Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab in advanced triple-negative breast cancer

Table 3 Results of scenario analyses

Assumptions	Incremental QALY	Incremental cost (S$)	ICER (S$/QALY)
Utilities
Progression-free utility 1.0 ^a	0.443	117,060	264,097
Progressed disease utility 1.0 ^a	0.554	117,060	211,392
Both progression-free and progressed disease utilities 1.0 ^a	0.636	117,060	183,965
Cost
Subsequent lines regimens according to local clinical practice ^b	0.361	124,154	344,216
Nab-paclitaxel stopped at 6 months in the atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel group ^c	0.361	96,018	266,210
Atezolizumab at 50% cost	0.361	70,630	195,821
Atezolizumab at 30% cost	0.361	52,057	144,329
Atezolizumab at 10% cost	0.361	33,485	92,838
Atezolizumab alone free ^a	0.361	24,199	67,092
Nab-paclitaxel alone free^a	0.361	101,971	282,714
Both atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel at 50% cost	0.361	63,085	174,903
Both atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel at 30% cost	0.361	41,495	115,044
Both atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel at 10% cost	0.361	19,905	55,185
Both atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel free ^a	0.361	9109	25,256

^aHighly favourable scenarios to assess the lower limit of ICER
^bThe average cost of subsequent-lines treatments was calculated based on the cost of drugs commonly used in local practice (capecitabine, eribulin and doxorubicin), weighted according to the proportion of use
^cCost of drugs and the associated administration and monitoring fees were calculated assuming nab-paclitaxel was given for a maximum of 6 months (in line with potential clinical practice)

ISSN: 1472-6963