Esther H Chung1, Stephanie L Lim2, Evan Myers3, Haley A Moss2, Kelly S Acharya4. 1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke Fertility Center, Duke University, 200 Trent Drive (Baker House 236), Durham, NC, 27713, USA. esther.h.chung@duke.edu. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 3. Division of Women's Community and Population Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 4. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke Fertility Center, Duke University, 200 Trent Drive (Baker House 236), Durham, NC, 27713, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In December 2019, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine designated ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) as no longer experimental and an alternative to oocyte cryopreservation (OC) for women receiving gonadotoxic therapy. Anticipating increased use of OTC, we compare the cost-effectiveness of OC versus OTC for fertility preservation in oncofertility patients. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model to compare OC versus OTC was built from a payer perspective. Costs and probabilities were derived from the literature. The primary outcome for effectiveness was the percentage of patients who achieved live birth. Strategies were compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). All inputs were varied widely in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, the estimated cost for OC was $16,588 and for OTC $10,032, with 1.56% achieving live birth after OC, and 1.0% after OTC. OC was more costly but more effective than OTC, with an ICER of $1,163,954 per live birth. In sensitivity analyses, OC was less expensive than OTC if utilization was greater than 63%, cost of OC prior to chemotherapy was less than $8100, cost of laparoscopy was greater than $13,700, or standardized discounted costs were used. CONCLUSIONS: With current published prices and utilization, OC is more costly but more effective than OTC. OC becomes cost-saving with increased utilization, when cost of OC prior to chemotherapy is markedly low, cost of laparoscopy is high, or standardized discounted oncofertility pricing is assumed. We identify the critical thresholds of OC and OTC that should be met to deliver more cost-effective care for oncofertility patients.
PURPOSE: In December 2019, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine designated ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) as no longer experimental and an alternative to oocyte cryopreservation (OC) for women receiving gonadotoxic therapy. Anticipating increased use of OTC, we compare the cost-effectiveness of OC versus OTC for fertility preservation in oncofertility patients. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model to compare OC versus OTC was built from a payer perspective. Costs and probabilities were derived from the literature. The primary outcome for effectiveness was the percentage of patients who achieved live birth. Strategies were compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). All inputs were varied widely in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, the estimated cost for OC was $16,588 and for OTC $10,032, with 1.56% achieving live birth after OC, and 1.0% after OTC. OC was more costly but more effective than OTC, with an ICER of $1,163,954 per live birth. In sensitivity analyses, OC was less expensive than OTC if utilization was greater than 63%, cost of OC prior to chemotherapy was less than $8100, cost of laparoscopy was greater than $13,700, or standardized discounted costs were used. CONCLUSIONS: With current published prices and utilization, OC is more costly but more effective than OTC. OC becomes cost-saving with increased utilization, when cost of OC prior to chemotherapy is markedly low, cost of laparoscopy is high, or standardized discounted oncofertility pricing is assumed. We identify the critical thresholds of OC and OTC that should be met to deliver more cost-effective care for oncofertility patients.
Authors: Margaret M Hopeman; Katherine E Cameron; Maureen Prewitt; Kurt Barnhart; Jill P Ginsberg; Mary D Sammel; Clarisa R Gracia Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Leilah E Backhus; Laxmi A Kondapalli; R Jeffrey Chang; Christos Coutifaris; Ralph Kazer; Teresa K Woodruff Journal: Cancer Treat Res Date: 2007
Authors: Kate Devine; Sunni L Mumford; Kara N Goldman; Brooke Hodes-Wertz; Sarah Druckenmiller; Anthony M Propst; Nicole Noyes Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Claudia Mau Kai; Katharina M Main; Anders Nyboe Andersen; Anne Loft; Niels E Skakkebaek; Anders Juul Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2007-04-24 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Ellen J Hoekman; Leoni A Louwe; Maxime Rooijers; Lucette A J van der Westerlaken; Nicole F Klijn; Gonneke S K Pilgram; Cornelis D de Kroon; Carina G J M Hilders Journal: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Lorraine S Kasaven; Srdjan Saso; Natalie Getreu; Helen O'Neill; Timothy Bracewell-Milnes; Fevzi Shakir; Joseph Yazbek; Meen-Yau Thum; James Nicopoullos; Jara Ben Nagi; Paul Hardiman; Cesar Diaz-Garcia; Benjamin P Jones Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 6.353