Cost-effectiveness analysis of biopsy strategies for endometrial cancer diagnosis in women with postmenopausal bleeding: Pipelle sampling curette versus dilatation & curettage.

BACKGROUND

Endometrial sampling is widely used for accurate diagnosis of endometrial cancer (EC), which is the most common gynecologic cancer in US women. The objective of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of two endometrial sampling procedures for diagnosing EC: (1) Pipelle endometrial sampling (Pipelle), and (2) dilatation & curettage (D&C), while accounting for sampling procedure failure rates and diagnostic accuracy in women with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB).

METHOD: The decision analytic model was built to compare the cost-effectiveness of Pipelle and D&C strategies in a hypothetical cohort of PMB women. The analysis was performed from the perspective of a public healthcare payer (Medicare, US). We used 2017 Medicare reimbursement data for cost estimation. The effectiveness of these two diagnostic strategies was measured by analyzing the remaining life expectancy after EC diagnosis and subsequent treatment.

RESULTS

The base case analysis suggested that Pipelle was not only equally effective (32.11 vs. 32.11 years of life), but also less costly ($1897.80 vs. $2999.11) based on Medicare reimbursement when compared to D&C. In one-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the Pipelle remained the more cost-effective sampling strategy even after accounting for sampling failure rate associated with each sampling strategy.

CONCLUSION

The Pipelle is the more cost-effective sampling strategy compared to D&C for EC diagnosis in women with PMB. From the cost-effectiveness perspective, the higher sampling failure rate of Pipelle should not be regarded as a limitation in its clinical application.