Cost-effectiveness of routine radiation therapy following conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 1022-1029 ◽  
Author(s):  
J A Hayman ◽  
B E Hillner ◽  
J R Harris ◽  
J C Weeks

PURPOSE To examine the cost-effectiveness of radiation therapy following conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. METHODS Using a Markov model, a cost-utility analysis was performed to compare a strategy of radiation therapy versus no radiation therapy in a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old women following conservative surgery. Local recurrence, distant recurrence, and survival rates used in the model were derived from randomized trial data. Utilities for the nonmetastatic health states were collected from actual patients. Direct medical costs were estimated using data from a single institution. Transportation and time costs were also estimated. Years of life, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost/QALY over a 10-year time horizon were calculated by the model for each strategy. RESULTS The addition of radiation therapy results in a cost increase of $9,800 per patient, no change in life expectancy, and an increase of 0.35 QALYs per patient, which leads to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $28,000/QALY, which is well below $50,000/QALY, a commonly cited threshold for cost-effective care. Sensitivity analysis shows the ratio to be heavily influenced by the cost of radiation therapy and the quality-of-life benefit that results from decreased risk of local recurrence. CONCLUSION Radiation therapy following conservative surgery is cost-effective compared with other accepted medical interventions. This study illustrates the importance of considering an intervention's effect on quality of life, as well as survival in defining cost-effectiveness.

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. Hayman ◽  
Bruce E. Hillner ◽  
Jay R. Harris ◽  
Lori J. Pierce ◽  
Jane C. Weeks

PURPOSE: Electron-beam boosts (EBB) are routinely added after conservative surgery and tangential radiation therapy (TRT) for early-stage breast cancer. We performed an incremental cost-utility analysis to evaluate their cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A Markov model examined the impact of adding an EBB to TRT from a societal perspective. Outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). On the basis of the Lyon trial, the EBB was assumed to reduce local recurrences by approximately 2% at 10 years but to have no impact on survival. Patients’ utilities were used to adjust for quality of life. Given the small absolute benefit of the EBB, baseline utilities were assumed to be the same with or without it, an assumption evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation. Direct medical, time, and travel costs were considered. RESULTS: Adding the EBB led to an additional cost of $2,008, an increase of 0.0065 QALYs and, therefore, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of over $300,000/QALY. In a sensitivity analysis, the ratio was moderately sensitive to the efficacy and cost of the EBB and highly sensitive to patients’ utilities for treatment without it. Even if patients do value a small risk reduction, the mean cost-effectiveness ratio estimated by the Monte Carlo simulation remains high, at $70,859/QALY (95% confidence interval, $53,141 to $105,182/QALY). CONCLUSION: On the basis of currently available data, the cost-effectiveness ratio for the EBB is well above the commonly cited threshold for cost-effective care ($50,000/QALY). The EBB becomes cost-effective only if patients place an unexpectedly high value on the small absolute reduction in local recurrences achievable with it.


2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 1-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Clare ◽  
Aleksandra Kudlicka ◽  
Jan R Oyebode ◽  
Roy W Jones ◽  
Antony Bayer ◽  
...  

BackgroundCognitive rehabilitation (CR) is an individualised, person-centred intervention for people with mild to moderate dementia that addresses the impact of cognitive impairment on everyday functioning.ObjectivesTo determine whether or not CR is a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention for people with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease or vascular or mixed dementia, and their carers.DesignThis multicentre randomised controlled trial compared CR with treatment as usual (TAU). Following a baseline assessment and goal-setting to identify areas of everyday functioning that could be improved or better managed, participants were randomised (1 : 1) via secure web access to an independent randomisation centre to receive either TAU or CR and followed up at 3 and 9 months post randomisation.SettingCommunity.ParticipantsParticipants had anInternational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition, diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or vascular or mixed dementia, had mild to moderate cognitive impairment (Mini Mental State Examination score of ≥ 18 points), were stable on medication if prescribed, and had a family carer who was willing to contribute. The exclusion criteria were people with a history of brain injury or other neurological disorder and an inability to speak English. To achieve adequate power, we needed 350 people to complete the trial, with 175 people in each trial arm.InterventionCognitive rehabilitation consisted of 10 therapy sessions over 3 months, followed by four maintenance sessions over 6 months, delivered in participants’ homes. The therapists were nine occupational therapists and one nurse.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was self-reported goal attainment at 3 months. Goal attainment was also assessed at 9 months. Carers provided independent ratings of goal attainment at both time points. The secondary outcomes were participant quality of life, mood, self-efficacy and cognition, and carer stress, health status and quality of life. The assessments at 3 and 9 months were conducted by researchers who were blind to the participants’ group allocation.ResultsA total of 475 participants were randomised (CR arm,n = 239; TAU arm,n = 236), 427 participants (90%) completed the trial and 426 participants were analysed (CR arm,n = 208, TAU arm,n = 218). At 3 months, there were statistically significant large positive effects for participant-rated goal attainment [mean change in the CR arm: 2.57; mean change in the TAU arm: 0.86; Cohen’sd = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.19], corroborated by carer ratings (Cohen’sd = 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.34). These effects were maintained at 9 months for both the participant ratings (Cohen’sd = 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17) and the carer ratings (Cohen’sd = 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.20). There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes. In the cost–utility analyses, there was no evidence of cost-effectiveness in terms of gains in the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the person with dementia (measured using the DEMentia Quality Of Life questionnaire utility score) or the QALYs of the carer (measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version) from either cost perspective. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, by reference to the primary outcome of participant-rated goal attainment, CR was cost-effective from both the health and social care perspective and the societal perspective at willingness-to-pay values of £2500 and above for improvement in the goal attainment measure. There was no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the self-efficacy measure (the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale) from either cost perspective.LimitationsPossible limitations arose from the non-feasibility of using observational outcome measures, the lack of a general measure of functional ability and the exclusion of people without a carer or with rarer forms of dementia.ConclusionsCognitive rehabilitation is clinically effective in enabling people with early-stage dementia to improve their everyday functioning in relation to individual goals targeted in the therapy sessions.Future workNext steps will focus on the implementation of CR into NHS and social care services and on extending the approach to people with rarer forms of dementia.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN21027481.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Lieto ◽  
Annamaria Auricchio ◽  
Silvia Erario ◽  
Giovanni Del Sorbo ◽  
Francesca Cardella

Abstract Background: Surgical treatment of breast cancer, the most frequent cancer in women, is deeply changed in the last years turning towards a progressive minimally invasion, both in extend of demolition and in axillary dissection completeness. This is due to the flexibility of the concept of radicality that today is taylored on the patient, rather than on the disease; If oncologic radicality is preserved, a less invasive operation on the breast is mandatory. In the era of mini-invasive surgery, a patient may ask for an aesthetic care without any additional health risk.Methods: In this article, we compared two groups of 75 consecutive patients undergoing conservative surgery for early stage breast cancer; the two groups were randomized for standard quadrantectomy and totally subcutaneous quadrantectomy. Statistical analysis was carried out for comparing data.Results: No difference in oncologic outcome was found with the different surgical procedures; the length of hospital stay and the incidence of late breast deformities were significantly less in subcutaneous quadrantectomy group. Conclusions: We conclude that, in early breast cancer, a totally subcutaneous surgical procedure of resection is feasible and safe and ensures an absolutely better aesthetical result, that involves patient’s quality of life.


1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 1252-1260 ◽  
Author(s):  
J A Hayman ◽  
D L Fairclough ◽  
J R Harris ◽  
J C Weeks

PURPOSE To assess patients' preferences regarding the trade-off between risks and benefits of radiation therapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Utilities (measures of preference) of 97 early-stage breast cancer patients treated with conservative surgery and radiation therapy and 20 medical oncology nurses were assessed for five health states using standard gambles. RESULTS Patients had the highest mean utility for treatment with conservative surgery and radiation therapy without a local recurrence (0.92), intermediate utilities for treatment with conservative surgery alone followed either by no local recurrence or by a local recurrence salvaged by conservative surgery and radiation therapy (0.88 and 0.87, respectively), and the lowest utilities for treatment with or without radiation therapy followed by a local recurrence salvaged by mastectomy and reconstructive surgery (0.82 and 0.81, respectively). All differences between health states' utilities were significant (P < .0001), except between the two intermediate and two lowest rated health states. None of the clinical or sociodemographic factors examined explained more than 5% of the variability in the patients' utilities or their differences. Nurses' utilities were similar to those of the patients. CONCLUSIONS These results strongly suggest that fear of a local recurrence and an actual local recurrence leading to mastectomy have such a negative impact on quality of life that patients are willing to accept the risks and inconvenience of radiation therapy to avoid them. There is also considerable interpatient variability that was not explained by the clinical or sociodemographic factors examined.


Author(s):  
Danielle M. Gillard ◽  
Jeffrey D. Sharon

Abstract Purpose of Review To summarize and critically review recent literature on the relative cost-effectiveness of hearing augmentation versus stapes surgery for the treatment of otosclerosis. Recent Findings Otosclerosis leads to reduced patient quality of life, which can be ameliorated by either stapes surgery, or hearing aid usage. The success of stapes surgery is high, and the risks of serious postoperative complications are low. Hearing aids don’t have the complications of surgery but are associated with long-term costs. Cost-effectiveness models have shown that stapes surgery is a cost-effective method for treating otosclerosis. Summary Both stapes surgery and hearing aids can improve patient-reported quality of life in otosclerosis. Stapes surgery has larger upfront costs and surgical risks, but hearing aids are associated with longer lifetime costs. Stapes surgery is cost-effective for the treatment of otosclerosis.


2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (81) ◽  
pp. 1-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janine Dretzke ◽  
Deirdre Blissett ◽  
Chirag Dave ◽  
Rahul Mukherjee ◽  
Malcolm Price ◽  
...  

BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic progressive lung disease characterised by non-reversible airflow obstruction. Exacerbations are a key cause of morbidity and mortality and place a considerable burden on health-care systems. While there is evidence that patients benefit from non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in hospital during an acute exacerbation, evidence supporting home use for more stable COPD patients is limited. In the UK, domiciliary NIV is considered on health economic grounds in patients after three hospital admissions for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV by systematic review and economic evaluation.Data sourcesBibliographic databases, conference proceedings and ongoing trial registries up to September 2014.MethodsStandard systematic review methods were used for identifying relevant clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies assessing NIV compared with usual care or comparing different types of NIV. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane guidelines and relevant economic checklists. Results for primary effectiveness outcomes (mortality, hospitalisations, exacerbations and quality of life) were presented, where possible, in forest plots. A speculative Markov decision model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care from a UK perspective for post-hospital and more stable populations separately.ResultsThirty-one controlled effectiveness studies were identified, which report a variety of outcomes. For stable patients, a modest volume of evidence found no benefit from domiciliary NIV for survival and some non-significant beneficial trends for hospitalisations and quality of life. For post-hospital patients, no benefit from NIV could be shown in terms of survival (from randomised controlled trials) and findings for hospital admissions were inconsistent and based on limited evidence. No conclusions could be drawn regarding potential benefit from different types of NIV. No cost-effectiveness studies of domiciliary NIV were identified. Economic modelling suggested that NIV may be cost-effective in a stable population at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £28,162), but this is associated with uncertainty. In the case of the post-hospital population, results for three separate base cases ranged from usual care dominating to NIV being cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £10,000 per QALY gained. All estimates were sensitive to effectiveness estimates, length of benefit from NIV (currently unknown) and some costs. Modelling suggested that reductions in the rate of hospital admissions per patient per year of 24% and 15% in the stable and post-hospital populations, respectively, are required for NIV to be cost-effective.LimitationsEvidence on key clinical outcomes remains limited, particularly quality-of-life and long-term (> 2 years) effects. Economic modelling should be viewed as speculative because of uncertainty around effect estimates, baseline risks, length of benefit of NIV and limited quality-of-life/utility data.ConclusionsThe cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV remains uncertain and the findings in this report are sensitive to emergent data. Further evidence is required to identify patients most likely to benefit from domiciliary NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting NIV and equipment settings.Future work recommendationsThe results from this report will need to be re-examined in the light of any new trial results, particularly in terms of reducing the uncertainty in the economic model. Any new randomised controlled trials should consider including a sham non-invasive ventilation arm and/or a higher- and lower-pressure arm. Individual participant data analyses may help to determine whether or not there are any patient characteristics or equipment settings that are predictive of a benefit of NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting (and potentially discounting) NIV.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003286.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 556-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kaura ◽  
J. Karnon ◽  
F. di Trapani

556 Background: The BIG1–98 and ATAC trials have proven the effectiveness of 5 years letrozole (LET) and anastrozole (ANA), respectively, compared to 5 years tamoxifen (TAM) for the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive (HR+) early stage breast cancer. This analysis uses similar assumptions to those used in the NICE appraisal in the UK, and country specific input data to estimate the cost-effectiveness of LET vs TAM and ANA vs. TAM from the Belgian, Canadian, UK, and US health care perspective (8 analyses). Methods: The same Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (ICQ) across the 8 analyses in postmenopausal women with HR+ early stage breast cancer. Model events and assumptions were based on the analysis undertaken by the NICE appraisal team in the UK. Probabilities of breast cancer events (contralateral; locoregional; and metastases) were based on the latest early breast cancer (Lancet) overview. Country-specific cost, utility, and adverse event parameter values were informed by relevant population-based studies. LET and ANA effects were informed by published results of the BIG 1–98 and ATAC trials, which were assumed to cease after therapy discontinuation (other than fracture risk that continued for 5 further years). Costs and QALYs were estimated over the remaining lifetime of a cohort of HR+ women aged 60 yrs, discounted at 3.5% annually. Conclusion: Compared to TAM, adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal HR+ women with LET or ANA for 5 years is a cost-effective use of resources in all of the countries included in this analysis. Based on the model assumptions used by the NICE appraisal team in the UK, the mean results indicate that LET is more cost-effective than ANA, though the confidence intervals are wide. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document