Ovarian preservation compared to oophorectomy in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 164 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-23
Author(s):  
Miriam Hernandez-Zepeda ◽  
Amanda Bruegl ◽  
Elizabeth Munro ◽  
Aaron Caughey
2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6619-6619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna C. Yang ◽  
Elena B. Elkin ◽  
Rahul Parikh ◽  
Joachim Yahalom

6619 Background: Low-grade follicular lymphoma (FL) can present as localized stage I to II disease in up to one-third of patients. Upfront involved-site radiation therapy (RT) to 24-30Gy is the preferred first-line management strategy for these patients. However, the National LymphoCare Study found that less than one quarter of patients with early-stage, low-grade FL received upfront RT, while more than half received either chemoimmunotherapy or observation. Methods: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov state-transition model to simulate the progression of early-stage, low-grade FL in a cohort of 60-year-old men. The following first-line treatments were compared: RT, observation, rituximab induction (RI), rituximab and bendamustine (BR), and rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (RCHOP). Patients who relapsed received second-line therapies that were dependent on their first-line treatment: RT for RI and observation, RCHOP for RT and BR, and BR for RCHOP. Disease-progression probabilities and other model inputs were from published trials. Results: First-line RT followed by RCHOP for relapses had a quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) of 11.4 years, superior to first-line observation, RI, BR, and RCHOP strategies. First-line RT strongly dominated observation, BR, and RCHOP. Compared with RI, first-line RT resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2,740 per quality-adjusted life year. The probability of dying from other causes, the probability of a complete response to RT, and the probability of relapse had the greatest impact on both cost and effectiveness expected values. Conclusions: In contrast to current practice patterns, first-line RT is the most effective upfront treatment for patients with early-stage, low-grade FL. Further, first-line RT paired with RCHOP for relapses is a cost-effective treatment paradigm, relative to other strategies. [Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
Vol 162 ◽  
pp. S142
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Bohn ◽  
Miriam Hernandez-Zepeda ◽  
Alyssa Hersh ◽  
Elizabeth Munro ◽  
Jenna Kahn ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
David A. Barrington ◽  
Paulina J. Haight ◽  
Cody Calhoun ◽  
Crystal Tubbs ◽  
David E. Cohn ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haifeng Gu ◽  
Jundong Li ◽  
Yangkui Gu ◽  
Hua Tu ◽  
Yun Zhou ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThe aim of this article was to investigate the survival impact of ovarian preservation in surgically treated patients with early-stage endometrial cancer using a meta-analysis.MethodsMajor online databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, as well as Grey Literature database, were searched to collect studies on the effects of ovarian preservation compared with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) for surgical treatment in endometrial cancer patients. The literature search was performed up to April 2016. The results were analyzed using RevMan 5.0 software and Stata/SE 12.0 software.ResultsTotally, 7 retrospective cohort studies including 1419 patients in ovarian preservation group and 15,826 patients in BSO group were enrolled. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival between the patients treated with ovarian preservation and BSO (hazards ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72–1.39; P = 1.00). Similar result was achieved in the young and premenopausal women (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70–1.39; P = 0.39). Furthermore, the disease-free survival of patients whose ovaries were preserved was slightly compromised but with no statistical significance (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.56–3.93; P = 0.42).ConclusionsOvarian preservation may be safe in patients with early-stage endometrial cancer, and it could be cautiously considered in treating young and premenopausal women because it is not associated with an adverse impact on the patients’ survival. Given the inherent limitations of the included studies, further well-designed randomized controlled trial are needed to confirm and update this analysis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document