Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Mepitel Film for prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: a Canadian healthcare perspective.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Tse Shirley S W, Wong Henry C Y, Charbonneau Flay, Cao Jeffrey Q, Hijal Tarek, Kerba Marc, Waddle Mark R, Lee Shing Fung, Sonis Stephen T, Wolf Julie Ryan, van den Hurk Corina, Corbin Kimberly, Marta Gustavo N, Wong Cindy, Chan Raymond J, Herst Patries M, Hill Rosemary, Chow Edward, Kim Hayeon
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: While randomized clinical trials (RCT) confirmed superiority of Mepitel Film (MF) in reducing acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) compared to standard-of-care (SoC), the incremental cost difference has limited its use. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted from a Canadian healthcare payer's perspective to guide policy decisions.
METHODS: A decision model was constructed to perform a CEA for MF compared to SoC (moisturizers) for prevention of grade 2 or higher ARD following adjuvant hypo-fractionated whole-breast radiotherapy (RT) based on a Canadian multicentre RCT. Direct and indirect cost data were collected from two oncology centers in Canada. Quality-of-life (QoL) utility values were derived from mapping Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores for patients with grade 2 or higher ARD at week 6 of RT to EQ-5D. A willingness-to-pay (WTF) threshold of CAD 50,000 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained was used. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty in decision model assumptions.
RESULTS: Base case analysis demonstrated that MF is cost-effective in preventing grade 2 or higher ARD as compared with SoC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 3366 per QALY gained. When indirect costs were included, MF resulted in an ICER of CAD 2823 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the results were most sensitive to the QoL utility value for ARD. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that MF demonstrates 100% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $50,000 per QALY threshold.
CONCLUSIONS: MF is a cost-effective intervention for preventing high-grade ARD and should be recommended for patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant RT.
METHODS: A decision model was constructed to perform a CEA for MF compared to SoC (moisturizers) for prevention of grade 2 or higher ARD following adjuvant hypo-fractionated whole-breast radiotherapy (RT) based on a Canadian multicentre RCT. Direct and indirect cost data were collected from two oncology centers in Canada. Quality-of-life (QoL) utility values were derived from mapping Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores for patients with grade 2 or higher ARD at week 6 of RT to EQ-5D. A willingness-to-pay (WTF) threshold of CAD 50,000 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained was used. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty in decision model assumptions.
RESULTS: Base case analysis demonstrated that MF is cost-effective in preventing grade 2 or higher ARD as compared with SoC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 3366 per QALY gained. When indirect costs were included, MF resulted in an ICER of CAD 2823 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the results were most sensitive to the QoL utility value for ARD. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that MF demonstrates 100% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $50,000 per QALY threshold.
CONCLUSIONS: MF is a cost-effective intervention for preventing high-grade ARD and should be recommended for patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant RT.