Cost-utility of "doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide" versus "gemcitabine and paclitaxel" for treatment of patients with breast cancer in Iran

11Citations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: A cost-utility analysis was performed to assess the cost-utility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens containing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) versus paclitaxel and gemcitabine (PG) for locally advanced breast cancer patients in Iran. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study in Namazi hospital in Shiraz, in the south of Iran covered 64 breast cancer patients. According to the random numbers, the patients were divided into two groups, 32 receiving AC and 32 PG. Costs were identified and measured from a community perspective. These items included medical and non-medical direct and indirect costs. In this study, a data collection form was used. To assess the utility of the two regimens, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was applied. Using a decision tree, we calculated the expected costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for both methods; also, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was assessed. Results: The results of the decision tree showed that in the AC arm, the expected cost was 39,170 US$ and the expected QALY was 3.39 and in the PG arm, the expected cost was 43,336 dollars and the expected QALY was 2.64. Sensitivity analysis showed the cost effectiveness of the AC and ICER=-5535 US$. Conclusions: Overall, the results showed that AC to be superior to PG in treatment of patients with breast cancer, being less costly and more effective.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hatam, N., Askarian, M., Javan-Noghabi, J., Ahmadloo, N., & Mohammadianpanah, M. (2016). Cost-utility of “doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide” versus “gemcitabine and paclitaxel” for treatment of patients with breast cancer in Iran. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 16(18), 8265–8270. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.18.8265

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free