Danielle Rodin1, Lisa Caulley2, Emily Burger3, Jane Kim3, Stephanie Johnson-Obaseki4, David Palma5, Alexander V Louie5, Aaron Hansen6, Brian O'Sullivan7. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: lcaulley@toh.ca. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) versus the standard treatment modality for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), radiation therapy (RT), in a subset of patients with early-stage OPSCC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We developed a microsimulation state-transition model associated with RT and TORS for patients with clinically staged T1N0M0 to T2N1M0 OPSCC. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs for each health state were estimated from recently published data and discounted by 3% annually over a lifetime time horizon. Model outcomes included lifetime costs (in 2014 US dollars), health benefits (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), and cost-effectiveness ratios from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Under base-case assumptions, TORS was associated with modest gains in QALYs. RT yielded 10.43 QALYs at a cost of $123,410 per patient, whereas TORS yielded 11.10 QALYs at a cost of $178,480. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $82,190/QALY gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to the need for adjuvant therapy, cost of late toxicity, age at diagnosis, disease state utilities, and discount rate. Accounting for joint parameter uncertainty, RT had a higher probability of demonstrating a cost-effective profile compared with TORS, at 54% compared with 46%. CONCLUSIONS: By use of standard benchmarks for cost-effectiveness in the United States, TORS may be a cost-effective alternative for the subset of patients with early-stage OPSCC but demonstrates considerable sensitivity to assumptions around quality of life.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) versus the standard treatment modality for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), radiation therapy (RT), in a subset of patients with early-stage OPSCC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We developed a microsimulation state-transition model associated with RT and TORS for patients with clinically staged T1N0M0 to T2N1M0 OPSCC. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs for each health state were estimated from recently published data and discounted by 3% annually over a lifetime time horizon. Model outcomes included lifetime costs (in 2014 US dollars), health benefits (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), and cost-effectiveness ratios from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Under base-case assumptions, TORS was associated with modest gains in QALYs. RT yielded 10.43 QALYs at a cost of $123,410 per patient, whereas TORS yielded 11.10 QALYs at a cost of $178,480. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $82,190/QALY gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to the need for adjuvant therapy, cost of late toxicity, age at diagnosis, disease state utilities, and discount rate. Accounting for joint parameter uncertainty, RT had a higher probability of demonstrating a cost-effective profile compared with TORS, at 54% compared with 46%. CONCLUSIONS: By use of standard benchmarks for cost-effectiveness in the United States, TORS may be a cost-effective alternative for the subset of patients with early-stage OPSCC but demonstrates considerable sensitivity to assumptions around quality of life.
Authors: R Michael Baskin; Brian J Boyce; Robert Amdur; William M Mendenhall; Kathryn Hitchcock; Natalie Silver; Peter T Dziegielewski Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 3.989