Cited by 59Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer

Subcutaneous Trastuzumab (Herceptin®): A UK Time and Motion Study in Comparison with Intravenous Formulation for the Treatment of Patients with HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer

Open access
Burcombe, Russell, Chan, Steve, Simcock, Richard, Samanta, Kunal, Percival, Fran, Barrett-Lee, Peter·2013·Advances in Breast Cancer Research

Abstract

Aim: Firstly, to quantify active healthcare professional (HCP) time and costs associated with subcutaneous (SC) administration of trastuzumab (Herceptin?) compared with the standard intravenous infusion (IV) in the treatment of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer within the adjuvant PrefHer trial setting; secondly, to measure patient time in the care unit and patient infusion chair time for both routes of administration. Methods: A UK multi-centre prospective, observational Time and Motion study was conducted alongside the PrefHer trial (ClinicalTrials.gov id: NCT01401166). Trained observers measured the duration of each SC and IV related task that HCPs undertook and recorded patient time in the chemotherapy unit and infusion chair. The type and quantity of medical consumables used with each route of administration were also collected. Twenty-four patient episodes were recorded (12 SC, 12 IV). Mean total administration time was calculated as the mean sum of task times, both for IV and SC formulations. The mean cost of each route of administration was calculated as the mean cost of HCP time plus the mean cost of consumables used. HCP time was costed using Personal Social Services Research Unit. Consumables were costed using hospital pharmacy data and online sources. Results: Mean active HCP time for IV administration was 92.6 minutes compared with 24.6 minutes for SC administration. The mean cost for IV preparation and administration was £144.96 (£132.05 of HCP time and £12.92 of consumables) versus £33.15 (£31.99 of HCP time and £1.17 of consumables) for SC administration. Mean time spent in the care unit and in the infusion chair was 94.5 minutes and 75 minutes respectively for IV, and 30.3 minutes and 19.8 minutes for SC. SC administration of trastuzumab could translate to a time saving of 68 minutes (versus IV) with a total cost saving of £111.81 per patient episode. This equates to a potential saving of £2012.58 over a full course of adjuvant treatment (18 cycles). Conclusion: Substituting IV infusion with SC administration of trastuzumab may lead to a substantial reduction in active HCP time, patient chair and unit time, consumable use and overall costs. The reduced patient chair and unit time could provide increased capacity within existing resources.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4236/abcr.2013.24022

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a UK PrefHer time and motion substudy, total cost savings with subcutaneous administration versus intravenous were £111.81 per patient episode (95% CI 100.44-123.56; p < 0.001).

    “Total cost savings with SC administration (versus IV) were £111.81 per patient episode (95% confidence interval (CI) of this difference 100.44–123.56; p < 0.001) [42].”
  • Over a full course of treatment (18 cycles), subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab represented savings of approximately £2012.00 per patient compared with intravenous administration.

    “The authors concluded that, over a full course of treatment (18 cycles), subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab represented savings of approximately £2012.00 per patient compared with intravenous administration [42].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burcombe, R., Chan, S., Simcock, R., Samanta, K., Percival, F., & Barrett-Lee, P.
Affiliations
  • Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (GB)
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • Roche (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Velindre Cancer Centre (GB)
Venue
Advances in Breast Cancer Research
Published
2013
Volume
02
Issue
04
Pages
133-140
ISSN
  • 2168-1589 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-1597
OpenAlex
W1988149797
Cited by
59
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2
FWCI
6.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Advances in Breast Cancer Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › HER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Keywords
trastuzumab, subcutaneous administration, intravenous infusion, HER2-positive breast cancer, early breast cancer, adjuvant therapy, treatment costs, time and motion study, patient care time, medical consumables, route of administration comparison, cost reduction, health care utilization, quality of life

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review