Ashish A Deshmukh1, Elizabeth Y Chiao2, Scott B Cantor3, Elizabeth A Stier4, Stephen E Goldstone5, Alan G Nyitray6, Timothy Wilkin7, Xiaojie Wang8, Jagpreet Chhatwal9. 1. College of Public Health and Health Professions, Department of Health Services Research, Management, and Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 2. Section of Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York. 6. Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health, Houston, Texas. 7. Division of Infectious Diseases, Weil Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 8. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 9. Massachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive men who have sex with men (MSM) are at disproportionately high risk for anal cancer. There is no definitive approach to the management of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL), which are precursors of anal cancer, and evidence suggests that posttreatment adjuvant quadrivalent human papillomavirus (qHPV) vaccination improves HSIL treatment effectiveness. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the optimal HSIL management strategy with respect to clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and to identify the optimal age for initiating HSIL management. METHODS: A decision analytic model of the natural history of anal carcinoma and HSIL management strategies was constructed for HIV-positive MSM who were 27 years old or older. The model was informed by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database and published studies. Outcomes included the lifetime cost, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, cumulative risk of cancer and cancer-related deaths, and cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Active monitoring was the most effective approach in patients 29 years or younger; thereafter, HSIL treatment plus adjuvant qHPV vaccination became most effective. When cost-effectiveness was considered (ie, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] < $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year), do nothing was cost-effective until the age of 38 years, and HSIL treatment plus adjuvant qHPV vaccination was cost-effective beyond the age of 38 years (95% confidence interval, 34-43 years). The ICER decreased as the age at HSIL management increased. Outcomes were sensitive to the rate of HSIL regression or progression and the cost of high-resolution anoscopy and biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: The management of HSIL in HIV-positive MSM who are 38 years old or older with treatment plus adjuvant qHPV vaccination is likely to be cost-effective. The conservative approach of no treatment is likely to be cost-effective in younger patients. Cancer 2017;123:4709-4719.
BACKGROUND:Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive men who have sex with men (MSM) are at disproportionately high risk for anal cancer. There is no definitive approach to the management of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL), which are precursors of anal cancer, and evidence suggests that posttreatment adjuvant quadrivalent human papillomavirus (qHPV) vaccination improves HSIL treatment effectiveness. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the optimal HSIL management strategy with respect to clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and to identify the optimal age for initiating HSIL management. METHODS: A decision analytic model of the natural history of anal carcinoma and HSIL management strategies was constructed for HIV-positive MSM who were 27 years old or older. The model was informed by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database and published studies. Outcomes included the lifetime cost, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, cumulative risk of cancer and cancer-related deaths, and cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Active monitoring was the most effective approach in patients 29 years or younger; thereafter, HSIL treatment plus adjuvant qHPV vaccination became most effective. When cost-effectiveness was considered (ie, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] < $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year), do nothing was cost-effective until the age of 38 years, and HSIL treatment plus adjuvant qHPV vaccination was cost-effective beyond the age of 38 years (95% confidence interval, 34-43 years). The ICER decreased as the age at HSIL management increased. Outcomes were sensitive to the rate of HSIL regression or progression and the cost of high-resolution anoscopy and biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: The management of HSIL in HIV-positive MSM who are 38 years old or older with treatment plus adjuvant qHPV vaccination is likely to be cost-effective. The conservative approach of no treatment is likely to be cost-effective in younger patients. Cancer 2017;123:4709-4719.
Authors: Edgar P Simard; Meg Watson; Mona Saraiya; Christina A Clarke; Joel M Palefsky; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ashish A Deshmukh; Hui Zhao; Luisa Franzini; David R Lairson; Elizabeth Y Chiao; Prajnan Das; Michael D Swartz; Sharon H Giordano; Scott B Cantor Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Elmar A Joura; Suzanne M Garland; Jorma Paavonen; Daron G Ferris; Gonzalo Perez; Kevin A Ault; Warner K Huh; Heather L Sings; Margaret K James; Richard M Haupt Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-03-27
Authors: Nika Cyrus; Adam B Blechman; Matthew Leboeuf; Elizaveta A Belyaeva; Maurits N C de Koning; Koen D Quint; John J Stern Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Ashish A Deshmukh; Scott B Cantor; Elisabeth Fenwick; Elizabeth Y Chiao; Alan G Nyitray; Elizabeth A Stier; Stephen E Goldstone; Timothy Wilkin; Jagpreet Chhatwal Journal: Vaccine Date: 2017-08-12 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Ashish A Deshmukh; Ryan Suk; Meredith S Shiels; Kalyani Sonawane; Alan G Nyitray; Yuxin Liu; Michael M Gaisa; Joel M Palefsky; Keith Sigel Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Gordana Halec; Tim Waterboer; Nicole Brenner; Julia Butt; W David Hardy; Gypsyamber DʼSouza; Steven Wolinsky; Bernard J Macatangay; Michael Pawlita; Roger Detels; Otoniel Martínez-Maza; Shehnaz K Hussain Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: B Moeckli; J Canner; A Najafian; S Carbunaru; N Cowell; C Atallah; E Paredes; A Chudnovets; S H Fang Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Karen J Ortiz-Ortiz; Jeslie M Ramos-Cartagena; Ashish A Deshmukh; Carlos R Torres-Cintrón; Vivian Colón-López; Ana P Ortiz Journal: JCO Glob Oncol Date: 2021-01
Authors: Ashish A Deshmukh; Ryan Suk; Meredith S Shiels; Haluk Damgacioglu; Yueh-Yun Lin; Elizabeth A Stier; Alan G Nyitray; Elizabeth Y Chiao; Gizem S Nemutlu; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Kathleen Schmeler; Keith Sigel; Kalyani Sonawane Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ryan Suk; Parag Mahale; Kalyani Sonawane; Andrew G Sikora; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Kathleen M Schmeler; Keith Sigel; Scott B Cantor; Elizabeth Y Chiao; Ashish A Deshmukh Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-09-07