761
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Article

Cost-effectiveness of intensive adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk breast cancer: Is tailored and dose-escalated chemotherapy with growth factor support (GFS) more costly and less effective than marrow-supported high-dose chemotherapy – results from a randomized study

, , , , , & show all
Pages 146-152 | Received 30 Nov 2005, Published online: 08 Jul 2009

Figures & data

Figure 1.  Box plot figures for direct health care costs between the two treatment groups. The boxes indicate the lower and upper quartiles and the central spot is the median. The upper end of the bar is the maximum and the lower end the minimum value.

Figure 1.  Box plot figures for direct health care costs between the two treatment groups. The boxes indicate the lower and upper quartiles and the central spot is the median. The upper end of the bar is the maximum and the lower end the minimum value.

Table I.  Mean costs by items in different treatment groups, A = dose-escalated FEC and B = high-dose chemotherapy with peripheral stem cell support (standard deviation in parentheses).

Figure 2.  Box-plot figures for the costs of the use of leukocyte growth factor between the groups. The boxes indicate the lower and upper quartiles and the central spot is the median. The upper end of the bar is the maximum and the lower end is the minimum value.

Figure 2.  Box-plot figures for the costs of the use of leukocyte growth factor between the groups. The boxes indicate the lower and upper quartiles and the central spot is the median. The upper end of the bar is the maximum and the lower end is the minimum value.

Figure 3.  The cost-effectiveness plane with direct health rate costs (vertical axis = incremental direct health care cost, €; horizontal axis = incremental effectiveness, survival days gained). In 84% of simulated cases treatment B was both more costly and less effective (Quadrant I), and in 16% more costly, but more effective (Quadrant II).

Figure 3.  The cost-effectiveness plane with direct health rate costs (vertical axis = incremental direct health care cost, €; horizontal axis = incremental effectiveness, survival days gained). In 84% of simulated cases treatment B was both more costly and less effective (Quadrant I), and in 16% more costly, but more effective (Quadrant II).

Figure 4.  The cost-effectiveness plane with total costs (vertical axis = incremental total cost, €; horizontal axis = incremental effectiveness, survival days gained). In 74% of simulated cases treatment B was both more costly and less effective (Quadrant I), in 14% more costly and more effective (Quadrant II), in 10% less costly and less effective (Quadrant III), and in 2% of cases less costly and more effective (Quadrant IV).

Figure 4.  The cost-effectiveness plane with total costs (vertical axis = incremental total cost, €; horizontal axis = incremental effectiveness, survival days gained). In 74% of simulated cases treatment B was both more costly and less effective (Quadrant I), in 14% more costly and more effective (Quadrant II), in 10% less costly and less effective (Quadrant III), and in 2% of cases less costly and more effective (Quadrant IV).

Figure 5.  The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for treatment B.

Figure 5.  The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for treatment B.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.