Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of salvage therapies in locoregional previously irradiated head and neck cancer.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to present our evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of salvage therapies for patients with recurrent head and neck cancer. METHODS:A Markov model was developed with 5 salvage treatment strategies: (1) platinum-based chemotherapy alone; (2) chemotherapy plus cetuximab; (3) stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) alone; (4) SBRT plus cetuximab; and (5) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plus chemotherapy. Clinical parameters were obtained from comprehensive literature review and 2016 Medicare reimbursement. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and evaluated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. RESULTS:In the base case analysis, no treatment strategy was cost-effective at a WTP threshold. The most cost-effective therapy was SBRT alone with $150 866 per QALY gained. If median survival of SBRT alone was ?11 months, SBRT was considered to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION:None of the treatment strategies were cost-effective. However, SBRT-based reirradiation has potential to be cost-effective.

SUBMITTER: Kim H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7409550 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis of salvage therapies in locoregional previously irradiated head and neck cancer.

Kim HaYeon H Vargo John A JA Beriwal Sushil S Clump David A DA Ohr James P JP Ferris Robert L RL Heron Dwight E DE Huq M Saiful MS Smith Kenneth J KJ

Head & neck 20180314 8

<h4>Background</h4>The purpose of this study was to present our evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of salvage therapies for patients with recurrent head and neck cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>A Markov model was developed with 5 salvage treatment strategies: (1) platinum-based chemotherapy alone; (2) chemotherapy plus cetuximab; (3) stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) alone; (4) SBRT plus cetuximab; and (5) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plus chemotherapy. Clinical parameters were obtained ...[more]

PMID: 29537684

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTreatment options for patients with platinum-refractory, recurrent, metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (r/m HNSCC) are limited and prognosis is poor. The recent CheckMate 141 clinical trial demonstrated that nivolumab, an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 monoclonal antibody, was efficacious in extending the median overall survival (OS) in this patient population compared with standard therapies. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine whether nivolumab is a cost-effective treatment in this patient population and examined various subgroups to determine for which, if any, the treatment is more cost-effective.Materials and methodsWe implemented a state transition model for HNSCC with a patient cohort who had tumor progression 6 months after the last dose of platinum-containing chemotherapy and compared the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab with docetaxel. Treatment effect estimates and adverse event rates were obtained from CheckMate 141. Costs, utilities, and other model inputs were gathered from published sources. We used a Canadian perspective, a 5-year time horizon, and a 1.5% discount rate for the analysis.ResultsNivolumab extended mean OS by 4 months compared with docetaxel and resulted in fewer treatment-related adverse events, producing an incremental effectiveness of 0.13 quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The incremental cost of treatment with nivolumab was $18,823. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, nivolumab was not a cost-effective treatment option for r/m HNSCC, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $144,744/QALY. Nivolumab would be cost-effective if its price was reduced by 20%. Our subgroup analysis seemed to indicate that nivolumab might be cost-effective for tumors with expression of programmed death-ligand 1 >5%.ConclusionWe conclude that although nivolumab offers clinical benefit for the treatment of r/m HNSCC over current regimens, it is not cost-effective based on its list price. We have also established a value-based price estimate for nivolumab to be cost-effective in this patient population. Further study is required to draw a definitive conclusion on biomarkers for cost-effectiveness.Implications for practiceIn health care settings in which cost considerations are a constraint on choice of therapy, patient selection should be carefully considered to maintain efficiency in the system. Until a biomarker for response to therapy is identified for nivolumab, this medication is unlikely to be cost-effective for most patients with recurrent, metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of salvage therapies in locoregional previously irradiated head and neck cancer.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis of salvage therapies in locoregional previously irradiated head and neck cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets