OBJECTIVE: A recent phase III trial reported gemcitabine with cisplatin chemoradiation followed by 2 cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin (G) significantly improved progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to standard cisplatin chemoradiation (C) for locally advanced cervix cancer. We evaluate the cost effectiveness (CE) of these treatment regimens. METHODS: A modified Markov model was constructed comparing CE between treatment arms using the published trial's five-year OS and treatment-related toxicity rates. Quality of life (QOL) utility scores during treatment were obtained from published literature and modeled for sensitivity analysis. Cost data was obtained from Medicare reimbursement figures and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. One-way sensitivity analyses assessed variations in cost and adverse events. RESULTS: Mean cost was $41,330 (US$) for C versus $60,974 for G. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for G compared to C was $33,080 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). In sensitivity analyses (SA), the ICER increased to common willingness-to-pay thresholds of 50 K and 100 K when QOL utility scores during G active treatment declined to 0.64 and 0.53 (baseline 0.76), respectively. The model was insensitive to changes in adverse event rates, costs of treatment, or adverse event hospitalization costs. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine with cisplatin chemoradiation followed by 2 cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin is a cost effective treatment for locally advanced cervix cancer compared to standard cisplatin chemoradiation. Common willingness to pay thresholds are exceeded during sensitivity analyses with realistic declines in QOL. Our results support ongoing investigations of novel adjuvants to standard cisplatin chemoradiation with potentially less toxicity. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: A recent phase III trial reported gemcitabine with cisplatin chemoradiation followed by 2 cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin (G) significantly improved progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to standard cisplatin chemoradiation (C) for locally advanced cervix cancer. We evaluate the cost effectiveness (CE) of these treatment regimens. METHODS: A modified Markov model was constructed comparing CE between treatment arms using the published trial's five-year OS and treatment-related toxicity rates. Quality of life (QOL) utility scores during treatment were obtained from published literature and modeled for sensitivity analysis. Cost data was obtained from Medicare reimbursement figures and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. One-way sensitivity analyses assessed variations in cost and adverse events. RESULTS: Mean cost was $41,330 (US$) for C versus $60,974 for G. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for G compared to C was $33,080 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). In sensitivity analyses (SA), the ICER increased to common willingness-to-pay thresholds of 50 K and 100 K when QOL utility scores during G active treatment declined to 0.64 and 0.53 (baseline 0.76), respectively. The model was insensitive to changes in adverse event rates, costs of treatment, or adverse event hospitalization costs. CONCLUSIONS:Gemcitabine with cisplatin chemoradiation followed by 2 cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin is a cost effective treatment for locally advanced cervix cancer compared to standard cisplatin chemoradiation. Common willingness to pay thresholds are exceeded during sensitivity analyses with realistic declines in QOL. Our results support ongoing investigations of novel adjuvants to standard cisplatin chemoradiation with potentially less toxicity. Published by Elsevier Inc.