the TD regime.
Cheng et al. (33)2021SingaporeCost-effectivenessHER2-positive metastatic BCA partitioned survival--Trastuzumab biosimilar and docetaxel with or without pertuzumabQALYs and; ICERTrastuzumab biosimilar and docetaxel with pertuzumab reduced the cost, but the ICER was high and not cost-effective in the Singaporean context.
Moriwaki et al. (28)2021JapanEconomic EvaluationHER2-positive metastatic BCA partitioned survivalJapanese healthcare system20 years(1) PTD; (2) TDQALYs, ICER, overall survival, regression-free survival, and direct medical costsTreatment with PTD will not be as cost-effective as first-line therapy.
Durkee et al. (19)2016United StatesCost-effectivenessHER2 overexpressing metastatic BCMarkov--docetaxel plus trastuzumab (TH) with or without pertuzumabQALYs, ICER and medical costsTHP was not cost-effective in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer in the US context
Diaby et al. (18)2016United StatesCost-effectivenessHER2-positive metastatic; BCMarkov-(1) THP as first-line therapy; (2) T-DM1 as second-line therapy; (3) lapatinib/capecitabine third-line therapyProgression-free survival, costs, QALYs, ICERTHP as first-line therapy and T-DM1 as second-line therapy requires at least a 50% reduction in the total drug cost to be considered a cost-effective strategy.
Leung et al. (22)2018TaiwanCost-effectivenessHER-2 positive metastatic BCMarkovNational Health Insurance(1) PTD; (2) TDQALYs, costs in New Taiwan dollars (NT$), and ICERFirst-line treatment of PTD will be cost-effective, but only assuming optimal drug cost.
Diaby et al. (30)2017MexicoEconomic evaluationHER2-positive metastatic; BCMarkovPublic and private payerWeekly over their remaining life expectancies within the modelFour different HER2-targeted treatment sequencesProgression-free survival, costs, QALYs, and ICERUsing three or more lines of trastuzumab in combination with other regimens, but not with T-DM1 or pertuzumab, is the most cost-effective option.
Babigumira et al. (20)2014United StatesCost-effectivenessHER2+, locally advanced, inflammatory, or early BCCombined decision-analytic and partitioned survival--(1) TH; (2) THP; (3) HP; (4) TPQALYs, cost, drug monitoring, drug administration, clinical management of adverse events, and progressive disease (PD)THP was predicted to be cost-effective in the neoadjuvant setting.
Ignatyeva and Khachatryan (32)2016RussiaCost-utilityLocally Advanced, Inflammatory, or Early HER-2-positive BCMarkovPayer4 weeks(1) THP; (2) THQALY and ICERNeoadjuvant treatment with THP is an efficient option for treating patients.
Diaby et al. (21)2020TaiwanCost-effectivenessHER-2 positive metastatic BCMarkovTaiwanese National Health Insurance Administration’s (TNHIA)Over a lifetimeFour treatment sequencesDisease progression, transition probabilities, probability of adverse events, Costs and QALYsThe first-line as trastuzumab plus docetaxel, and then in the second and third-lines, the use of TDM1 and trastuzumab plus lapatinib are the most cost-effective strategies.

The economic evaluation analysis model used in the studies was different; 11 studies have used the Markov model (18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34), 3 studies have used the decision-analytic model (decision trees) (3, 15, 16), 2 studies have used partitioned survival (28, 33), 1 study has used Binary logistic regression model (31), 1 study has used combined decision tree (decision-analytic) and partitioned survival (area under the curve) (20), 1 study has used hybrid decision-tree/Markov (17), and 2 studies have not used any model (23, 26).

Among the included studies, 8 studies have used the payer perspective (15, 16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30, 32), 1 study has used the healthcare system perspective (28), 1 study has used the hospital perspective (31), 1 study has used the societal perspective (27), 1 study has used the oncological outpatient clinic perspective of a certified breast center at a university hospital (26), and 9 studies have not considered any prospect for economic evaluation (3, 17-20, 23, 29, 33, 34). Time horizons ranged from 4 weeks (32) to a lifetime (21). Three studies used a 5-year horizon (15, 23, 27).

4.2. Quality of the Studies Included

Based on the CHEERS checklist, 16 studies (3, 15-22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33) were evaluated as high quality (75.0% or more) and 5 studies (23, 26, 29, 31, 34) as moderate quality (from 50.0 to 74.9%). Among the included studies, no study was evaluated as low quality (less than 50.0%).

4.3. Description of the Strategies

In 21 included studies, 58 strategies or regimes were analyzed for economic evaluation. THP (taxol, trastuzumab, pertuzumab) in 8 studies, PTD (Pertuzumab in combination with trastuzumab and docetaxel) in 5 studies, TH (docetaxel and trastuzumab) in 5 studies, T-DM1 (trastuzumab emtansine) in 4 studies, and HP (trastuzumab plus pertuzumab) have been investigated in 3 studies.

5. Discussion

Based on the literature review, this is the first systematic review study on the cost and cost-effectiveness of nonadjuvant treatment strategies for HER2-positive BC. Twenty-one studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this systematic review. The findings of the present study showed that the payer's perspective was used more and the most common types of models were Markov models, decision trees, and partitioned survival. Overall, 16 studies were rated as having high reporting quality (75 - 96%).

The results of this study showed that PTD is a potentially cost-effective treatment option for HER2-positive BC. Wang et al.'s (25) study found that not only the PTD regimen increased patients' life expectancy and improved their quality of life, but also increased medical costs. Therefore, it has no economic advantage over the TD method. Kapedanovska Nestorovska et al. (29) showed that PTD is a potentially cost-effective treatment option. Colomer et al.’s research (34) showed that a combination of PTD leads to increased QALYs and cost savings. Leung et al.'s study (22) had a different finding and showed that PTD would be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for HER-2 positive mBC, but only under favorable drug cost assumptions. Moriwaki et al.'s study (28) had a contrasting finding, suggesting that treatment with PTD would not be as cost-effective as first-line therapy.

The results of this study showed that one of the dominant strategies is THP. Hassett et al.’s study (15) showed that treatment with THP (among intensive neoadjuvant strategies) was more effective and less expensive than TCHP or THP + AC. Kunst et al. (16) showed that the DDAC-THP strategy was associated with the highest Health Utilities (10.73 QALYs) and the lowest costs ($415,833), dominating all other strategies. Diaby et al.’s study (18) showed that the treatment strategy with THP as the first-line followed by the T-DM1 treatment strategy as the second-line requires at least a 50% reduction in the total cost of drug preparation to be considered a cost-effective strategy. Ignatyeva and Khachatryan's study (32) showed that neoadjuvant treatment with THP is an efficient treatment option. Babigumira’s study (20) found that the THP regimen, in addition to being clinically effective, would be economically desirable in the United States. The results of Durkee et al.’s study (19) had a different finding, showing that THP was not cost-effective in patients with metastatic HER2-positive BC in the United States.

The findings of this study showed that one of the effective strategies in the treatment of patients with HER2-positive ESBC is T-DM1. Hendrix et al.’s study (3) showed that despite the significant benefits of T-DM1 therapy, those who do not achieve PCR, face significant clinical risk over the next 10 years, particularly in the first 5 years after treatment. Diaby et al.’s study (21) showed that the first line as trastuzumab plus docetaxel, and then in the second and third lines, the use of TDM1 and trastuzumab plus lapatinib are the most cost-effective strategies. Sussell et al.’s study (17) showed that dual-targeted therapy via FDC (with transfer to T-DM1 in case of RD) is a cost-effective treatment strategy. Krawczyk et al. (26) showed that the T-DM1 treatment strategy is associated with a 30% lower contribution margin than the other strategies (Trastuzumab with or without pertuzumab).

Studies have shown that neoadjuvant treatment did not differ much in terms of overall survival and disease progression compared to adjuvant treatment (35). Another study showed that HER2+ exosomes benefit tumor progression by suppressing trastuzumab-induced tumor growth inhibition and Natural Killer cell cytotoxicity. Also, simultaneous blocking of exosome release is an effective approach to improve the therapeutic effects of trastuzumab, and potentially other HER2-directed mAbs (36). Other studies have shown that BC cases with ER-/HER2+ tumors had shorter survival than ER+/PR+/HER2- tumors (37).

5.1. Limitations

Limitations of this study include significant heterogeneity in the design and treatment strategies/regimens used in each study.

5.2. Conclusions

The results of this systematic review study show that the reported strategies in the treatment of HER2-positive BC patients are cost-effective in different settings. While the findings of this review provide largely positive results, the characteristics of each strategy should be considered.

Although the overall quality of the included studies was good, future economic evaluations should further improve their methods, especially as the perspectives of other stakeholders should be considered.

References

  • 1.

    Breast cancer. World Health Organization; 2023, [cited 2023 Jul 12]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer.

  • 2.

    Cronin KA, Harlan LC, Dodd KW, Abrams JS, Ballard-Barbash R. Population-based estimate of the prevalence of HER-2 positive breast cancer tumors for early stage patients in the US. Cancer Invest. 2010;28(9):963-8. [PubMed ID: 20690807]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5094051]. https://doi.org/10.3109/07357907.2010.496759.

  • 3.

    Hendrix N, Oestreicher N, Lalla D, Dolan CM, Fisher KA, Veenstra DL, et al. Residual Disease Burden After Neoadjuvant Therapy Among US Patients With High-Risk HER2-positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Population Effectiveness Model. Clin Breast Cancer. 2022;22(8):781-91. [PubMed ID: 36220724]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2022.08.012.

  • 4.

    Garrison LJ, Lubeck D, Lalla D, Paton V, Dueck A, Perez EA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting for treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer. 2007;110(3):489-98. [PubMed ID: 17592827]. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22806.

  • 5.

    Masood S. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancers. Womens Health (Lond). 2016;12(5):480-91. [PubMed ID: 27885165]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5373271]. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745505716677139.

  • 6.

    Abdel-Razeq H, Marei L. Current neoadjuvant treatment options for HER2-positive breast cancer. Biologics. 2011;5:87-94. [PubMed ID: 21847344]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3156251]. https://doi.org/10.2147/BTT.S22917.

  • 7.

    Spanheimer PM, Carr JC, Thomas A, Sugg SL, Scott-Conner CE, Liao J, et al. The response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts clinical outcome and increases breast conservation in advanced breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2013;206(1):2-7. [PubMed ID: 23375759]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3644520]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.10.025.

  • 8.

    Steenbruggen TG, van Ramshorst MS, Kok M, Linn SC, Smorenburg CH, Sonke GS. Neoadjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer: Established Concepts and Emerging Strategies. Drugs. 2017;77(12):1313-36. [PubMed ID: 28616845]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-017-0774-5.

  • 9.

    Abbasvandi F, Bayat M, Akbari A, Shojaeian F, Zandi A, Rahmani J, et al. Tumor characteristics and survival rate of HER2-low breast cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):16719. [PubMed ID: 37794050]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10550984]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43186-8.

  • 10.

    Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. Wiley; 2008.

  • 11.

    Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. [PubMed ID: 25554246]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4320440]. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.

  • 12.

    Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231-50. [PubMed ID: 23538175]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002.

  • 13.

    Mangham-Jefferies L, Pitt C, Cousens S, Mills A, Schellenberg J. Cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve the utilization and provision of maternal and newborn health care in low-income and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:243. [PubMed ID: 25052536]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4223592]. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-243.

  • 14.

    Nguyen CP, Maas WJ, van der Zee DJ, Uyttenboogaart M, Buskens E, Lahr MMH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of improvement strategies for reperfusion treatments in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):315. [PubMed ID: 36998011]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10064746]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09310-0.

  • 15.

    Hassett MJ, Li H, Burstein HJ, Punglia RS. Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for HER2-positive breast cancer: cost-effectiveness and quality of life outcomes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;181(1):43-51. [PubMed ID: 32185586]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05587-5.

  • 16.

    Kunst N, Wang SY, Hood A, Mougalian SS, DiGiovanna MP, Adelson K, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant Treatment Strategies for Women With ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Breast Cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(11). e2027074. [PubMed ID: 33226431]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7684449]. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27074.

  • 17.

    Sussell JA, Roth JA, Meyer CS, Fung A, Hansen SA. Assessment of the Cost-Effectiveness of HER2-Targeted Treatment Pathways in the Neoadjuvant Treatment of High-Risk HER2-Positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Adv Ther. 2022;39(3):1375-92. [PubMed ID: 35094298]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-022-02047-y.

  • 18.

    Diaby V, Adunlin G, Ali AA, Zeichner SB, de Lima Lopes G, Kohn CG, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of 1st through 3rd line sequential targeted therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the United States. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160(1):187-96. [PubMed ID: 27654970]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5329168]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3978-6.

  • 19.

    Durkee BY, Qian Y, Pollom EL, King MT, Dudley SA, Shaffer JL, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Pertuzumab in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(9):902-9. [PubMed ID: 26351332]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5070553]. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.62.9105.

  • 20.

    Babigumira JB, Santos E, Antao VP, Wang B, Portera CC, Kamath T, et al. Projecting the cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab with trastuzumab and docetaxel in the neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive, locally advanced, inflammatory or early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15_suppl):642. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.642.

  • 21.

    Diaby V, Alqhtani H, van Boemmel-Wegmann S, Wang CY, Ali AA, Balkrishnan R, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab-containing treatment sequences for HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer patients in Taiwan. Breast. 2020;49:141-8. [PubMed ID: 31805500]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7375554]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.11.012.

  • 22.

    Leung HWC, Chan ALF, Muo CH, Leung JH. Cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab combined with trastuzumab and docetaxel as a first-line treatment for HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18(2):207-13. [PubMed ID: 28965422]. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1386559.

  • 23.

    Kashiura D, Puopolo GR, Carmo L, Leme-Souza R. Pcn133 Pertuzumab Plus Trastuzumab on the Neoadjuvant Treatment of Her2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Cost Analysis of Recurrent Disease on the Brazilian Public Healthcare System. Value in Health. 2019;22. S81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.257.

  • 24.

    Attard CL, Pepper AN, Brown ST, Thompson MF, Thuresson PO, Yunger S, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab therapy for locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer in Canada. J Med Econ. 2015;18(3):173-88. [PubMed ID: 25347449]. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2014.979938.

  • 25.

    Wang H, Wang Y, Gong R, Geng Y, Li L. Cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab and trastuzumab as a first-line treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in China. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10(11):11382-93. [PubMed ID: 34872264]. https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-21-2412.

  • 26.

    Krawczyk N, Ruckhaberle E, Lux MP, Fehm T, Greiling M, Osygus M. Is the (Neo)adjuvant Therapy of Patients with Primary HER2-positive Breast Cancer Cost-Covering?: Process Cost Analysis of Neoadjuvant and Post-Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy of Patients with Primary HER2-positive Breast Cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2023;83(3):321-32. [PubMed ID: 36908284]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9998176]. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1921-9336.

  • 27.

    Zambelli A, Cazzaniga M, La Verde N, Munzone E, Antonazzo IC, Mantovani LG, et al. A cost-consequence analysis of adding pertuzumab to the neoadjuvant combination therapy in HER2-positive high-risk early breast cancer in Italy. Breast. 2023;71:113-21. [PubMed ID: 37573652]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10428118]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2023.08.005.

  • 28.

    Moriwaki K, Uechi S, Fujiwara T, Hagino Y, Shimozuma K. Economic Evaluation of First-Line Pertuzumab Therapy in Patients with HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer in Japan. Pharmacoecon Open. 2021;5(3):437-47. [PubMed ID: 33483889]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8333148]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00254-3.

  • 29.

    Kapedanovska Nestorovska A, Sterjev Z, Naumovska Z, Dimovski A, Grozdanova A, Suturkova L. Pcn89 - Cost –Effectiveness Analysis of Pertuzumab as First Line Neoadjuvant Treatment Option for Patients Her2 + Breast Cancer in Republic of Macedonia. Value in Health. 2018;21. S29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.171.

  • 30.

    Diaby V, Ali AA, Williams KJ, Ezendu K, Soto-Perez-de-Celis E, Chavarri-Guerra Y, et al. Economic evaluation of sequencing strategies in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in Mexico: a contrast between public and private payer perspectives. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;166(3):951-63. [PubMed ID: 28840424]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4473-4.

  • 31.

    Borges A, Pereira F, Redondo P, Antunes L, Vieira C, Antunes P, et al. The addition of neoadjuvant pertuzumab for the treatment of HER2+ breast cancer: a cost estimate with real-world data. Health Econ Rev. 2021;11(1):33. [PubMed ID: 34505956]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8431932]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-021-00332-0.

  • 32.

    Ignatyeva V, Khachatryan G. Cost-Utility Analysis of Neoadjuvant Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab in Patients with Locally Advanced, Inflammatory, or Early HER-2 Positive Breast Cancer. Value in Health. 2016;19(7):A739-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.2247.

  • 33.

    Cheng LJ, Loke L, Lim EH, Pearce F, Aziz MIA, Ng K. Cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab and trastuzumab biosimilar combination therapy as initial treatment for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in Singapore. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;21(3):449-56. [PubMed ID: 33595372]. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2021.1880323.

  • 34.

    Colomer R, Ciruelos E, De la Haba J, Martín M, De Salas-Cansado M, Muñoz-Molina B, et al. Cost-Utility Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab and Docetaxel in Patients With HER2+ Breast Cancer in Spaincost-Utility Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab and Docetaxel in Patients With HER2+ Breast Cancer in Spain. Value in Health. 2016;19(7). A740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.2249.

  • 35.

    Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis JP. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(3):188-94. [PubMed ID: 15687361]. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji021.

  • 36.

    Hosseini R, Asef-Kabiri L, Sarvnaz H, Ghanavatinejad A, Rezayat F, Eskandari N, et al. Blockade of exosome release alters HER2 trafficking to the plasma membrane and gives a boost to Trastuzumab. Clin Transl Oncol. 2023;25(1):185-98. [PubMed ID: 36018441]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-022-02925-5.

  • 37.

    Poorolajal J, Nafissi N, Akbari ME, Mahjub H, Esmailnasab N, Babaee E. Breast Cancer Survival Analysis Based on Immunohistochemistry Subtypes (ER/PR/HER2): a Retrospective Cohort Study. Arch Iran Med. 2016;19(10):680-6. [PubMed ID: 27743431].