Akila Subramaniam1, Brett D Einerson2, Christina T Blanchard3, Britt K Erickson4, Jeff Szychowski3, Charles A Leath5, Joseph R Biggio6, Warner K Huh5. 1. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Women's Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Birmingham, AL, United States of America. Electronic address: asubramaniam@uabmc.edu. 2. University of Utah, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, United States of America. 3. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Women's Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Birmingham, AL, United States of America. 4. University of Minnesota, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Minneapolis, MN, United States of America. 5. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Birmingham, AL, United States of America. 6. Ochsner Health System, New Orleans, LA, United States of America.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Opportunistic salpingectomy is a cost-effective strategy recommended for ovarian cancer (OvCa) risk reduction at the time of gynecologic surgery in women who have completed childbearing. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy compared to standard tubal ligation (TL) during cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis using decision modeling to compare opportunistic salpingectomy to TL at the time of cesarean using probabilities of procedure completion derived from a trial. Probability and cost inputs were derived from local data and the literature. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2017 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/QALY. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed for all variables. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis determined the proportion of simulations in which each strategy would be cost-effective. RESULTS: Opportunistic salpingectomy was cost-effective compared to TL with an ICER of $26,616 per QALY. In 10,000 women desiring sterilization with cesarean, opportunistic salpingectomy would result in 17 fewer OvCa diagnoses, 13 fewer OvCa deaths, and 25 fewer unintended pregnancies compared to TL - with an associated cost increase of $4.7 million. The model was sensitive only to OvCa risk reduction from salpingectomy and TL. Opportunistic salpingectomy was not cost-effective if its cost was >$3163.74 more than TL, if the risk-reduction of salpingectomy was <41%, or if the risk-reduction of TL was >46%. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis opportunistic salpingectomy was cost effective in 75% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: In women undergoing cesarean with sterilization, opportunistic salpingectomy is likely cost-effective and may be cost-saving in comparison to TL for OvCa risk reduction.
OBJECTIVES:Opportunistic salpingectomy is a cost-effective strategy recommended for ovarian cancer (OvCa) risk reduction at the time of gynecologic surgery in women who have completed childbearing. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy compared to standard tubal ligation (TL) during cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis using decision modeling to compare opportunistic salpingectomy to TL at the time of cesarean using probabilities of procedure completion derived from a trial. Probability and cost inputs were derived from local data and the literature. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2017 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/QALY. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed for all variables. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis determined the proportion of simulations in which each strategy would be cost-effective. RESULTS:Opportunistic salpingectomy was cost-effective compared to TL with an ICER of $26,616 per QALY. In 10,000 women desiring sterilization with cesarean, opportunistic salpingectomy would result in 17 fewer OvCa diagnoses, 13 fewer OvCa deaths, and 25 fewer unintended pregnancies compared to TL - with an associated cost increase of $4.7 million. The model was sensitive only to OvCa risk reduction from salpingectomy and TL. Opportunistic salpingectomy was not cost-effective if its cost was >$3163.74 more than TL, if the risk-reduction of salpingectomy was <41%, or if the risk-reduction of TL was >46%. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis opportunistic salpingectomy was cost effective in 75% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: In women undergoing cesarean with sterilization, opportunistic salpingectomy is likely cost-effective and may be cost-saving in comparison to TL for OvCa risk reduction.
Authors: Megan S Rice; Megan A Murphy; Allison F Vitonis; Daniel W Cramer; Linda J Titus; Shelley S Tworoger; Kathryn L Terry Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Angela B Mariotto; K Robin Yabroff; Yongwu Shao; Eric J Feuer; Martin L Brown Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kimberly A Lowe; Victoria M Chia; Aliki Taylor; Cynthia O'Malley; Michael Kelsh; Muhima Mohamed; Fionna S Mowat; Barbara Goff Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 5.482