Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 9, 2025

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cancer Drug Sensitization In Vitro and In Vivo
Published on: February 6, 2015
Capivasertib cost-effectiveness in treating advanced breast cancer: A US health care perspective
Chijioke Okeke1,2, Javeria Khalid2, J Douglas Thornton1,2
1The Prescription Drug Misuse Education and Research Center, College of Pharmacy, University of Houston, TX.
Background:
Capivasertib has gained US Food and Drug Administration approval in combination with a hormonal-based regimen (eg, fulvestrant) for managing hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer, with results from the CapiTello-291 trial showing Capivasertib plus fulvestrant to have superior efficacy compared with fulvestrant alone.
Objective:
To examine the cost-effectiveness of capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs fulvestrant alone for treating HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer in the United States from a payer's perspective.
Methods:
A Markov model of 708 participants with 3 health states (progression-free, progressive disease, death) from CapiTello-291 trial data was used to compare the costs and efficacy of the two treatment strategies on TreeAge Pro software. This model adopted a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) from a US health care perspective. A 10-year lifetime horizon with a monthly cycle length was used with a 3% discount on costs and utilities derived from previously published resources. To assess our model's uncertainty, multiple one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using various distribution ranges of our model parameters were conducted.
Results:
In the base model, capivasertib plus fulvestrant treatment was expected to generate an incremental 0.62 QALYs at an incremental cost of $79,117.66, which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $128,283.61/QALY. Our sensitivity analysis shows that at willingness-to-pay levels of $130,000/QALY and $500,100/QALY, the likelihood of capivasertib plus fulvestrant being cost-effective compared with fulvestrant monotherapy was 50% and 100%, respectively.
Conclusions:
The findings from this study suggest that adding capivasertib to fulvestrant treatment is not cost-effective when compared with fulvestrant alone, from the perspective of the US health care system. Considering the notable therapeutic impact that the inclusion of this medication in standard treatment plans can have, it is necessary to engage in more extensive talks and negotiations over the pricing of this newly approved medication.
More Related Videos
06:15Tumor Treating Field Therapy in Combination with Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Recurrent Glioblastoma
Published on: October 27, 2014
08:57Sample Extraction and Simultaneous Chromatographic Quantitation of Doxorubicin and Mitomycin C Following Drug Combination Delivery in Nanoparticles to Tumor-bearing Mice
Published on: October 5, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Treatment Resistant Cancers
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against...
Cancer Therapies
However, cancer treatments can pose several challenges, as therapies used to kill cancer cells are generally also toxic to normal cells. Moreover, cancer cells mutate rapidly and can develop resistance to chemical agents or radiation therapy. Besides, all types of cancer cells may not respond to the same therapy. Some cancer cells respond to one...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Cancer Survival Analysis
Kaplan-Meier Approach