IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v37y2019i6d10.1007_s40273-018-0725-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fulvestrant for Untreated Hormone-Receptor Positive Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna Picot

    (University of Southampton)

  • Neelam Kalita

    (University of Southampton)

  • Wendy Gaisford

    (University of Southampton)

  • Petra Harris

    (University of Southampton)

  • Oluchukwu Onyimadu

    (University of Southampton)

  • Keith Cooper

    (University of Southampton)

Abstract

Clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence on fulvestrant for untreated hormone-receptor positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer was submitted to the single technology appraisal process of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence by the manufacturer of fulvestrant. The Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre was commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as an independent Evidence Review Group to critique the company’s submitted evidence. Fulvestrant was compared directly with anastrozole in two randomised controlled trials and was compared indirectly by means of a network meta-analysis with anastrozole, letrozole and tamoxifen. This article summarises the Evidence Review Group’s review of the company’s submission and summarises the guidance the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Appraisal Committee issued in January 2018. The Evidence Review Group had several concerns, the most important of which related to the degree to which fulvestrant might confer a benefit in overall survival. This was because mature data were not available from the key phase III trial FALCON. The economic model was sensitive to changes in overall survival and the Evidence Review Group considered the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was uncertain and likely to increase once mature results from FALCON become available. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Appraisal Committee concluded that fulvestrant could not be recommended for treating locally advanced or metastatic estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women who have not received previous endocrine therapy.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanna Picot & Neelam Kalita & Wendy Gaisford & Petra Harris & Oluchukwu Onyimadu & Keith Cooper, 2019. "Fulvestrant for Untreated Hormone-Receptor Positive Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 753-762, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0725-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0725-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0725-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-018-0725-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0725-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.