Cost-Utility of "Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide" versus "Gemcitabine and Paclitaxel" for Treatment of Patients with Breast Cancer in Iran

  • Hatam, Nahid (Department of Health Administration, School of Management and Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Askarian, Mehrdad (Department of Community Medicine, Shiraz Nephro-Urology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Javan-Noghabi, Javad (Department of Health Economics, School of Management and Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Ahmadloo, Niloofar (Department of Radiation Oncology, Namazi Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Mohammadianpanah, Mohammad (Colorectal Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2016.01.11


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.


Breast cancer;cost-utility;neoadjuvant therapy;doxorubicin;cyclophosphamide;gemcitabine;paclitaxel


  1. Adamsen L, Midtgaard J, Andersen C, et al (2004). Transforming the nature of fatigue through exercise: qualitative findings from a multidimensional exercise programme in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl), 13, 362-70.
  2. Akobundu E, Ju J, Blatt L, et al (2006). Cost-of-illness studies : a review of current methods. Pharmacoeconomics, 24, 869-90.
  3. Armour EP, White JR, DeWitt CC, et al (1996). Effects of continuous low-dose-rate brachytherapy on the rectum of the rat. Radiat Res, 145, 474-80.
  4. Bernard LM, Verma S, Thompson MF, et al (2011). A Canadian economic analysis of U.S. Oncology Adjuvant Trial 9735. Curr Oncol, 18, 67-75.
  5. Chen YM, Perng RP, Lee YC, et al (2002). Paclitaxel plus carboplatin, compared with paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, shows similar efficacy while more cost-effective: a randomized phase II study of combination chemotherapy against inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer previously untreated. Ann Oncol, 13, 108-15.
  6. Davari M, Yazdanpanah F, Aslani A, et al (2013). The Direct Medical Costs of Breast Cancer in Iran: Analyzing the Patient's Level Data from a Cancer Specific Hospital in Isfahan. Int J Prev Med, 4, 748-54.
  7. Del Gaudio D, Menonna-Quinn D (1998). Chemotherapy. Potential occupational hazards. Am J Nurs, 98, 59-65.
  8. Ferlay J, Autier P, Boniol M, et al (2007). Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. Ann Oncol, 18, 581-92.
  9. Groot MT, Baltussen R, Uyl-de Groot CA, et al (2006). Costs and health effects of breast cancer interventions in epidemiologically different regions of Africa, North America, and Asia. Breast J, 12, 81-90.
  10. Haghighat s, akbari e, ghafari s, et al (2013). economic burden of Diagnostic and therapeutic implications in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Journal of Breast Disease, 6.
  11. Hornberger JC, Best JH (2005). Cost utility in the United States of rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone for the treatment of elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Cancer, 103, 1644-51.
  12. Hurny C, Bernhard J, Coates AS, et al (1996). Impact of adjuvant therapy on quality of life in women with node-positive operable breast cancer. International Breast Cancer Study Group. Lancet, 347, 1279-84.
  13. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al (2011). Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin, 61, 69-90.
  14. Kolahdoozan S, Sadjadi A, Radmard AR, et al (2010). Five common cancers in Iran. Arch Iran Med, 13, 143-6.
  15. Lan NH, Laohasiriwong W, Stewart JF, et al (2013). Cost of treatment for breast cancer in central Vietnam. Global health action, 6.
  16. Liubao P, Xiaomin W, Chongqing T, et al (2009). Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer from a Chinese perspective: doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide versus docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide. Pharmacoeconomics, 27, 873-86.
  17. Marsland T, Robbins G, Marks A, et al (2010). Reducing cancer costs and improving quality through collaboration with payers: a proposal from the Florida society of clinical oncology. J Oncol Pract, 6, 265-9.
  18. Mohammadianpanah M, Ashouri Y, Hoseini S, et al (2012). The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy +/-letrozole in postmenopausal women with locally advanced breast cancer: a randomized phase III clinical trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 132, 853-61.
  19. Montazeri A, Harirchi I, Vahdani M, et al (1999). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Support Care Cancer, 7, 400-6.
  20. Mousavi SM, Gouya MM, Ramazani R, et al (2009). Cancer incidence and mortality in Iran. Ann Oncol, 20, 556-63.
  21. Omidvari S, Razzaghi S, Zamani A, et al (2015). Rate and Time of Ovarian Function Restoration in Menopausal Breast Cancer Patients Who Received Letrozole Following Chemotherapy. Middle East Journal of Cancer, 6, 35-42.
  22. Papadimitriou K, Ardavanis A, Kountourakis P (2010). Neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced breast cancer: Focus on chemotherapy and biological targeted treatments' armamentarium. J Thorac Dis, 2, 160-70.
  23. Ream E, Richardson A, Alexander-Dann C (2002). Facilitating patients' coping with fatigue during chemotherapy-pilot outcomes. Cancer Nurs, 25, 300-8.
  24. Rustoen T (1995). Hope and quality of life, two central issues for cancer patients: a theoretical analysis. Cancer Nurs, 18, 355-61.
  25. Shih YC, Halpern MT (2008). Economic evaluations of medical care interventions for cancer patients: how, why, and what does it mean? CA Cancer J Clin, 58, 231-44.
  26. Sorensen SV, Goh JW, Pan F, et al (2012). Incidence-based cost-ofillness model for metastatic breast cancer in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 28, 12-21.
  27. Stein KD, Jacobsen PB, Hann DM, et al (2000). Impact of hot flashes on quality of life among postmenopausal women being treated for breast cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage, 19, 436-45.
  28. Younis T, Rayson D, Skedgel C (2011). The cost-utility of adjuvant chemotherapy using docetaxel and cyclophosphamide compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer. Curr Oncol, 18, 288-96.

Cited by

  1. Co-Delivery of Gemcitabine and Paclitaxel in cRGD-Modified Long Circulating Nanoparticles with Asymmetric Lipid Layers for Breast Cancer Treatment vol.23, pp.11, 2018,