INTRODUCTION: Randomized trials have demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) with consolidation paclitaxel (P) and bevacizumab (B) following cytoreduction and adjuvant carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness (C/E) of these consolidation strategies. METHODS: A decision model was developed based on Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocols #178 and #218. Arm 1 is 6 cycles of CP. Arm 2 is 6 cycles of CP followed by 12 cycles of P (CP+P). Arm 3 is 1 cycle of CP, 5 cycles of CPB, and 16 cycles of B (CPB+B). Parameters include PFS, overall survival (OS), cost, complications (neuropathy for P and bowel perforation for B), and quality-of-life utility values. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CT+T is $13,402/quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to CP. For CPB+B compared to CP, the ICER is $326,530/QALY. When compared simultaneously, CPB+B is dominated, i.e. is more costly and less effective than CP+P. Results were robust to parameter variation. At a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, CP+P was the preferred option throughout most of the decision space. Sensitivity analyses suggest that CPB+B would become the preferred option if it were to improve OS by 6.1 years over CP+P. CONCLUSIONS: In this model, B consolidation for advanced EOC was associated with a modest improvement in effectiveness that is less than that with P consolidation and more costly. A statistically significant improvement in survival may improve the value of B consolidation.
INTRODUCTION: Randomized trials have demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) with consolidation paclitaxel (P) and bevacizumab (B) following cytoreduction and adjuvant carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness (C/E) of these consolidation strategies. METHODS: A decision model was developed based on Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocols #178 and #218. Arm 1 is 6 cycles of CP. Arm 2 is 6 cycles of CP followed by 12 cycles of P (CP+P). Arm 3 is 1 cycle of CP, 5 cycles of CPB, and 16 cycles of B (CPB+B). Parameters include PFS, overall survival (OS), cost, complications (neuropathy for P and bowel perforation for B), and quality-of-life utility values. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CT+T is $13,402/quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to CP. For CPB+B compared to CP, the ICER is $326,530/QALY. When compared simultaneously, CPB+B is dominated, i.e. is more costly and less effective than CP+P. Results were robust to parameter variation. At a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, CP+P was the preferred option throughout most of the decision space. Sensitivity analyses suggest that CPB+B would become the preferred option if it were to improve OS by 6.1 years over CP+P. CONCLUSIONS: In this model, B consolidation for advanced EOC was associated with a modest improvement in effectiveness that is less than that with P consolidation and more costly. A statistically significant improvement in survival may improve the value of B consolidation.
Authors: Lisa N Abaid; Bram H Goldstein; Katrina L Lopez; John P Micha; John V Brown; Mark A Rettenmaier; Maurie Markman Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2010-06-26 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Lisa N Abaid; Bram H Goldstein; John P Micha; Mark A Rettenmaier; John V Brown; Maurie Markman Journal: Oncology Date: 2010-08-27 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Jacoba P Greving; Flora Vernooij; A Peter M Heintz; Yolanda van der Graaf; Erik Buskens Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-01-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Maurie Markman; P Y Liu; James Moon; Bradley J Monk; Larry Copeland; Sharon Wilczynski; David Alberts Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-05-17 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Gursharan K Sohi; Jordan Levy; Victoria Delibasic; Laura E Davis; Alyson L Mahar; Elmira Amirazodi; Craig C Earle; Julie Hallet; Ahmed Hammad; Rajan Shah; Nicole Mittmann; Natalie G Coburn Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2021-03-09
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: Lisa M Hess; William E Brady; Laura J Havrilesky; David E Cohn; Bradley J Monk; Lari Wenzel; David Cella Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 5.482