BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of centralized referral of patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was used to compare 2 referral strategies for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer: 1) referral to an expert center, with a rate of optimal primary cytoreduction of 75% and utilization of combined intraperitoneal and intravenous adjuvant chemotherapy, and 2) referral to a less experienced center, with a rate of optimal primary cytoreduction of 25% and adjuvant treatment that consisted predominantly of intravenous chemotherapy alone. The cost-effectiveness of each strategy was evaluated from the perspective of society. RESULTS: A cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that the strategy of expert center referral had an overall cost per patient of $50,652 and had an effectiveness of 5.12 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The strategy of referral to a less experienced center carried an overall cost of $39,957 and had an effectiveness of 2.33 QALYs. The expert center strategy was associated with an additional 2.78 QALYs at an incremental cost of $10,695 but was more cost-effective, with a cost-effective ratio of $9893 per QALY compared with $17,149 per QALY for the less experienced center referral strategy. Sensitivity analyses and a Monte Carlo simulation confirmed the robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: According to results from the decision-analysis model, centralized referral of patients with ovarian cancer to an expert center was a cost-effective healthcare strategy and represents a paradigm for quality cancer care, delivering superior patient outcomes at an economically affordable cost. Increased efforts to align current patterns of care with a universal strategy of centralized expert referral are warranted.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of centralized referral of patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was used to compare 2 referral strategies for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer: 1) referral to an expert center, with a rate of optimal primary cytoreduction of 75% and utilization of combined intraperitoneal and intravenous adjuvant chemotherapy, and 2) referral to a less experienced center, with a rate of optimal primary cytoreduction of 25% and adjuvant treatment that consisted predominantly of intravenous chemotherapy alone. The cost-effectiveness of each strategy was evaluated from the perspective of society. RESULTS: A cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that the strategy of expert center referral had an overall cost per patient of $50,652 and had an effectiveness of 5.12 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The strategy of referral to a less experienced center carried an overall cost of $39,957 and had an effectiveness of 2.33 QALYs. The expert center strategy was associated with an additional 2.78 QALYs at an incremental cost of $10,695 but was more cost-effective, with a cost-effective ratio of $9893 per QALY compared with $17,149 per QALY for the less experienced center referral strategy. Sensitivity analyses and a Monte Carlo simulation confirmed the robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: According to results from the decision-analysis model, centralized referral of patients with ovarian cancer to an expert center was a cost-effective healthcare strategy and represents a paradigm for quality cancer care, delivering superior patient outcomes at an economically affordable cost. Increased efforts to align current patterns of care with a universal strategy of centralized expert referral are warranted.
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: Renee A Cowan; Roisin E O'Cearbhaill; Ginger J Gardner; Douglas A Levine; Kara Long Roche; Yukio Sonoda; Oliver Zivanovic; William P Tew; Evis Sala; Yulia Lakhman; Hebert A Vargas Alvarez; Debra M Sarasohn; Svetlana Mironov; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Dennis S Chi Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: A K Sinno; X Li; R E Thompson; E J Tanner; K L Levinson; R L Stone; S M Temkin; A N Fader; D S Chi; K Long Roche Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Pawel Derlatka; Jacek Sienko; Laretta Grabowska-Derlatka; Piotr Palczewski; Anna Danska-Bidzinska; Mariusz Bidzinski; Krzysztof Czajkowski Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Laretta Grabowska-Derlatka; Pawel Derlatka; Wojciech Szeszkowski; Andrzej Cieszanowski Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-02-28 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: M-D Keyver-Paik; A Abramian; C Domröse; A Döser; T Höller; M Friedrich; W Meier; K Menn; W Kuhn Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Maximilian Marhold; Thais Topakian; Hermine Agis; Rupert Bartsch; Anna S Berghoff; Thomas Brodowicz; Thorsten Fuereder; Aysegül Ilhan-Mutlu; Barbara Kiesewetter; Michael Krainer; Gottfried J Locker; Christine Marosi; Gerald Prager; Manuela Schmidinger; Christiane Thallinger; Sabine Zöchbauer-Müller; Markus Raderer; Matthias Preusser; Wolfgang Lamm Journal: ESMO Open Date: 2020-10