Brachytherapy · 2017
Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant intravaginal brachytherapy in high-intermediate risk endometrial carcinoma.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Stahl John M, Damast Shari, Bledsoe Trevor J, An Yi, Verma Vivek, Yu James B, Young Melissa R, Lester-Coll Nataniel H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant intravaginal brachytherapy (IVBT) vs. observation after total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TH/BSO) for high-intermediate risk (HIR) endometrial carcinoma.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of IVBT by comparing average cumulative costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) between patients allocated to (1) 'observation' or (2) 'IVBT' after TH/BSO. We used a prototype Post-Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma (PORTEC)-defined HIR patient in the base case analysis. We calibrated the model to match the outcomes reported in the PORTEC-1 and PORTEC-2 trials. Utilities were obtained from published estimates, and costs were calculated based on Medicare reimbursement ($5445 for IVBT). The societal willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000 per QALY. The time horizon was 5 years.
RESULTS: IVBT was associated with a net increase of 0.094 QALYs (4.512 vs. 4.418) as well as an increase in mean cost ($17,453 vs. $15,620) relative to observation. The ICER for IVBT was $19,500 per QALY. On one-way sensitivity analysis, IVBT remained cost-effective when its cost was less than $12,937. If the probability of vaginal recurrence in the observation arm was increased or decreased by 25%, the ICER became $1335 per QALY and $87,925 per QALY, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that IVBT was the preferred management option in 86% of simulations.
CONCLUSIONS: IVBT is cost-effective compared with observation after TH/BSO for HIR endometrial carcinoma by commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of IVBT by comparing average cumulative costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) between patients allocated to (1) 'observation' or (2) 'IVBT' after TH/BSO. We used a prototype Post-Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma (PORTEC)-defined HIR patient in the base case analysis. We calibrated the model to match the outcomes reported in the PORTEC-1 and PORTEC-2 trials. Utilities were obtained from published estimates, and costs were calculated based on Medicare reimbursement ($5445 for IVBT). The societal willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000 per QALY. The time horizon was 5 years.
RESULTS: IVBT was associated with a net increase of 0.094 QALYs (4.512 vs. 4.418) as well as an increase in mean cost ($17,453 vs. $15,620) relative to observation. The ICER for IVBT was $19,500 per QALY. On one-way sensitivity analysis, IVBT remained cost-effective when its cost was less than $12,937. If the probability of vaginal recurrence in the observation arm was increased or decreased by 25%, the ICER became $1335 per QALY and $87,925 per QALY, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that IVBT was the preferred management option in 86% of simulations.
CONCLUSIONS: IVBT is cost-effective compared with observation after TH/BSO for HIR endometrial carcinoma by commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.