Thibaut Lizée1, Ethan Basch2, Pierre Trémolières3, Eric Voog4, Julien Domont4, Guillaume Peyraga3, Thierry Urban5, Jaafar Bennouna6, Anne-Lise Septans7, Magali Balavoine7, Bruno Detournay8, Fabrice Denis3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jean Bernard Center, Inter-Regional Institute of Oncology, Le Mans, France. Electronic address: lizee.thibaut@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jean Bernard Center, Inter-Regional Institute of Oncology, Le Mans, France; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jean Bernard Center, Inter-Regional Institute of Oncology, Le Mans, France. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Jean Bernard Center, Inter-Regional Institute of Oncology, Le Mans, France. 5. Department of Pneumology, University Hospital Center, Angers, France. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Center, Nantes, France. 7. Department of Medical Biostatistics, WeProm, Le Mans, France. 8. Cemka-Eval, Bourg-la-Reine, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A multicenter randomized clinical trial in France found an overall survival benefit of web-based patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based surveillance after initial treatment for lung cancer compared with conventional surveillance. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of this PRO-based surveillance in lung cancer patients. METHODS: This medico-economic analysis used data from the clinical trial, augmented by abstracted chart data and costs of consultations, imaging, transportations, information technology, and treatments. Costs were calculated based on actual reimbursement rates in France, and health utilities were estimated based on scientific literature review. Willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and €90,000 per QALY were used to define a very cost-effective and cost-effective strategy, respectively. Average annual costs of experimental and control surveillance approaches were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as cost per life-year gained and QALY gained, from the health insurance payer perspective. One-way and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS:Average annual cost of surveillance follow-up was €362 lower per patient in the PRO arm (€941/year/patient) compared to control (€1,304/year/patient). The PRO approach presented an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €12,127 per life-year gained and €20,912 per QALY gained. The probabilities that the experimental strategy is very cost-effective and cost-effective were 97% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance of lung cancer patients using web-based PRO reduced the follow-up costs. Compared to conventional monitoring, this surveillance modality represents a cost-effective strategy and should be considered in cancer care delivery.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: A multicenter randomized clinical trial in France found an overall survival benefit of web-based patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based surveillance after initial treatment for lung cancer compared with conventional surveillance. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of this PRO-based surveillance in lung cancerpatients. METHODS: This medico-economic analysis used data from the clinical trial, augmented by abstracted chart data and costs of consultations, imaging, transportations, information technology, and treatments. Costs were calculated based on actual reimbursement rates in France, and health utilities were estimated based on scientific literature review. Willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and €90,000 per QALY were used to define a very cost-effective and cost-effective strategy, respectively. Average annual costs of experimental and control surveillance approaches were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as cost per life-year gained and QALY gained, from the health insurance payer perspective. One-way and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Average annual cost of surveillance follow-up was €362 lower per patient in the PRO arm (€941/year/patient) compared to control (€1,304/year/patient). The PRO approach presented an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €12,127 per life-year gained and €20,912 per QALY gained. The probabilities that the experimental strategy is very cost-effective and cost-effective were 97% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance of lung cancerpatients using web-based PRO reduced the follow-up costs. Compared to conventional monitoring, this surveillance modality represents a cost-effective strategy and should be considered in cancer care delivery.
Authors: Frank J Penedo; Laura B Oswald; Joshua P Kronenfeld; Sofia F Garcia; David Cella; Betina Yanez Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ethan Basch; Deborah Schrag; Sydney Henson; Jennifer Jansen; Brenda Ginos; Angela M Stover; Philip Carr; Patricia A Spears; Mattias Jonsson; Allison M Deal; Antonia V Bennett; Gita Thanarajasingam; Lauren J Rogak; Bryce B Reeve; Claire Snyder; Deborah Bruner; David Cella; Lisa A Kottschade; Jane Perlmutter; Cindy Geoghegan; Cleo A Samuel-Ryals; Barbara Given; Gina L Mazza; Robert Miller; Jon F Strasser; Dylan M Zylla; Anna Weiss; Victoria S Blinder; Amylou C Dueck Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Jens Lehmann; Petra Buhl; Johannes M Giesinger; Lisa M Wintner; Monika Sztankay; Lucia Neppl; Wolfgang Willenbacher; Roman Weger; Walpurga Weyrer; Gerhard Rumpold; Bernhard Holzner Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Roma Maguire; Lisa McCann; Grigorios Kotronoulas; Nora Kearney; Emma Ream; Jo Armes; Elisabeth Patiraki; Eileen Furlong; Patricia Fox; Alexander Gaiger; Paul McCrone; Geir Berg; Christine Miaskowkski; Antonella Cardone; Dawn Orr; Adrian Flowerday; Stylianos Katsaragakis; Andrew Darley; Simone Lubowitzki; Jenny Harris; Simon Skene; Morven Miller; Margaret Moore; Liane Lewis; Nicosha DeSouza; Peter T Donnan Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-07-21
Authors: Derek Kyte; Nicola Anderson; Ram Auti; Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi; Jon Bishop; Andrew Bissell; Elizabeth Brettell; Melanie Calvert; Marie Chadburn; Paul Cockwell; Mary Dutton; Helen Eddington; Elliot Forster; Gabby Hadley; Natalie J Ives; Louise Jackson; Sonja O'Brien; Gary Price; Keeley Sharpe; Stephanie Stringer; Gael Stephenson; Rav Verdi; Judi Waters; Adrian Wilcockson; Jim Williams Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2020-07-08
Authors: Sanna Iivanainen; Jussi Ekstrom; Henri Virtanen; Vesa V Kataja; Jussi P Koivunen Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 2.796