Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2026
Structured Exercise Program After Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis of the CHALLENGE Trial.
СтатьяКлиническое исследование III фазыРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chan Kelvin K W, Chu Ryan W K, Cheung Matthew C, Courneya Kerry S, O'Callaghan Christopher J, Vardy Janette L, Gill Sharlene, Friedenreich Christine, Wong Rebecca K S, Dhillon Haryana M, Coyle Victoria, Chua Neil Sun, Jonker Derek J, Meyer Ralph M, Ahmed Shahid, Zalcberg John Raymond, Clarke Stephen John, O'Brien Patti, Tang Patricia A, Wong Ralph, Lim Howard J, Burge Matthew E, Brundage Michael, Hay Annette E, Tu Dongsheng, Booth Christopher M, CHALLENGE Investigators, CHALLENGE investigators
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The phase III CHALLENGE trial (CCTG CO.21) demonstrated that a 3-year structured exercise program (SEP) improved disease-free and overall survival versus health education materials (HEM) in patients with stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of the SEP versus HEM.
METHODS: This prespecified economic evaluation used prospectively collected data from all trial participants (N = 889). The base case adopted the Canadian public payer perspective and included direct health care costs over a 5-year time horizon with a 1.5% discount rate. 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) outcomes were mapped to Short-Form 6-Dimension (SF-6D) utilities using a validated algorithm. Mean costs (2024 in Canadian dollars [CAD]) and effects (life-years [LYs] and quality-adjusted LYs [QALYs]) per participant in each intervention group were used to estimate the incremental costs, incremental LYs/QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, $ CAD/life-year gain [LYG]), and incremental cost-utility ratio ($ CAD/QALY) when applicable. Uncertainty was assessed via bootstrapping (1,000 samples). Notable scenario analyses included a 10-year time horizon and a societal perspective incorporating lost wages because of missed work, measured through the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire.
RESULTS: In the base case, despite an up-front cost of $2,917 (CAD)/participant to provide the SEP, the SEP strategy (total cost: $31,957 (CAD)/participant) was dominant over HEM (total cost: $33,546 (CAD)/participant), being less costly (-$1,589/participant) and more effective (+0.05 LYs/participant; +0.10 QALYs/participant). The SEP was dominant in 53% of bootstrap samples, and 80% fell below a $50,000 (CAD) per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Major cost drivers were cancer recurrence or new malignancy and anticancer therapy. Scenario analyses were consistent with the base case.
CONCLUSION: The SEP was less costly and more effective than HEM. This study can inform payers and health systems with implementation of SEPs in routine care.
METHODS: This prespecified economic evaluation used prospectively collected data from all trial participants (N = 889). The base case adopted the Canadian public payer perspective and included direct health care costs over a 5-year time horizon with a 1.5% discount rate. 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) outcomes were mapped to Short-Form 6-Dimension (SF-6D) utilities using a validated algorithm. Mean costs (2024 in Canadian dollars [CAD]) and effects (life-years [LYs] and quality-adjusted LYs [QALYs]) per participant in each intervention group were used to estimate the incremental costs, incremental LYs/QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, $ CAD/life-year gain [LYG]), and incremental cost-utility ratio ($ CAD/QALY) when applicable. Uncertainty was assessed via bootstrapping (1,000 samples). Notable scenario analyses included a 10-year time horizon and a societal perspective incorporating lost wages because of missed work, measured through the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire.
RESULTS: In the base case, despite an up-front cost of $2,917 (CAD)/participant to provide the SEP, the SEP strategy (total cost: $31,957 (CAD)/participant) was dominant over HEM (total cost: $33,546 (CAD)/participant), being less costly (-$1,589/participant) and more effective (+0.05 LYs/participant; +0.10 QALYs/participant). The SEP was dominant in 53% of bootstrap samples, and 80% fell below a $50,000 (CAD) per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Major cost drivers were cancer recurrence or new malignancy and anticancer therapy. Scenario analyses were consistent with the base case.
CONCLUSION: The SEP was less costly and more effective than HEM. This study can inform payers and health systems with implementation of SEPs in routine care.