Display options
Cite
Forde GK, Chang J, Ziogas A. Cost-effectiveness of primary debulking surgery when compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the management of stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;8:397-406doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S91844.
Forde, G. K., Chang, J., & Ziogas, A. (2016). Cost-effectiveness of primary debulking surgery when compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the management of stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer. ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 8397-406. https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S91844
Forde, Gareth K, et al. "Cost-effectiveness of primary debulking surgery when compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the management of stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer." ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR vol. 8 (2016): 397-406. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S91844
Forde GK, Chang J, Ziogas A. Cost-effectiveness of primary debulking surgery when compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the management of stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Aug 02;8:397-406. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S91844. eCollection 2016. PMID: 27536150; PMCID: PMC4976818.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Aug 02;8:397-406. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S91844. eCollection 2016.

Cost-effectiveness of primary debulking surgery when compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the management of stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer.

ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR

Gareth K Forde, Jenny Chang, Argyrios Ziogas

Affiliations

  1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Irvine Medical Center, University of California, Orange, CA, USA.
  2. Department of Epidemiology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.

PMID: 27536150 PMCID: PMC4976818 DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S91844

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine the cost-effectiveness of primary debulking surgery (PDS) when compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data linked to Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare).

METHODS: Using a Markov model, the cost-effectiveness of PDS was compared to that of NACT. We modeled cost and survival inputs using data from women in the SEER-Medicare database with ovarian cancer treated by either PDS or NACT between 1992 and 2009. Direct and indirect costs were discounted by an annual rate of 3%. Utility weights were obtained from published data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PDS compared to NACT was calculated.

RESULTS: In our model, women with stage IIIC EOC had a higher mean adjusted treatment cost for PDS when compared to NACT ($31,945 vs $30,016) but yielded greater quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.79 vs 1.69). The ICER was $19,359/QALY gained. Women with stage IV EOC had a higher mean adjusted treatment cost following PDS when compared to NACT ($31,869 vs $27,338) but yielded greater QALYs (1.69 vs 1.66). The ICER was $130,083/QALY gained. A sensitivity analysis showed that for both PDS and NACT the ICER was sensitive to incremental changes in the utility weight.

CONCLUSION: PDS is significantly more cost-effective for women with stage IIIC when compared to NACT. In women with stage IV EOC, PDS is also more cost-effective though the QALYs gained are much more costly and exceed a $50,000 willingness to pay.

Keywords: Markov model; chemotherapy; gynecologic cancer; up front surgery

References

  1. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Sep;134(3):462-7 - PubMed
  2. BMC Cancer. 2014 Mar 10;14:171 - PubMed
  3. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Sep 1;26(25):4144-50 - PubMed
  4. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Oct;131(1):15-20 - PubMed
  5. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1247-51 - PubMed
  6. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 1;29(31):4073-5 - PubMed
  7. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Sep;122(3):473-8 - PubMed
  8. Med Care. 2002 Aug;40(8 Suppl):IV-3-18 - PubMed
  9. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Nov;107(2):211-8 - PubMed
  10. N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 2;363(10):943-53 - PubMed
  11. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Jan;124(1):10-4 - PubMed
  12. Cancer. 2014 Apr 15;120(8):1246-54 - PubMed
  13. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Jul;114(1):26-31 - PubMed
  14. Cancer Control. 2011 Jan;18(1):59-64 - PubMed
  15. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014 Jan-Feb;64(1):9-29 - PubMed
  16. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Apr;170(4):974-9; discussion 979-80 - PubMed
  17. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Sep;106(3):476-81 - PubMed
  18. Eur J Cancer. 1998 Nov;34(12):1894-901 - PubMed
  19. Anticancer Drugs. 1998 Jul;9(6):491-502 - PubMed

Publication Types