Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic disease assessment in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine if laparoscopy is a cost-effective way to assess disease resectability in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

Methods

A cost-effectiveness analysis from a health care payer perspective was performed comparing two strategies: (1) a standard evaluation strategy, where a conventional approach to treatment planning was used to assign patients to either primary cytoreduction (PCS) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with interval cytoreduction (NACT), and (2) a laparoscopy strategy, where patients considered candidates for PCS would undergo laparoscopy to triage between PCS or NACT based on the laparoscopy-predicted likelihood of complete gross resection. A microsimulation model was developed that included diagnostic work-up, surgical and adjuvant treatment, perioperative complications, and progression-free survival (PFS). Model parameters were derived from the literature and our published data. Effectiveness was defined in quality-adjusted PFS years. Results were tested with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $50,000 per year of quality-adjusted PFS.

Results

The laparoscopy strategy led to additional costs (average additional cost $7034) but was also more effective (average 4.1 months of additional quality-adjusted PFS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of laparoscopy was $20,376 per additional year of quality-adjusted PFS. The laparoscopy strategy remained cost-effective even as the cost added by laparoscopy increased. The benefit of laparoscopy was influenced by mitigation of serious complications and their associated costs. The laparoscopy strategy was cost-effective across a range of WTP thresholds.

Conclusions

Performing laparoscopy is a cost-effective way to improve primary treatment planning for patients with untreated advanced ovarian cancer.

SUBMITTER: Harrison RF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8247119 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic disease assessment in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

Harrison Ross F RF Cantor Scott B SB Sun Charlotte C CC Villanueva Mariana M Westin Shannon N SN Fleming Nicole D ND Toumazis Iakovos I Sood Anil K AK Lu Karen H KH Meyer Larissa A LA

Gynecologic oncology 20210131 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine if laparoscopy is a cost-effective way to assess disease resectability in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>A cost-effectiveness analysis from a health care payer perspective was performed comparing two strategies: (1) a standard evaluation strategy, where a conventional approach to treatment planning was used to assign patients to either primary cytoreduction (PCS) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with interval cytoreduction (NACT), ...[more]

PMID: 33536126

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRadiographic triage measures in patients with new advanced ovarian cancer have yielded inconsistent results.ObjectiveTo determine the correlation between surgeon radiology assessment and laparoscopic scoring by disease sites in patients with newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer.MethodsFourteen gynecologic oncology surgeons from a single institution performed a blinded review of pre-operative contrast-enhanced CT imaging from patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Each of the patients had also undergone laparoscopic scoring assessment, between April 2013 and December 2017, to determine primary resectability using the validated Fagotti scoring method, and assigned a predictive index value score. Surgeons were asked to provide expected predictive index value scores based on their blinded review of the antecedent CT imaging. Linear mixed models were conducted to calculate the correlation between radiologic and laparoscopic score for surgeons individually, and as a group. Once the model was fit, the inter-class correlation and 95% CI were calculated.ResultsRadiology review was performed on 20 patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer who underwent laparoscopic scoring assessment. Surgeon faculty rank included assistant professor (n=5), associate professor (p=4), and professor (n=5). The kappa inter-rater agreement was -0.017 (95% CI -0.023 to -0.005), indicating low inter-rater agreement between radiology review and actual laparoscopic score. The inter-class correlation in this model was 0.06 (0.02-0.21), indicating that surgeons do not score the same across all the images. When using a clinical cut-off point for the predictive index value of 8, the probability of agreement between radiology and actual laparoscopic score was 0.56 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.73). Examination of disease site sub-scales showed that the probability of agreement was as follows: peritoneum 0.57 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.62), diaphragm 0.54 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.60), mesentery 0.51 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.57), omentum 0.61 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.67), bowel 0.54 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64), stomach 0.71 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.76), and liver 0.36 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.42). The number of laparoscopic scoring cases, tumor reductive surgery cases, or faculty rank was not significantly associated with overall or sub-scale agreement.ConclusionsSurgeon radiology review did not correlate highly with actual laparoscopic scoring assessment findings in patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Our study highlights the limited accuracy of surgeon radiographic assessment to determine resectability.

Project description:ObjectiveAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies have revolutionized the treatment of clinically significant diabetic macular edema (CSDME); yet these agents are expensive, and whether they are cost-effective is unclear. The purpose of this study is to determine the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed CSDME: focal laser photocoagulation alone (L), focal laser plus intravitreal ranibizumab (L+R), focal laser plus intravitreal bevacizumab (L+B), or focal laser plus intravitreal triamcinolone (L+T) injections.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis.ParticipantsHypothetical cohort of 57-year-old patients with newly diagnosed CSDME.MethodsBy using a Markov model with a 25-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating patients with newly diagnosed CSDME using L, L+R, L+B, or L+T. Data came from the DRCRnet randomized controlled trial, the Medicare fee schedule, and the medical literature.Main outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.ResultsCompared with L, the incremental cost-effectiveness of L+R and L+B was $89903/QALY and $11138/QALY, respectively. L+T was dominated by L. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that, at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $50000/QALY, L was approximately 70% likely to be the preferred therapy over L+R and L+T. However, at a WTP of $100000/QALY, more than 90% of the time, L+R therapy was the preferred therapy compared with L and L+T. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, L+B was found to be the preferred therapy over L and L+T for any WTP value >$10000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the annual risk of cerebrovascular accident would have to be at least 1.5% higher with L+B than with L+R for L+R to be the preferred treatment. In another sensitivity analysis, if patients require <8 injections per year over the remainder of the 25-year time horizon, L+B would cost <$100000/QALY, whereas L+R would be cost-effective at a WTP of $100000/QALY if patients require fewer than 0.45 injections per year after year 2.ConclusionsWith bevacizumab and ranibizumab assumed to have equivalent effectiveness and similar safety profiles when used in the management of CSDME, bevacizumab therapy confers the greatest value among the different treatment options for CSDME.Financial disclosure(s)The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Project description:PurposeWe sought to determine the most cost-effective treatment for patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration: monthly or as-needed bevacizumab injections, or monthly or as-needed ranibizumab injections.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis.ParticipantsHypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration.MethodsUsing a mathematical model with a 20-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating a hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration using monthly bevacizumab, as-needed bevacizumab, monthly ranibizumab, or as-needed ranibizumab. Data came from the Comparison of Age-related macular degeneration Treatment Trial (CATT), the Medicare Fee Schedule, and the medical literature.Main outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.ResultsCompared with as-needed bevacizumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of monthly bevacizumab is $24,2 357/QALY. Monthly ranibizumab gains an additional 0.02 QALYs versus monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >$10 million/QALY. As-needed ranibizumab was dominated by monthly bevacizumab, meaning it was more costly and less effective. In sensitivity analyses assuming a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY, the annual risk of serious vascular events would have to be ≥2.5 times higher with bevacizumab than that observed in the CATT trial for as-needed ranibizumab to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000/QALY. In another sensitivity analysis, even if every patient receiving bevacizumab experienced declining vision by 1 category (e.g., from 20/25-20/40 to 20/50-20/80) after 2 years but every patient receiving ranibizumab retained their vision level, as-needed ranibizumab would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,340/QALY.ConclusionsEven after considering the potential for differences in risks of serious adverse events and therapeutic effectiveness, bevacizumab confers considerably greater value than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular macular degeneration.

Project description:ImportanceThe efficacy of niraparib maintenance therapy with an individualized starting dose (ISD) warrants further investigation in a broad population with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (aOC), including patients without postoperative residual disease.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of niraparib with an ISD in a broad population with newly diagnosed aOC (R0 resection permitted).Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study was conducted in China and enrolled 384 patients with newly diagnosed aOC who received primary or interval debulking surgery and responded to treatment with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. By data cutoff (September 30, 2021), median follow-up for progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.5 (IQR, 24.7-30.4) months.InterventionsPatients were randomized 2:1 to receive niraparib or placebo with ISD (200 mg/d for those with a body weight of <77 kg and/or platelet count of <150 ×103/μL [to convert to ×109/μL, multiply by 1] at baseline; 300 mg/d otherwise) stratified by germline BRCA variant status, tumor homologous recombination deficiency status, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.Main outcomes and measurementsThe primary end point was blinded, independent central review-assessed PFS in the intention-to-treat population.ResultsA total of 384 patients were randomized (255 niraparib [66.4%]; median [range] age, 53 [32-77] years; 129 placebo [33.6%]; median [range] age, 54 [33-77] years), and 375 (247 niraparib [65.9%], 128 placebo [34.1%]) received treatment at a dose of 200 mg per day. Median PFS with niraparib vs placebo was 24.8 vs 8.3 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34-0.60; P < .001) in the intention-to-treat population; not reached vs 10.8 months (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23-0.68) and 19.3 vs 8.3 months (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34-0.67) in patients with and without germline BRCA variants, respectively; not reached vs 11.0 months (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34-0.68) and 16.6 vs 5.5 months (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.75) in homologous recombination deficient and proficient patients, respectively; and 24.8 vs 8.3 months (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32-0.61) and 16.5 vs 8.3 months (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.72) in those with optimal and suboptimal debulking, respectively. Similar proportions of niraparib-treated and placebo-treated patients (6.7% vs 5.4%) discontinued treatment due to treatment-emergent adverse events.Conclusion and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that niraparib maintenance therapy prolonged PFS in patients with newly diagnosed aOC regardless of postoperative residual disease or biomarker status. The ISD was effective and safe in the first-line maintenance setting.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03709316.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic disease assessment in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic disease assessment in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets