Scott F Huntington1, Jakub Svoboda2, Jalpa A Doshi2. 1. All authors: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. scott.huntington@uphs.upenn.edu. 2. All authors: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surveillance imaging of asymptomatic patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in first remission remains controversial. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies following first-line immunochemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three strategies were compared in 55-year-old patient cohorts: routine clinical follow-up without serial imaging, routine follow-up with biannual computed tomography (CT) scans for 2 years, or routine follow-up with biannual [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) for 2 years. The baseline model favored imaging-based strategies by associating asymptomatic imaging-detected relapses with improved clinical outcomes. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each surveillance strategy. RESULTS: Surveillance strategies utilizing 2 years of routine CT or PET/CT scans were associated with minimal survival benefit when compared with clinical follow-up without routine imaging (life-years gained: CT, 0.03 years; PET/CT, 0.04 years). The benefit of imaging-based follow-up remained small after quality-of-life adjustments (CT, 0.020 QALYs; PET/CT, 0.025 QALYs). Costs associated with imaging-based surveillance strategies are considerable; ICERs for imaging strategies compared with clinical follow-up were $164,960/QALY (95% CI, $116,510 to $766,930/QALY) and $168,750/QALY (95% CI, $117,440 to 853,550/QALY) for CT and PET/CT, respectively. Model conclusions were robust and remained stable on one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Our cost-effectiveness analysis suggests surveillance imaging of asymptomatic DLBCL patients in remission offers little clinical benefit at substantial economic costs.
PURPOSE: Surveillance imaging of asymptomatic patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in first remission remains controversial. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies following first-line immunochemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three strategies were compared in 55-year-old patient cohorts: routine clinical follow-up without serial imaging, routine follow-up with biannual computed tomography (CT) scans for 2 years, or routine follow-up with biannual [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) for 2 years. The baseline model favored imaging-based strategies by associating asymptomatic imaging-detected relapses with improved clinical outcomes. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each surveillance strategy. RESULTS: Surveillance strategies utilizing 2 years of routine CT or PET/CT scans were associated with minimal survival benefit when compared with clinical follow-up without routine imaging (life-years gained: CT, 0.03 years; PET/CT, 0.04 years). The benefit of imaging-based follow-up remained small after quality-of-life adjustments (CT, 0.020 QALYs; PET/CT, 0.025 QALYs). Costs associated with imaging-based surveillance strategies are considerable; ICERs for imaging strategies compared with clinical follow-up were $164,960/QALY (95% CI, $116,510 to $766,930/QALY) and $168,750/QALY (95% CI, $117,440 to 853,550/QALY) for CT and PET/CT, respectively. Model conclusions were robust and remained stable on one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Our cost-effectiveness analysis suggests surveillance imaging of asymptomatic DLBCL patients in remission offers little clinical benefit at substantial economic costs.
Authors: Sweet Ping Ng; Courtney Pollard; Joel Berends; Zeina Ayoub; Mona Kamal; Adam S Garden; Houda Bahig; Scott B Cantor; Andrew J Schaefer; Temitayo Ajayi; G Brandon Gunn; Steven J Frank; Heath Skinner; Jack Phan; William H Morrison; Renata Ferrarotto; Jason M Johnson; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Stephen Y Lai; Amy C Hessel; Erich M Sturgis; Randal S Weber; Clifton D Fuller; David I Rosenthal Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kaiji Fan; Cathrin Ritter; Paul Nghiem; Astrid Blom; Monique E Verhaegen; Andrzej Dlugosz; Niels Ødum; Anders Woetmann; Richard W Tothill; Rodney J Hicks; Michael Sand; David Schrama; Dirk Schadendorf; Selma Ugurel; Jürgen C Becker Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Joshua M Bauml; Andrea Troxel; C Neill Epperson; Roger B Cohen; Kathryn Schmitz; Carrie Stricker; Lawrence N Shulman; Angela Bradbury; Jun J Mao; Corey J Langer Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Mehdi Taghipour; Charles Marcus; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Esther Mena; Shwetha Prasad; Abhinav K Jha; Lilja Solnes; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Scott F Huntington; Gottfried von Keudell; Amy J Davidoff; Cary P Gross; Sapna A Prasad Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 44.544