Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for cT2-4N0-1 non-small cell lung cancer patients during initial treatment phase.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
The choice between neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) remains controversial in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There is no significant difference in NAC and AC's effectiveness. We investigate the cost-effectiveness of NAC versus AC for NSCLC.Method
A decision tree model was designed from a payer perspective to compare NAC and AC treatments for NSCLC patients. Parameters included overall survival (OS), surgical complications, chemotherapy adverse events (AEs), treatment initiation probability, treatment time frame, treatment cost, and quality of life (QOL). Sensitivity analyses were performed to characterize model uncertainty in the base cases.Result
AC treatment strategy produced a cost saving of ¥3064.90 and incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of 0.10 years per patient with the same OS. NAC would be cost-effective at a ¥35,446/QALY threshold if the median OS of NAC were 2.3 months more than AC. The model was robust enough to handle variations to all input parameters except OS. In the probability sensitivity analysis, AC remained dominant in 54.4% of simulations.Conclusion
The model cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that with operable NSCLC, AC treatment is more cost-effective to NAC. If NAC provides a longer survival advantage, this treatment strategy may be cost-effective. The OS is the main factor that influences cost-effectiveness and should be considered in therapeutic regimes.
SUBMITTER: Wu D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8287679 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Comparative survival between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with cT2-4N0-1M0 non-small cell lung cancer has not been extensively studied. METHODS:Patients with cT2-4N0-1M0 non-small cell lung cancer who received platinum-based chemotherapy were retrospectively identified. Exclusion criteria included stage IV disease, induction radiotherapy, and targeted therapy. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points were overall survival, chemotherapy tolerance, and ability of Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors response to predict survival. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, compared using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards models, and stratified using matched pairs after propensity score matching. RESULTS:In total, 330 patients met the inclusion criteria (n = 92/group after propensity-score matching; median follow-up, 42 months). Five-year disease-free survival was 49% (95% confidence interval, 39-61) for neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus 48% (95% confidence interval, 38-61) for adjuvant chemotherapy (P = .70). On multivariable analysis, disease-free survival was not associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.90; P = .737), nor was overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-2.30; P = .572). The neoadjuvant chemotherapy group was more likely to receive full doses and cycles of chemotherapy (P = .014/0.005) and had fewer grade 3 or greater toxicities (P = .001). Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with disease-free survival (P = .035); 15% of patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (14/92) had a major pathologic response. CONCLUSIONS:Timing of chemotherapy, before or after surgery, is not associated with an improvement in overall or disease-free survival among patients with cT2-4N0-1M0 non-small cell lung cancer who undergo complete surgical resection.
| S-EPMC6344258 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) can be treated with either neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS). Although randomized controlled trials show that NACT is non-inferior in overall survival compared to PCS, there may be improvement in short-term morbidity. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of NACT relative to PCS for AEOC from the US Medicare perspective. METHODS:A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model with a 7-month time horizon comparing (1) 3cycles of NACT with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CT), followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, then 3 additional cycles of CT, or (2) PCS followed by 6cycles of CT. Input parameters included probability of chemotherapy complications, surgical complications, treatment completion, treatment costs, and utilities. Model outcomes included costs, life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), in terms of cost per life-year gained and cost per QALY gained. We accounted for differences in surgical complexity by incorporating the cost of additional procedures and the probability of undergoing those procedures. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed via Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS:NACT resulted in a savings of $7034 per patient with a 0.035 QALY increase compared to PCS; therefore, NACT dominated PCS in the base case analysis. With PSA, NACT was the dominant strategy more than 99% of the time. CONCLUSIONS:In the short-term, NACT is a cost-effective alternative compared to PCS in women with AEOC. These results may translate to longer term cost-effectiveness; however, data from randomized control trials continues to mature.
| S-EPMC6002777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:As triple-negative breast cancers are associated with earlier recurrences and poorer survival, optimal treatment of early-stage breast cancer is essential. Several retrospective studies in triple-negative breast cancer have reported conflicting results in overall survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic therapy. This study aims to analyze outcomes of adjuvant versus neoadjuvant in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer with and without BRCA germline mutations. METHODS:Patients with stage I or II triple-negative breast cancer who had BRCA testing were identified from a prospective cohort study of 4027 patients. Clinical, demographic, genetic test results, chemotherapy, recurrence, and survival data were analyzed. Overall survival and disease-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS:319 patients with stage I and II triple-negative breast cancer who met eligibility criteria were included in the analysis. 187 received adjuvant chemotherapy (58.6%) and 132 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (41.4%). 135 were BRCA positive (42.3%) and 184 were BRCA negative (57.7%). There was no significant association between overall survival or disease-free survival and treatment with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant in the overall cohort. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between patient subgroups (neoadjuvant BRCA positive, neoadjuvant BRCA negative, adjuvant BRCA positive, and adjuvant BRCA negative) with respect to either overall survival or disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS:Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant with standard anthracycline- and taxane-containing regimens results in similar disease-free survival and overall survival among patients with stage I and II triple-negative breast cancer regardless of BRCA status. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether similar results are observed with newer agents.
| S-EPMC5994186 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPerioperative (neoadjuvant and adjuvant) pembrolizumab has shown favorable efficacy in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.MethodsWe established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of perioperative pembrolizumab with that of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 21-day cycles, utilizing data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-671 trial. Additional data were extracted from other publications or online sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was established. The main outcomes of this study were the measurement of QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB).ResultsDuring a 10-year time horizon, the total costs of perioperative pembrolizumab and the control treatment were $224,779.1 and $110,026.3, respectively. The QALYs were 4.19 and 2.97 for the two treatments, respectively, which led to an ICER of $94,222.29 per QALY gained. The NMB at the WTP threshold at $150,000 per QALY gained was $67,931.3. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the cost of pembrolizumab as the primary factor influencing cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 97.7% probability of perioperative pembrolizumab being cost-effective at the WTP threshold.ConclusionsFrom the perspective of the United States healthcare payers, perioperative pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with early-stage NSCLC.
| S-EPMC10562534 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) is an improved formulation of doxorubicin with comparable effectiveness but significantly lower cardiotoxicity than conventional anthracycline. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and safety of PLD versus epirubicin as neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment for breast cancer.MethodsClinical data of invasive breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy with PLD or epirubicin were retrospectively collected. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce the risk of selection bias. The molecular typing of these patients included Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2-positive, and basal-like/triple-negative. The primary outcome was pathological complete response (pCR) rate for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate for adjuvant chemotherapy. Noninferiority was suggested if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the 3-year DFS rate difference was greater than - 10%. The secondary outcome was adverse reactions.ResultsA total of 1213 patients were included (neoadjuvant, n = 274; adjuvant, n = 939). pCR (ypT0/Tis ypN0) rates of patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were 11.6% for the PLD group and 7.0% for the epirubicin group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.4578). The 3-year DFS rate of patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy was 94.9% [95%CI, 91.1-98.6%] for the PLD group and 95.4% [95%CI, 93.0-97.9%] for the epirubicin group (P = 0.5684). Rate difference between the two groups and its 95% CI was - 0.55 [- 5.02, 3.92]. The lower limit of the 95% CI was - 5.0% > - 10.0%, suggesting that PLD is not be inferior to epirubicin in adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. The incidences of myelosuppression, decreased appetite, alopecia, gastrointestinal reactions, and cardiotoxicity were lower in the PLD group than in the epirubicin group, while the incidence of nausea was higher in the PLD group.ConclusionsIn the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment of breast cancer, effectiveness is similar but toxicities are different between the PLD-containing regimen and epirubicin-containing regimen. Therefore, further study is warranted to explore PLD-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.
| S-EPMC8650529 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In functionally fit patients with localized disease surgical resection remains the treatment of choice. There is also good evidence to support the use of chemotherapy in stages II-III. However, whether to use neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy has been the topic of much debate. With its strong evidence base, adjuvant chemotherapy has been adopted in the European Society of Medical Oncology clinical practice guidelines for early and locally advanced stages II-III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with consideration of adjuvant therapy in those with stage IB but with tumours >4 cm in size. There are fewer trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone. Even less has been carried out directly comparing neoadjuvant with adjuvant therapy. The NATCH trial demonstrated no difference in survival between adjuvant and neoadjuvant arms, whilst others have yet to be completed. Meta-analysis also demonstrates no appreciable difference between the two methods. With such a strong body of evidence, however, postoperative delivery of chemotherapy remains the timing of choice in NSCLC.
| S-EPMC4032958 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8406953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of specific regimens of adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer has not been verified by large clinical trials. Recently, several large trials attempted to verify the effectiveness of adjuvant therapy. The Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial of TS-1 for Gastric Cancer in Japan, a randomized controlled trial of adjuvant S-1 therapy for resected gastric cancer, demonstrated significant improvement in overall and relapse-free survival, compared to surgery alone. To evaluate value for money of S-1 therapy, cost-effective analysis was carried out.MethodsThe analysis was carried out from a payer's perspective. As an economic measure, cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was estimated. Overall survival was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, up to 5-year observation. Beyond this period, it was simulated by the modified Boag model. Utility score is derived from interviews with sampled patients using a time trade-off method. Costs were estimated from trial data during observation, while in the period beyond observation they were estimated using simulation results. To explore uncertainty of the results, qualitative and stochastic sensitivity analyses were done.ResultsAdjuvant S-1 therapy gained 1.24 QALYs per patient and increased costs by $3,722 per patient for over lifetime (3% discount rate for both effect and costs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (95% confidence intervals) for over lifetime was estimated to be $3,016 ($1,441, $8,840) per QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of these results.ConclusionAdjuvant S-1 therapy for curatively resected gastric cancer is likely cost-effective. This therapy can be accepted for wide use in Japan.
| S-EPMC3816158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe neoadjuvant treatment options for ERBB2-positive (also known as HER2-positive) breast cancer are associated with different rates of pathologic complete response (pCR). The KATHERINE trial showed that adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) can reduce recurrence in patients with residual disease compared with patients treated with trastuzumab; however, T-DM1 and other ERBB2-targeted agents are costly, and understanding the costs and health consequences of various combinations of neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatments in the United States is needed.ObjectiveTo examine the costs and disease outcomes associated with selection of various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer from a health care payer perspective in the United States. The model was informed by the KATHERINE trial, other clinical trials with different regimens from the KATHERINE trial, the Flatiron Health Database, McKesson Corporation data, and other evidence in the published literature. Starting trial median age for KATHERINE patients was 49 years (range, 24-79 years in T-DM1 arm and 23-80 years in trastuzumab arm). The model simulated patients receiving 5 different neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies. Data analyses were performed from March 2019 to August 2020.ExposureThere were 4 neoadjuvant regimens: (1) HP: trastuzumab (H) plus pertuzumab (P), (2) THP: paclitaxel (T) plus H plus P, (3) DDAC-THP: dose-dense anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (DDAC) plus THP, (4) TCHP: docetaxel (T) plus carboplatin (C) plus HP. All patients with pCR, regardless of neoadjuvant regimen, received adjuvant H. Patients with residual disease received different adjuvant therapies depending on the neoadjuvant regimen according to the 5 following strategies: (1) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant H, (2) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant T-DM1, (3) neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1, (4) neoadjuvant HP followed by adjuvant DDAC/THP plus T-DM1, or (5) neoadjuvant TCHP followed by adjuvant T-DM1.Main outcomes and measuresLifetime costs in 2020 US dollars and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each treatment strategy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. A strategy was classified as dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, costs ranged from $415 833 (strategy 3) to $518 859 (strategy 4), and QALYs ranged from 9.67 (strategy 1) to 10.73 (strategy 3). Strategy 3 was associated with the highest health benefits (10.73 QALYs) and lowest costs ($415 833) and dominated all other strategies. Probabilistic analysis confirmed that this strategy had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (>70% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0-200,000/QALY) and was associated with the highest net benefit.Conclusions and relevanceThese results suggest that neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant H for patients with pCR or followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1 for patients with residual disease was associated with the highest health benefits and lowest costs for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer compared with other treatment strategies considered.
| S-EPMC7684449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConcurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (CCRT-AC) is currently recommended as the standard treatment for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NAC-CCRT) is an alternative strategy for decreasing tumor size and controlling micrometastases before main treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare survival outcomes between LA-NPC patients treated with CCRT-AC and those treated with NAC-CCRT.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included consecutive histologically confirmed LA-NPC patients that were treated with NAC-CCRT or CCRT-AC at Siriraj Hospital during the March 2010 to October 2014 study period. CCRT in both protocols consisted of 3-week cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 with concurrent radiotherapy. Either NAC or AC consisted of 3-week cycles of cisplatin on day 1 and fluorouracil/leucovorin on days 1-4 for a maximum three cycles. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS). Flexible parametric survival analysis was used, because the proportional hazards assumption of Cox regression was violated.ResultsOf the 266 LA-NPC patients that received treatment during the study period, 79 received NAC-CCRT and 187 received CCRT-AC. Median follow-up was 37 months. Significantly more patients with advanced clinical stage (stage IVA-IVB) received NAC-CCRT (86% in NAC-CCRT vs. 29% in CCRT-AC; p < 0.001). Compared to CCRT-AC in crude analysis, 3-year and 5-year OS of NAC-CCRT were 72% vs. 86% and 62% vs. 75% respectively (p = 0.059). Interestingly, the 3-year and 5-year post-estimation adjusted OS was 84% and 74% for NAC-CCRT and 81% and 70% for CCRT-AC, respectively (HR: 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-1.56; p = 0.571). Also, adjusted analysis of distant-metastasis survival, NAC-CCRT showed HR was 0.79 (95% CI:0.37-1.72, p = 0.557). Conversely, adjusted analysis of locoregional relapse (LLR)-free survival revealed NAC-CCRT to have a significantly higher risk of LRR (HR: 2.18, 95% CI: 0.98-4.87; p = 0.057).ConclusionsThe results suggested that prognosis in the NAC-CCRT treated patients was not superior to that of the CCRT-AC treated individuals. In patients that receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy, locoregional relapse should be of concern. High-risk distant metastasis patients (N3 stage) that could achieve survival advantage from NAC-CCRT is an interesting and important topic for further study.
| S-EPMC5870479 | biostudies-literature