Abstract
To assess the cost-effectiveness of a cancer care coordinator (CCC) in helping women with estrogen receptor positive (ER+) early breast cancer persist with tamoxifen for 5 years.
We investigated the cost-effectiveness of a CCC across eight breast cancer subtypes, defined by progesterone receptor (PR) status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, and local/regional spread. These subtypes range from excellent to poorer prognoses. The CCC helped in improving tamoxifen persistence by providing information, checking-in by phone, and "troubleshooting" concerns. We constructed a Markov macrosimulation model to estimate health gain (in quality-adjusted life-years or QALYs) and health system costs in New Zealand, compared with no CCC. Participants were modeled until death or till the age of 110 years. Some input parameters (e.g., the impact of a CCC on tamoxifen persistence) had sparse evidence. Therefore, we used estimates with generous uncertainty and conducted sensitivity analyses.
The cost-effectiveness of a CCC for regional ER+/PR-/HER2+ breast cancer (worst prognosis) was NZ $23,400 (US $15,800) per QALY gained, compared with NZ $368,500 (US $248,800) for local ER+/PR+/HER2- breast cancer (best prognosis). Using a cost-effectiveness threshold of NZ $45,000 (US $30,400) per QALY, a CCC would be cost-effective only in the four subtypes with the worst prognoses.
There is value in investigating cost-effectiveness by different subtypes within a disease. In this example of breast cancer, the poorer the prognosis, the greater the health gains from a CCC and the better the cost-effectiveness. Incorporating heterogeneity in a cost-utility analysis is important and can inform resource allocation decisions. It is also feasible to undertake in practice.