Gabriella Ferrandina1, Giulia Amadio2, Andrea Marcellusi3, Elena Azzolini4, Anna Puggina4, Roberta Pastorino4, Walter Ricciardi4, Giovanni Scambia1. 1. Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione "Policlinico Universitario A.Gemelli", Catholic University, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. 2. Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione "Policlinico Universitario A.Gemelli", Catholic University, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. giulia.amadio82@gmail.com. 3. Economic Evaluation and HTA (CEIS-EEHTA), IGF Department, Faculty of Economics, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Columbia 2, 00133, Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Public Health, Catholic University, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is no available evidence to recommend gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue-based ovarian suppression versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer, since the two approaches are considered equivalent in terms of oncologic outcome. The role of surgical ovarian ablation has been revitalized based on the advances of minimally invasive surgery, and a better understanding of clinical and molecular basis of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic BSO and GnRH analogue administration in patients aged 40-49 years with hormone-sensitive breast cancer. METHODS: A probabilistic decision tree model was developed to evaluate costs and outcomes of ovarian ablation through laparoscopic BSO, or ovarian suppression through monthly injections of GnRH analogue. Results were expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS: Laparoscopic BSO strategy was associated with a lower mean total cost per patient than GnRH treatment, and considering the difference in terms of QALYs, the incremental effectiveness did not demonstrate a notable difference between the two approaches. From the National Health Service perspective, and for a time horizon of 5 years, laparoscopic BSO was the dominant option compared to GnRH treatment; laparoscopic BSO was less expensive than GnRH, €2385 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2044, 2753] vs €7093 (95% CI = 3409, 12,105), respectively, and more effective. CONCLUSION: Surgical ovarian ablation is more cost-effective than GnRH administration in the adjuvant treatment of hormone-sensitive breast cancer patients aged 40-49 years, and the advantage of preventing ovarian cancer through laparoscopic BSO should be considered.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is no available evidence to recommend gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue-based ovarian suppression versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer, since the two approaches are considered equivalent in terms of oncologic outcome. The role of surgical ovarian ablation has been revitalized based on the advances of minimally invasive surgery, and a better understanding of clinical and molecular basis of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic BSO and GnRH analogue administration in patients aged 40-49 years with hormone-sensitive breast cancer. METHODS: A probabilistic decision tree model was developed to evaluate costs and outcomes of ovarian ablation through laparoscopic BSO, or ovarian suppression through monthly injections of GnRH analogue. Results were expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS: Laparoscopic BSO strategy was associated with a lower mean total cost per patient than GnRH treatment, and considering the difference in terms of QALYs, the incremental effectiveness did not demonstrate a notable difference between the two approaches. From the National Health Service perspective, and for a time horizon of 5 years, laparoscopic BSO was the dominant option compared to GnRH treatment; laparoscopic BSO was less expensive than GnRH, €2385 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2044, 2753] vs €7093 (95% CI = 3409, 12,105), respectively, and more effective. CONCLUSION: Surgical ovarian ablation is more cost-effective than GnRH administration in the adjuvant treatment of hormone-sensitive breast cancerpatients aged 40-49 years, and the advantage of preventing ovarian cancer through laparoscopic BSO should be considered.
Authors: Susan M Domchek; Tara M Friebel; Christian F Singer; D Gareth Evans; Henry T Lynch; Claudine Isaacs; Judy E Garber; Susan L Neuhausen; Ellen Matloff; Rosalind Eeles; Gabriella Pichert; Laura Van t'veer; Nadine Tung; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Fergus J Couch; Wendy S Rubinstein; Patricia A Ganz; Mary B Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Gail Tomlinson; Joellen Schildkraut; Joanne L Blum; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Janice S Kwon; Anna Tinker; Gary Pansegrau; Jessica McAlpine; Melissa Housty; Mary McCullum; C Blake Gilks Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Andreas du Bois; Alexander Reuss; Eric Pujade-Lauraine; Philipp Harter; Isabelle Ray-Coquard; Jacobus Pfisterer Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Olivia Pagani; Meredith M Regan; Barbara A Walley; Gini F Fleming; Marco Colleoni; István Láng; Henry L Gomez; Carlo Tondini; Harold J Burstein; Edith A Perez; Eva Ciruelos; Vered Stearns; Hervé R Bonnefoi; Silvana Martino; Charles E Geyer; Graziella Pinotti; Fabio Puglisi; Diana Crivellari; Thomas Ruhstaller; Eric P Winer; Manuela Rabaglio-Poretti; Rudolf Maibach; Barbara Ruepp; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Karen N Price; Jürg Bernhard; Weixiu Luo; Karin Ribi; Giuseppe Viale; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch; Prudence A Francis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William D Foulkes; Kelly Metcalfe; Ping Sun; Wedad M Hanna; Henry T Lynch; Parviz Ghadirian; Nadine Tung; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Barbara L Weber; Jane McLennan; Ivo A Olivotto; Louis R Bégin; Steven A Narod Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jasmine S Sukumar; Dionisia Quiroga; Mahmoud Kassem; Michael Grimm; Namrata Vilas Shinde; Leslie Appiah; Marilly Palettas; Julie Stephens; Margaret E Gatti-Mays; Ashley Pariser; Mathew Cherian; Daniel G Stover; Nicole Williams; Jeffrey Van Deusen; Robert Wesolowski; Maryam Lustberg; Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy; Sagar Sardesai Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anton Oseledchyk; Mary L Gemignani; Qin C Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Rahmi Elahjji; Zara Adamou; Noah Feit; Shari B Goldfarb; Kara Long Roche; Yukio Sonoda; Deborah J Goldfrank; Dennis S Chi; Sally S Saban; Vance Broach; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Jeanne Carter; Mario Leitao; Oliver Zivanovic Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 3.437