P Auguste1, P Barton, C Hyde, T E Roberts. 1. Health Economics Unit on behalf of West Midlands Health Technology Assessment Collaboration, School of Health and Population Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review the published economic studies that have evaluated positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in the treatment of recurrent breast cancer, and to develop and carry out a model-based economic evaluation to investigate the relative cost-effectiveness of PET/CT to detect breast cancer recurrence compared with conventional work-up. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of economic and diagnostic evidence for PET/CT in diagnosis of breast cancer recurrence. The original databases searched include MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to week 5 May 2009), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to 2009 week 22) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. An updated search was conducted for each database from May 2009 to week 4 April 2010. METHODS: A decision tree was developed in TREEAGE software (TreeAge Software Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA). The relevant data on accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic test were linked in the model, to costs and the primary outcome measure, cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The model estimated the mean cost associated with each diagnostic procedure and assumed that patients entering the model were aged 50-75 years. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis are presented in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: The ICER for the strategy of PET compared with conventional work-up was estimated at £29,300 per QALY; the ICER for PET/CT compared with PET was £ 31,000 per QALY; and the ICER for PET/CT combined with conventional work-up versus PET/CT was £ 42,100. Clearly, for each additional diagnostic test that is added to PET, the more expensive the package becomes, but also the more effective it becomes in terms of QALYs gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY, conventional work-up is the preferred option. LIMITATIONS: Only data from indirect comparisons are available from the accuracy review, and there is some uncertainty about whether the data defining the accuracy of PET/CT present its use as a replacement or as an adjunct to conventional work-up. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current model and given the limitations that are apparent in terms of limited availability of data, the result of the current analysis suggests that the use of PET/CT in the diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer in every woman suspected of having a recurrence is unlikely to be cost-effective given the current willingness-to-pay thresholds that are accepted in the UK by decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Our modelling suggests that conventional work-up could be the most cost-effective diagnostic strategy given current data. Future studies need to secure robust cost data that can be verified from more than one source for the diagnostic tests involved in PET and PET/CT. Reliable and verifiable data on quality of life associated with this clinical condition are also crucial. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
OBJECTIVES: To review the published economic studies that have evaluated positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in the treatment of recurrent breast cancer, and to develop and carry out a model-based economic evaluation to investigate the relative cost-effectiveness of PET/CT to detect breast cancer recurrence compared with conventional work-up. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of economic and diagnostic evidence for PET/CT in diagnosis of breast cancer recurrence. The original databases searched include MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to week 5 May 2009), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to 2009 week 22) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. An updated search was conducted for each database from May 2009 to week 4 April 2010. METHODS: A decision tree was developed in TREEAGE software (TreeAge Software Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA). The relevant data on accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic test were linked in the model, to costs and the primary outcome measure, cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The model estimated the mean cost associated with each diagnostic procedure and assumed that patients entering the model were aged 50-75 years. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis are presented in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: The ICER for the strategy of PET compared with conventional work-up was estimated at £29,300 per QALY; the ICER for PET/CT compared with PET was £ 31,000 per QALY; and the ICER for PET/CT combined with conventional work-up versus PET/CT was £ 42,100. Clearly, for each additional diagnostic test that is added to PET, the more expensive the package becomes, but also the more effective it becomes in terms of QALYs gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY, conventional work-up is the preferred option. LIMITATIONS: Only data from indirect comparisons are available from the accuracy review, and there is some uncertainty about whether the data defining the accuracy of PET/CT present its use as a replacement or as an adjunct to conventional work-up. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current model and given the limitations that are apparent in terms of limited availability of data, the result of the current analysis suggests that the use of PET/CT in the diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer in every woman suspected of having a recurrence is unlikely to be cost-effective given the current willingness-to-pay thresholds that are accepted in the UK by decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Our modelling suggests that conventional work-up could be the most cost-effective diagnostic strategy given current data. Future studies need to secure robust cost data that can be verified from more than one source for the diagnostic tests involved in PET and PET/CT. Reliable and verifiable data on quality of life associated with this clinical condition are also crucial. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Authors: R G Koleva-Kolarova; M J W Greuter; M van Kruchten; K M Vermeulen; T Feenstra; E Buskens; A W J M Glaudemans; E F J de Vries; E G E de Vries; G A P Hospers; G H de Bock Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Roberta Piva; Flavia Ticconi; Valentina Ceriani; Federica Scalorbi; Francesco Fiz; Selene Capitanio; Matteo Bauckneht; Giuseppe Cittadini; Gianmario Sambuceti; Silvia Morbelli Journal: Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) Date: 2017-07-04
Authors: Rositsa G Koleva-Kolarova; Marcel J W Greuter; Talitha L Feenstra; Karin M Vermeulen; Erik F J de Vries; David Parkin; Erik Buskens; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-04-13
Authors: Samer A M Nashef; Simon Fynn; Yasir Abu-Omar; Tomasz J Spyt; Christine Mills; Colin C Everett; Julia Fox-Rushby; Jeshika Singh; Malcolm Dalrymple-Hay; Catherine Sudarshan; Massimiliano Codispoti; Peter Braidley; Francis C Wells; Linda D Sharples Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 4.191