American journal of clinical oncology · 2018
Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Treatment Strategies for T1N0 Anal Canal Cancer.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Deshmukh Ashish A, Zhao Hui, Das Prajnan, Chiao Elizabeth Y, You Yi-Qian Nancy, Franzini Luisa, Lairson David R, Swartz Michael D, Giordano Sharon H, Cantor Scott B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: A comparative assessment of treatment alternatives for T1N0 anal canal cancer has never been conducted. We compared the outcomes associated with the treatment alternatives-chemoradiotherapy (CRT), radiotherapy (RT), and surgery or ablation techniques (surgery/ablation)-for T1N0 anal canal cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries linked with Medicare longitudinal data (SEER-Medicare database). Analysis included 190 patients who were treated for T1N0 anal canal cancer using surgery/ablation (n=44), RT (n=50), or CRT (n=96). The outcomes were reported in terms of survival and hazards ratios using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards modeling, respectively; lifetime costs; and cost-effectiveness measured in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, that is, the ratio of the difference in costs between the 2 alternatives to the difference in effectiveness between the same 2 alternatives.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the survival duration between the treatment groups as predicted by the Kaplan-Meier curves. After adjusting for patient characteristics and propensity score, the hazard ratio of death for the patients who received CRT compared with surgery/ablation was 1.742 (95% confidence interval, 0.793-3.829) and RT was 2.170 (95% confidence interval, 0.923-5.101); however, the relationship did not reach statistical significance. Surgery/ablation resulted in lower lifetime cost than RT or CRT. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with CRT compared with surgery/ablation was $142,883 per life year gained.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in survival among the treatment alternatives for T1N0 anal canal cancer. Given that surgery/ablation costs less than RT or CRT and might be cost-effective compared with RT and CRT, it is crucial to explore this finding further in this era of limited health care resources.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries linked with Medicare longitudinal data (SEER-Medicare database). Analysis included 190 patients who were treated for T1N0 anal canal cancer using surgery/ablation (n=44), RT (n=50), or CRT (n=96). The outcomes were reported in terms of survival and hazards ratios using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards modeling, respectively; lifetime costs; and cost-effectiveness measured in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, that is, the ratio of the difference in costs between the 2 alternatives to the difference in effectiveness between the same 2 alternatives.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the survival duration between the treatment groups as predicted by the Kaplan-Meier curves. After adjusting for patient characteristics and propensity score, the hazard ratio of death for the patients who received CRT compared with surgery/ablation was 1.742 (95% confidence interval, 0.793-3.829) and RT was 2.170 (95% confidence interval, 0.923-5.101); however, the relationship did not reach statistical significance. Surgery/ablation resulted in lower lifetime cost than RT or CRT. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with CRT compared with surgery/ablation was $142,883 per life year gained.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in survival among the treatment alternatives for T1N0 anal canal cancer. Given that surgery/ablation costs less than RT or CRT and might be cost-effective compared with RT and CRT, it is crucial to explore this finding further in this era of limited health care resources.