Ronald Kool1, Ivan Yanev1, Tarek Hijal2, Marie Vanhuyse3, Fabio L Cury1,2, Luis Souhami2, Wassim Kassouf1, Alice Dragomir1. 1. Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 2. Division of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. Division of Medical Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Trimodal therapy (TMT) is a suitable alternative to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and radical cystectomy (RC) for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). In this study, we conducted a cost-effectiveness evaluation of RC±NAC vs. TMT for MIBC in the universal and publicly funded Canadian healthcare system. METHODS: We developed a Markov model with Monte-Carlo microsimulations. Rates and probabilities of transitioning within different health states (e.g., cure, locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, death) were input in the model after a scoped literature review. Two main scenarios were considered: 1) academic center; and 2) populational-level. Results were reported in life-years gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 20 000 patients were simulated. For the academic center model, TMT was associated with increased effectiveness (both in LYG and QALY) at a higher cost compared to RC±NAC at five and 10 years. This resulted in an ICER of $19 746/QALY per patient undergoing the TMT strategy at 10 years of followup. For the populational-level model, RC±NAC was associated with higher effectiveness at 10 years, with an ICER of $3319/QALY per patient. This study was limited by heterogeneity within the studies used to build the model. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, TMT performed in academic centers was cost-effective compared to RC±NAC, with higher effectiveness at a higher cost. On the other hand, RC±NAC was considered cost-effective compared to TMT at the populational-level. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.
INTRODUCTION: Trimodal therapy (TMT) is a suitable alternative to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and radical cystectomy (RC) for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). In this study, we conducted a cost-effectiveness evaluation of RC±NAC vs. TMT for MIBC in the universal and publicly funded Canadian healthcare system. METHODS: We developed a Markov model with Monte-Carlo microsimulations. Rates and probabilities of transitioning within different health states (e.g., cure, locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, death) were input in the model after a scoped literature review. Two main scenarios were considered: 1) academic center; and 2) populational-level. Results were reported in life-years gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 20 000 patients were simulated. For the academic center model, TMT was associated with increased effectiveness (both in LYG and QALY) at a higher cost compared to RC±NAC at five and 10 years. This resulted in an ICER of $19 746/QALY per patient undergoing the TMT strategy at 10 years of followup. For the populational-level model, RC±NAC was associated with higher effectiveness at 10 years, with an ICER of $3319/QALY per patient. This study was limited by heterogeneity within the studies used to build the model. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, TMT performed in academic centers was cost-effective compared to RC±NAC, with higher effectiveness at a higher cost. On the other hand, RC±NAC was considered cost-effective compared to TMT at the populational-level. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.
Authors: Stephen B Williams; Yong Shan; Usama Jazzar; Hemalkumar B Mehta; Jacques G Baillargeon; Jinhai Huo; Anthony J Senagore; Eduardo Orihuela; Douglas S Tyler; Todd A Swanson; Ashish M Kamat Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Nikhil Waingankar; Katherine Mallin; Marc Smaldone; Brian L Egleston; Andrew Higgins; David P Winchester; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Shlomi Tapiero; Alexander Helfand; Daniel Kedar; Ofer Yossepowitch; Andrei Nadu; Jack Baniel; David Lifshitz; David Margel Journal: Urology Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Stephen B Williams; Yong Shan; Mohamed D Ray-Zack; Hogan K Hudgins; Usama Jazzar; Douglas S Tyler; Stephen J Freedland; Todd A Swanson; Jacques G Baillargeon; Jim C Hu; Sapna Kaul; Ashish M Kamat; John L Gore; Hemalkumar B Mehta Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: David B Cahn; Elizabeth A Handorf; Eric M Ghiraldi; Benjamin T Ristau; Daniel M Geynisman; Thomas M Churilla; Eric M Horwitz; Mark L Sobczak; David Y T Chen; Rosalia Viterbo; Richard E Greenberg; Alexander Kutikov; Robert G Uzzo; Marc C Smaldone Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kimberley S Mak; Angela B Smith; Alec Eidelman; Rebecca Clayman; Andrzej Niemierko; Jed-Sian Cheng; Jonathan Matthews; Michael R Drumm; Matthew E Nielsen; Adam S Feldman; Richard J Lee; Anthony L Zietman; Ronald C Chen; William U Shipley; Matthew I Milowsky; Jason A Efstathiou Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Scott M Stevenson; Matthew R Danzig; Rashed A Ghandour; Christopher M Deibert; G Joel Decastro; Mitchell C Benson; James M McKiernan Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Claus Rödel; Gerhard G Grabenbauer; Reinhard Kühn; Thomas Papadopoulos; Jürgen Dunst; Martin Meyer; Karl M Schrott; Rolf Sauer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-07-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Claire de Oliveira; Reka Pataky; Karen E Bremner; Jagadish Rangrej; Kelvin K W Chan; Winson Y Cheung; Jeffrey S Hoch; Stuart Peacock; Murray D Krahn Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 4.430