Chris Monten1, Liv Veldeman2, Nick Verhaeghe3, Yolande Lievens2. 1. Ghent University Hospital, Radiation Oncology Department, Belgium. Electronic address: chris.md.monten@gmail.com. 2. Ghent University Hospital, Radiation Oncology Department, Belgium. 3. Ghent University, Department of Public Health, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evolving practice in adjuvant breast radiotherapy inevitably impacts healthcare budgets. This is reflected in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEE) in this domain. The available HEE literature was analysed qualitatively and quantitatively, using available instruments. METHODS: HEEs published between 1/1/2000 and 31/10/2016 were retrieved through a systematic search in Medline, Cochrane and Embase. A quality-assessment using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) was translated into a quantitative score and compared with Tufts Medical Centre CEA registry and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) results. RESULTS: Twenty cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and thirteen cost comparisons (CC) were analysed. In qualitative evaluation, valuation or justification of data sources, population heterogeneity and discussion on generalizability, in addition to declaration on funding, were often absent or incomplete. After quantification, the average CHEERS-scores were 74% (CI 66.9-81.1%) and 75.6% (CI 70.7-80.5%) for CEAs and CCs respectively. CEA-scores did not differ significantly from Tufts and QHES-scores. CONCLUSION: Quantitative CHEERS evaluation is feasible and yields comparable results to validated instruments. HEE in adjuvant breast radiotherapy is of acceptable quality, however, further efforts are needed to improve comprehensive reporting of all data, indispensable for assessing relevance, reliability and generalizability of results.
BACKGROUND: Evolving practice in adjuvant breast radiotherapy inevitably impacts healthcare budgets. This is reflected in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEE) in this domain. The available HEE literature was analysed qualitatively and quantitatively, using available instruments. METHODS: HEEs published between 1/1/2000 and 31/10/2016 were retrieved through a systematic search in Medline, Cochrane and Embase. A quality-assessment using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) was translated into a quantitative score and compared with Tufts Medical Centre CEA registry and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) results. RESULTS: Twenty cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and thirteen cost comparisons (CC) were analysed. In qualitative evaluation, valuation or justification of data sources, population heterogeneity and discussion on generalizability, in addition to declaration on funding, were often absent or incomplete. After quantification, the average CHEERS-scores were 74% (CI 66.9-81.1%) and 75.6% (CI 70.7-80.5%) for CEAs and CCs respectively. CEA-scores did not differ significantly from Tufts and QHES-scores. CONCLUSION: Quantitative CHEERS evaluation is feasible and yields comparable results to validated instruments. HEE in adjuvant breast radiotherapy is of acceptable quality, however, further efforts are needed to improve comprehensive reporting of all data, indispensable for assessing relevance, reliability and generalizability of results.
Authors: David A Jones; Joel Smith; Xue W Mei; Maria A Hawkins; Tim Maughan; Frank van den Heuvel; Thomas Mee; Karen Kirkby; Norman Kirkby; Alastair Gray Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-10-31