Arthur-Quan Tran1, Daniel O Erim2, Stephanie A Sullivan3, Ashley L Cole4, Emma L Barber3, Kenneth H Kim5, Paola A Gehrig3, Stephanie B Wheeler2. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, United States. Electronic address: Arthur.Tran@unchealth.unc.edu. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, United States. 3. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, United States. 4. Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, United States. 5. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) can be treated with either neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS). Although randomized controlled trials show that NACT is non-inferior in overall survival compared to PCS, there may be improvement in short-term morbidity. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of NACT relative to PCS for AEOC from the US Medicare perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model with a 7-month time horizon comparing (1) 3cycles of NACT with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CT), followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, then 3 additional cycles of CT, or (2) PCS followed by 6cycles of CT. Input parameters included probability of chemotherapy complications, surgical complications, treatment completion, treatment costs, and utilities. Model outcomes included costs, life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), in terms of cost per life-year gained and cost per QALY gained. We accounted for differences in surgical complexity by incorporating the cost of additional procedures and the probability of undergoing those procedures. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed via Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: NACT resulted in a savings of $7034 per patient with a 0.035 QALY increase compared to PCS; therefore, NACT dominated PCS in the base case analysis. With PSA, NACT was the dominant strategy more than 99% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: In the short-term, NACT is a cost-effective alternative compared to PCS in women with AEOC. These results may translate to longer term cost-effectiveness; however, data from randomized control trials continues to mature.
OBJECTIVE:Advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) can be treated with either neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS). Although randomized controlled trials show that NACT is non-inferior in overall survival compared to PCS, there may be improvement in short-term morbidity. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of NACT relative to PCS for AEOC from the US Medicare perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model with a 7-month time horizon comparing (1) 3cycles of NACT with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CT), followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, then 3 additional cycles of CT, or (2) PCS followed by 6cycles of CT. Input parameters included probability of chemotherapy complications, surgical complications, treatment completion, treatment costs, and utilities. Model outcomes included costs, life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), in terms of cost per life-year gained and cost per QALY gained. We accounted for differences in surgical complexity by incorporating the cost of additional procedures and the probability of undergoing those procedures. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed via Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS:NACT resulted in a savings of $7034 per patient with a 0.035 QALY increase compared to PCS; therefore, NACT dominated PCS in the base case analysis. With PSA, NACT was the dominant strategy more than 99% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: In the short-term, NACT is a cost-effective alternative compared to PCS in women with AEOC. These results may translate to longer term cost-effectiveness; however, data from randomized control trials continues to mature.
Authors: Ignace Vergote; Claes G Tropé; Frédéric Amant; Gunnar B Kristensen; Tom Ehlen; Nick Johnson; René H M Verheijen; Maria E L van der Burg; Angel J Lacave; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici; Gemma G Kenter; Antonio Casado; Cesar Mendiola; Corneel Coens; Leen Verleye; Gavin C E Stuart; Sergio Pecorelli; Nick S Reed Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M E van der Burg; M van Lent; M Buyse; A Kobierska; N Colombo; G Favalli; A J Lacave; M Nardi; J Renard; S Pecorelli Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-03-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Kari Bohlke; Deborah K Armstrong; Michael A Bookman; William A Cliby; Robert L Coleman; Don S Dizon; Joseph J Kash; Larissa A Meyer; Kathleen N Moore; Alexander B Olawaiye; Jessica Oldham; Ritu Salani; Dee Sparacio; William P Tew; Ignace Vergote; Mitchell I Edelson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Alexander Melamed; Alexi Wright; Allison Gockley; Joel T Clemmer; John O Schorge; Marcela G Del Carmen; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Sarah L Coleridge; Andrew Bryant; Thomas J Lyons; Richard J Goodall; Sean Kehoe; Jo Morrison Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-10-31