D J Sher1, R B Tishler, D Annino, R S Punglia. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA. dsher@lroc.harvard.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with node-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNC) have a significant risk of residual disease (RD) in the neck after treatment, despite optimal chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Adjuvant neck dissection (ND) after CRT has been considered standard treatment, but its morbidity has led investigators to consider using post-CRT imaging to determine the need for surgery. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) as predictors of the need for ND compared with ND for all patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a Markov model to describe health states in the 5 years after CRT for HNC in a 50-year-old man. We compared three strategies: dissect all patients, dissect patients with RD on CT, and dissect patients with RD on PET-CT. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to model uncertainty in PET-CT performance, up-front and salvage dissection costs, and patient utilities. RESULTS: ND only for patients with RD on PET-CT was the dominant strategy over a wide range of realistic and exaggerated assumptions. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that the PET-CT strategy was almost certainly cost-effective at a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $500,000/quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant ND reserved for patients with RD on PET-CT is the dominant and cost-effective strategy.
BACKGROUND:Patients with node-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNC) have a significant risk of residual disease (RD) in the neck after treatment, despite optimal chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Adjuvant neck dissection (ND) after CRT has been considered standard treatment, but its morbidity has led investigators to consider using post-CRT imaging to determine the need for surgery. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) as predictors of the need for ND compared with ND for all patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a Markov model to describe health states in the 5 years after CRT for HNC in a 50-year-old man. We compared three strategies: dissect all patients, dissect patients with RD on CT, and dissect patients with RD on PET-CT. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to model uncertainty in PET-CT performance, up-front and salvage dissection costs, and patient utilities. RESULTS: ND only for patients with RD on PET-CT was the dominant strategy over a wide range of realistic and exaggerated assumptions. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that the PET-CT strategy was almost certainly cost-effective at a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $500,000/quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant ND reserved for patients with RD on PET-CT is the dominant and cost-effective strategy.
Authors: P Lavertu; D J Adelstein; J P Saxton; M Secic; J R Wanamaker; I Eliachar; B G Wood; M Strome Journal: Head Neck Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Paul Verboom; Harm van Tinteren; Otto S Hoekstra; Egbert F Smit; Jan H A M van den Bergh; Ad J M Schreurs; Roland A L M Stallaert; Piet C M van Velthoven; Emile F I Comans; Fred W Diepenhorst; Johan C van Mourik; Pieter E Postmus; Maarten Boers; Els W M Grijseels; Gerrit J J Teule; Carin A Uyl-de Groot Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-05-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Scott A McHam; David J Adelstein; Lisa A Rybicki; Pierre Lavertu; Ramon M Esclamado; Benjamin G Wood; Marshall Strome; Marjorie A Carroll Journal: Head Neck Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Stephan M Wildi; Monty H Cox; Leslie L Clark; Robert Turner; Robert H Hawes; Brenda J Hoffman; Michael B Wallace Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Juliette Thariat; K Kian Ang; Pamela K Allen; Anesa Ahamad; Michelle D Williams; Jeffrey N Myers; Adel K El-Naggar; Lawrence E Ginsberg; David I Rosenthal; Bonnie S Glisson; William H Morrison; Randal S Weber; Adam S Garden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anuj Goenka; Luc G T Morris; Shyam S Rao; Suzanne L Wolden; Richard J Wong; Dennis H Kraus; Nisha Ohri; Jeremy Setton; Benjamin H Lok; Nadeem Riaz; Borys R Mychalczak; Heiko Schoder; Ian Ganly; Jatin P Shah; David G Pfister; Michael J Zelefsky; Nancy Y Lee Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-03-29 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Val J Lowe; Fenghai Duan; Rathan M Subramaniam; JoRean D Sicks; Justin Romanoff; Twyla Bartel; Jian Q Michael Yu; Brian Nussenbaum; Jeremy Richmon; Charles D Arnold; David Cognetti; Brendan C Stack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mehdi Taghipour; Esther Mena; Matthew J Kruse; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Joseph R Acevedo; Katherine E Fero; Bayard Wilson; Assuntina G Sacco; Loren K Mell; Charles S Coffey; James D Murphy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 44.544