Dataset Information

A cost-utility analysis of treatments for malignant liver tumours: a pilot project.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Hepatic resection is the standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases when feasible. Techniques such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have been the subject of ongoing research in hopes of achieving a similar survival to that achieved with hepatic resection, but with less morbidity and better quality of life (QOL). The aim was to to generate a hypothesis concerning the cost-utility of various treatments that may be further tested with randomized trials in the future. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, non-randomized pilot study comparing the cost-utility of hepatic resection, RFA, systemic chemotherapy, and symptom control alone for colorectal liver metastases. All patients with newly diagnosed liver malignancies were eligible. QOL was measured serially with the Health Utilities Index. Costs, in 2001 Canadian dollars, were captured from the viewpoint of society in general. RESULTS: In all, 40 patients were enrolled in the study: 7 underwent hepatic resection, 7 underwent RFA (sometimes in combination with resection), 20 received systemic chemotherapy, and 6 received symptom control alone. Liver resection appeared to be the most effective approach, with an average benefit of 2.58 QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) compared with 1.95 QALYs for RFA, 1.18 QALYs for chemotherapy, and 0.82 QALYs for symptom control alone, resulting in cost-utility ratios of $7792, $8056, $12,571, and $4788 per QALY, respectively. DISCUSSION: The cost-utility of hepatic resection and RFA appeared similar even though patients receiving RFA had more advanced disease. The role of RFA is still being defined; however, if long-term survival proves to be promising, then this study lends support to the conduct of randomized controlled trials in the future.

SUBMITTER: McKay A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2020770 | biostudies-other | 2007

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:UnlabelledWHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Multiple treatment alternatives exist for localised prostate cancer, with few high-quality studies directly comparing their comparative effectiveness and costs. The present study is the most comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis to date for localised prostate cancer, conducted with a lifetime horizon and accounting for survival, health-related quality-of-life, and cost impact of secondary treatments and other downstream events, as well as primary treatment choices. The analysis found minor differences, generally slightly favouring surgical methods, in quality-adjusted life years across treatment options. However, radiation therapy (RT) was consistently more expensive than surgery, and some alternatives, e.g. intensity-modulated RT for low-risk disease, were dominated - that is, both more expensive and less effective than competing alternatives.ObjectiveTo characterise the costs and outcomes associated with radical prostatectomy (open, laparoscopic, or robot-assisted) and radiation therapy (RT: dose-escalated three-dimensional conformal RT, intensity-modulated RT, brachytherapy, or combination), using a comprehensive, lifetime decision analytical model.Patients and methodsA Markov model was constructed to follow hypothetical men with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer over their lifetimes after primary treatment; probabilities of outcomes were based on an exhaustive literature search yielding 232 unique publications. In each Markov cycle, patients could have remission, recurrence, salvage treatment, metastasis, death from prostate cancer, and death from other causes. Utilities for each health state were determined, and disutilities were applied for complications and toxicities of treatment. Costs were determined from the USA payer perspective, with incorporation of patient costs in a sensitivity analysis.ResultsDifferences across treatments in quality-adjusted life years across methods were modest, ranging from 10.3 to 11.3 for low-risk patients, 9.6-10.5 for intermediate-risk patients and 7.8-9.3 for high-risk patients. There were no statistically significant differences among surgical methods, which tended to be more effective than RT methods, with the exception of combined external beam + brachytherapy for high-risk disease. RT methods were consistently more expensive than surgical methods; costs ranged from $19 901 (robot-assisted prostatectomy for low-risk disease) to $50 276 (combined RT for high-risk disease). These findings were robust to an extensive set of sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsOur analysis found small differences in outcomes and substantial differences in payer and patient costs across treatment alternatives. These findings may inform future policy discussions about strategies to improve efficiency of treatment selection for localised prostate cancer.

Project description:IntroductionCost-utility assessment of first-line actinic keratosis (AK) treatments for max 25 cm2 AK field.MethodsA probabilistic, 2-year decision tree model was used to assess costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier, cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and expected value of perfect information (EVPI) of AK treatments from the Finnish health care payer perspective with 3% discounting per annum. In the model, the first-line AK treatment resulted in complete clearance (CC) or non-CC with or without local skin responses (LSR), or AK recurrence. Non-CC AK was treated with methyl aminolevulinate+photodynamic therapy (MAL+PDT), and AK recurrence was retreated with the previous effective treatment. Costs included primary and secondary health care, outpatient drugs, and LSR management. QALYs were assessed with the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L). Result robustness was assessed with sensitivity analyses.ResultsThe mean simulated per patient QALYs (costs) were 1.526 (€982) for MAL+PDT, 1.524 (€794) for ingenol mebutate gel (IngMeb) 0.015% (3 days), 1.522 (€869) for IngMeb 0.05% (2 days), 1.520 (€1062) for diclofenac 3% (12 weeks), 1.518 (€885) for imiquimod 3.75% (6 weeks), 1.517 (€781) for imiquimod 5% (4/8 weeks), and 1.514 (€1114) for cryosurgery when treating AK affecting any body part. IngMeb 0.015% was less costly and more effective (dominating) than other AK treatments indicated for face and scalp area with the exception of imiquimod 5% for which the ICER was estimated at €1933/QALY gained and MAL+PDT, which had an ICER of €82,607/QALY gained against IngMeb 0.015%. With willingness-to-pay €2526-18,809/QALY gained, IngMeb 0.015% had >50% probability for cost-effectiveness on the CEAF. IngMeb 0.05% dominated AK treatments indicated for trunk and extremities. EVPIs for face and scalp (trunk and extremities) analyses were €26 (€0), €86 (€58), and €250 (€169) per patient with the willingness-to-pay of €0, €15,000, and €30,000 per QALY gained, respectively.ConclusionIngMebs were cost-effective AK treatments in Finland.FundingLEO Pharma.

Project description:ObjectivesStress urinary incontinence (SUI) and stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) are common conditions that can have a negative impact on the quality of life of patients and serious cost implications for healthcare providers. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of nine different surgical interventions for treatment of SUI and stress-predominant MUI from a National Health Service and personal social services perspective in the UK.MethodsA Markov microsimulation model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nine surgical interventions. The model was informed by undertaking a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and network meta-analysis. The main clinical parameters in the model were the cure and incidence rates of complications after different interventions. The outcomes from the model were expressed in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. In addition, expected value of perfect information (EVPI) analyses were conducted to quantify the main uncertainties facing decision-makers.ResultsThe base-case results suggest that retropubic mid-urethral sling (retro-MUS) is the most cost-effective surgical intervention over a 10-year and lifetime time horizon. The probabilistic results show that retro-MUS and traditional sling are the interventions with the highest probability of being cost-effective across all willingness-to-pay thresholds over a lifetime time horizon. The value of information analysis results suggest that the largest value appears to be in removing uncertainty around the incidence rates of complications, the relative treatment effectiveness and health utility values.ConclusionsAlthough retro-MUS appears, at this stage, to be a cost-effective intervention, research is needed on possible long-term complications of all surgical treatments to provide reassurance of safety, or earlier warning of unanticipated adverse effects. The value of information analysis supports the need, as a first step, for further research to improve our knowledge of the actual incidence of complications.

Dataset Information

A cost-utility analysis of treatments for malignant liver tumours: a pilot project.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets