BACKGROUND: Current chemotherapy in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients has demonstrated minimal to no improvements in survival. Despite the lack of benefit, significant resources are utilized with such therapies. Therefore, the objective in the current study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of salvage chemotherapy for patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS: A decision analysis model evaluated a hypothetical cohort of 4000 platinum-resistant patients with recurrent EOC. Several chemotherapy strategies were analyzed: 1) best supportive care (BSC); 2) second-line chemotherapy-monotherapy; 3) second-line chemotherapy-combination therapy; 4) third-line chemotherapy after disease progression on second-line monotherapy; and 5) third-line chemotherapy after disease progression on second-line combination therapy. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all pertinent uncertainties. RESULTS: Using costs alone, BSC was the only definitive cost-effective treatment for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer patients, and second-line monotherapy was a reasonable cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 64,104 dollars. The cost-effectiveness ranged from 4,065 dollars per month of overall survival (OS) for BSC to 12,927 dollars for third-line previous combination therapy. Compared with BSC, second-line monotherapy gained an additional 3 months of OS, with a cost-effectiveness of 4,703 dollars per month of OS. Second-line combination therapy and third-line therapies exhibited unfavorable ICER. CONCLUSIONS: The current decision analysis was intended to be thought-provoking and bring awareness to the high costs of subsequent chemotherapy with limited effectiveness in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant EOC. Although actual patients may receive multiple lines of chemotherapy, from the perspective of costs alone this model using a hypothetical cohort demonstrated that best supportive care was the only cost-effective strategy, with second-line monotherapy appearing to be a reasonable cost-effective strategy given current chemotherapeutic options. Copyright 2006 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Current chemotherapy in platinum-resistant ovarian cancerpatients has demonstrated minimal to no improvements in survival. Despite the lack of benefit, significant resources are utilized with such therapies. Therefore, the objective in the current study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of salvage chemotherapy for patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS: A decision analysis model evaluated a hypothetical cohort of 4000 platinum-resistant patients with recurrent EOC. Several chemotherapy strategies were analyzed: 1) best supportive care (BSC); 2) second-line chemotherapy-monotherapy; 3) second-line chemotherapy-combination therapy; 4) third-line chemotherapy after disease progression on second-line monotherapy; and 5) third-line chemotherapy after disease progression on second-line combination therapy. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all pertinent uncertainties. RESULTS: Using costs alone, BSC was the only definitive cost-effective treatment for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancerpatients, and second-line monotherapy was a reasonable cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 64,104 dollars. The cost-effectiveness ranged from 4,065 dollars per month of overall survival (OS) for BSC to 12,927 dollars for third-line previous combination therapy. Compared with BSC, second-line monotherapy gained an additional 3 months of OS, with a cost-effectiveness of 4,703 dollars per month of OS. Second-line combination therapy and third-line therapies exhibited unfavorable ICER. CONCLUSIONS: The current decision analysis was intended to be thought-provoking and bring awareness to the high costs of subsequent chemotherapy with limited effectiveness in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant EOC. Although actual patients may receive multiple lines of chemotherapy, from the perspective of costs alone this model using a hypothetical cohort demonstrated that best supportive care was the only cost-effective strategy, with second-line monotherapy appearing to be a reasonable cost-effective strategy given current chemotherapeutic options. Copyright 2006 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Victor R Grann; Priya R Patel; Judith S Jacobson; Ellen Warner; Daniel F Heitjan; Maxine Ashby-Thompson; Dawn L Hershman; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Lubomir Bodnar; Gabriel Wcislo; Anna Nasilowska; Katarzyna Szarlej-Wcislo; Agnieszka Gasowska-Bodnar; Marta Smoter; Cezary Szczylik Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2008-11-26 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Insiya B Poonawalla; Rohan C Parikh; Xianglin L Du; Helena M VonVille; David R Lairson Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Gong Yang; Xue Xiao; Daniel G Rosen; Xi Cheng; Xiaohua Wu; Bin Chang; Guangzhi Liu; Fengxia Xue; Imelda Mercado-Uribe; Paul Chiao; Xiang Du; Jinsong Liu Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-02-21 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Peter A Ubel; Scott R Berry; Eric Nadler; Chaim M Bell; Michael A Kozminski; Jennifer A Palmer; William K Evans; Elizabeth L Strevel; Peter J Neumann Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: John K Chan; Thomas J Herzog; Lilian Hu; Bradley J Monk; Tuyen Kiet; Kevin Blansit; Daniel S Kapp; Xinhua Yu Journal: Oncologist Date: 2014-04-10