PURPOSE:Many breast cancer patients experience (severe) menopausal symptoms after an early onset of menopause caused by cancer treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and physical exercise (PE), compared to a waiting list control group (WLC). METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a healthcare system perspective, using a Markov model. Effectiveness data came from a recent randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy of CBT and PE. Cost data were obtained from relevant Dutch sources. Outcome measures were incremental treatment costs (ITCs) per patient with a clinically relevant improvement on a measure of endocrine symptoms, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy questionnaire (FACT-ES), and on a measure of hot flushes, the Hot Flush Rating Scale (HFRS), and costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained over a 5-year time period. RESULTS: ITCs for achieving a clinically relevant decline on the FACT-ES for one patient were €1,051 for CBT and €1,315 for PE, compared to the WLC. The corresponding value for the HFRS was €1,067 for CBT, while PE was not more effective than the WLC. Incremental cost-utility ratios were €22,502/QALY for CBT and €28,078/QALY for PE. CONCLUSION:CBT is likely the most cost-effective strategy for alleviating treatment-induced menopausal symptoms in this population, followed by PE. The outcomes are sensitive to a reduction of the assumed duration of the treatment effect from 5 to 3 and 1.5 years. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patients can be prescribed CBT or, based on individual preferences, PE.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Many breast cancerpatients experience (severe) menopausal symptoms after an early onset of menopause caused by cancer treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and physical exercise (PE), compared to a waiting list control group (WLC). METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a healthcare system perspective, using a Markov model. Effectiveness data came from a recent randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy of CBT and PE. Cost data were obtained from relevant Dutch sources. Outcome measures were incremental treatment costs (ITCs) per patient with a clinically relevant improvement on a measure of endocrine symptoms, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy questionnaire (FACT-ES), and on a measure of hot flushes, the Hot Flush Rating Scale (HFRS), and costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained over a 5-year time period. RESULTS: ITCs for achieving a clinically relevant decline on the FACT-ES for one patient were €1,051 for CBT and €1,315 for PE, compared to the WLC. The corresponding value for the HFRS was €1,067 for CBT, while PE was not more effective than the WLC. Incremental cost-utility ratios were €22,502/QALY for CBT and €28,078/QALY for PE. CONCLUSION: CBT is likely the most cost-effective strategy for alleviating treatment-induced menopausal symptoms in this population, followed by PE. The outcomes are sensitive to a reduction of the assumed duration of the treatment effect from 5 to 3 and 1.5 years. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patients can be prescribed CBT or, based on individual preferences, PE.
Authors: Valesca P Retèl; Manuela A Joore; Michael Knauer; Sabine C Linn; Michael Hauptmann; Wim H van Harten Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Carla Parry; Erin E Kent; Angela B Mariotto; Catherine M Alfano; Julia H Rowland Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: S K Quella; C L Loprinzi; J A Sloan; N L Vaught; W L DeKrey; T Fischer; G Finck; N Pierson; T Pisansky Journal: Cancer Date: 1998-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: P G Toniolo; M Levitz; A Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; S Banerjee; K L Koenig; R E Shore; P Strax; B S Pasternack Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Hanna van Waart; Johanna M van Dongen; Wim H van Harten; Martijn M Stuiver; Rosalie Huijsmans; Jeannette A J H Hellendoorn-van Vreeswijk; Gabe S Sonke; Neil K Aaronson Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2017-10-30
Authors: Leeanne Nicklas; Mairi Albiston; Martin Dunbar; Alan Gillies; Jennifer Hislop; Helen Moffat; Judy Thomson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Ad A Kaptein; Jan W Schoones; Maarten J Fischer; Melissa S Y Thong; Judith R Kroep; Koos J M van der Hoeven Journal: Curr Breast Cancer Rep Date: 2015
Authors: Vera Atema; Marieke van Leeuwen; Hester S A Oldenburg; Valesca Retèl; Marc van Beurden; Myra S Hunter; Neil K Aaronson Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Femke Jansen; Valesca van Zwieten; Veerle M H Coupé; C René Leemans; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs Date: 2016 Apr-Jun