Cost-effectiveness analysis of gastric cancer management using perioperative chemotherapy versus adjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16079-e16079
Author(s):  
Vishnu Prasath ◽  
Patrick L. Quinn ◽  
Joseph B. Oliver ◽  
Omar Mahmoud ◽  
Mohammed Jaloudi ◽  
...  

e16079 Background: The most commonly used treatment options for gastric cancer include complete resection with adequate margins with either perioperative chemotherapy (PCT) or adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). While both treatment strategies have shown superiority over surgical resection alone, it is not clear which treatment strategy is more optimal. Methods: Our decision tree model was built to analyze the survival and costs associated with the two major management methods: perioperative chemotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Costs were obtained from Medicare reimbursement rates using a third-party payer perspective. Our model’s effectiveness was represented using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Our analysis tested the robustness of our conclusions by utilizing one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: PCT was the preferred treatment strategy for diagnosed gastric cancer over CRT, with a cost of $54,326.10 and 4.08 QALYs. CRT was the costliest economic strategy with a cost of $77,987.52 and 4.28 QALYs and an ICER of 115,907.48. We set a threshold of $100,000 per QALYs gained which CRT surpassed making PCT the preferred treatment modality. Over 100,000 simulations, 51.4% of simulations favored PCT. CRT became favored when CRT non-curative procedure rates rose 3% higher than PCT non-curative procedure rates and when PCT complication rates rose 15% higher than CRT complication rates. Conclusions: In our simulated patients with diagnosed gastric cancer, the most cost-effective treatment strategy was PCT. We see cost-effectiveness alternating to favor CRT with changes in non-curative procedure rates and adjuvant therapy complication rates.[Table: see text]

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianna Lauren ◽  
Sassan Ostvar ◽  
Elisabeth Silver ◽  
Myles Ingram ◽  
Aaron Oh ◽  
...  

Background. The 5-year survival rate of patients with metastatic gastric cancer (GC) is only 5%. However, trials have demonstrated promising antitumor activity for targeted therapies/immunotherapies among chemorefractory metastatic GC patients. Pembrolizumab has shown particular efficacy among patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and high microsatellite instability (MSI-H). The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biomarker-guided second-line GC treatment. Methods. We constructed a Markov decision-analytic model using clinical trial data. Our model compared pembrolizumab monotherapy and ramucirumab/paclitaxel combination therapy for all patients and pembrolizumab for patients based on MSI status or PD-L1 expression. Paclitaxel monotherapy and best supportive care for all patients were additional comparators. Costs of drugs, treatment administration, follow-up, and management of adverse events were estimated from a US payer perspective. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY over 60 months. Secondary outcomes were unadjusted life years (survival) and costs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate model uncertainty. Results. The most effective strategy was pembrolizumab for MSI-H patients and ramucirumab/paclitaxel for all other patients, adding 3.8 months or 2.0 quality-adjusted months compared to paclitaxel. However, this strategy resulted in a prohibitively high ICER of $1,074,620/QALY. The only cost-effective strategy was paclitaxel monotherapy for all patients, with an ICER of $53,705/QALY. Conclusion. Biomarker-based treatments with targeted therapies/immunotherapies for second-line metastatic GC patients substantially improve unadjusted and quality-adjusted survival but are not cost-effective at current drug prices.


Author(s):  
C.D. Corso ◽  
E.H. Wang ◽  
N.H. Lester-Coll ◽  
C.E. Rutter ◽  
D.N. Yeboa ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 167-167
Author(s):  
Yunni Jeong ◽  
Alyson L. Mahar ◽  
Brandon Zagorski ◽  
Natalie Coburn

167 Background: Half of gastric cancer patients in North America present with metastatic disease. The appropriate management of these patients is complex and few guidelines exist to definitively guide treatment; as a result, practice variation exists. This variation may lead to care inefficiencies with adverse outcomes. We therefore aimed to conduct a patient-level exploration of metastatic gastric cancer management costs, by treatment strategy, and identify predictors of cost. Methods: We performed a patient-level cost analysis of metastatic gastric cancer patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2008 using a 26-month time horizon and the healthcare system’s perspective. Clinical data was derived from a provincial chart review. Costs associated with supportive care, radiation only, chemotherapy only, chemoradiation, gastrectomy, and gastrectomy with chemotherapy +/- radiotherapy were derived using administrative data from a universal healthcare system. Costs were inflated to 2017 United States dollars (USD) Linear regression was used to identify factors predictive of cost. Results: The absolute mean costs of metastatic gastric cancer management increased with increasing level of intervention and ranged from $34,002 to $72,778 (USD); supportive care was associated with the lowest costs and gastrectomy with chemotherapy +/- radiotherapy was associated with the highest costs. Age over 70 and lower Charlson Comorbidity Index were predictors of lower costs while supportive care, radiotherapy, chemoradiation, and gastrectomy were associated with higher costs. Conclusions: Practice variation has known clinical implications, but economic impact also needs to be considered. Variation in the management of metastatic gastric cancer may reflect dissimilar resource availability between health regions as well as differential access to palliative care. Evidence-based guidelines directing appropriate care for metastatic gastric cancer patients to reduce inefficiencies in care and governmental intervention to implement equitable resource allocation to bridge gaps in care are necessary.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e22076-e22076
Author(s):  
Elena Parvez ◽  
Teodora Dumitra ◽  
Dimitra Panagiotoglou ◽  
Sarkis H. Meterissian ◽  
Sinziana Dumitra

e22076 Background: The MSLT-II trial demonstrated no survival benefit of completion lymphadenectomy (CLND) compared to nodal observation (NO) and subsequent therapeutic lymphadenectomy (TLND) in the case of macroscopic nodal relapse in patients with melanoma and SLN metastases. NO avoids the upfront cost and morbidity of CLND. However, patients followed with NO must undergo intensive surveillance and if TLND is required, it is associated with a higher complication rate than CLND. The cost-effectiveness of NO versus CLND in light of data from MSLT-II has not been previously studied. Methods: A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was constructed to simulate two hypothetical cohorts of patients with SLN metastases undergoing NO and subsequent TLND for nodal recurrence or upfront CLND. Transition probabilities between disease states were derived from the MSLT-II trial. Remaining parameters including complication rates and health state utilities were obtained from an extensive review of the literature. Direct health care system costs were obtained from published US Medicare cost data and the literature. Primary outcomes were cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to compare treatment strategies. Sensitivity analysis was performed in order to evaluate model uncertainty. A threshold of acceptance of $100,000/QALY was used. Results: Total projected cost over the study period for CLND was $28,609.87, while that of NO was lower at $20,865.27, resulting in $7,744.60 saved for the NO treatment strategy. Ten-year utility was 4.840 for CLND compared to 5.379 for NO, resulting in a gain of 0.539 QALYs in the NO arm. The NO strategy is dominant in the model as it results in both cost-savings and a gain in health effects, with an average ICER of -$14,368.46/QALY gained. Conclusions: From the payer perspective, the strategy of NO compared to CLND in patients with melanoma and SLN metastases is associated with an improvement in health outcomes and reduction in cost. Taking into account MSLT-II trial data, this study demonstrates NO is more cost-effective than CLND.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (15) ◽  
pp. 1143-1151
Author(s):  
Omar Abdel-Rahman

Aim: To assess the survival outcomes of patients with nonmetastatic gastric cancer according to the type of perioperative treatment strategy used (surgery-only, adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, perioperative chemotherapy) in a population-based setting. Materials & methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results research-plus database was explored, and patients with nonmetastatic gastric cancer who were treated with an oncologic surgery were reviewed. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to examine the impact of treatment strategy on overall and cancer-specific survival. Results: A total of 11,526 patients were found to be eligible and they were included in the current analysis. Looking at the percentages of different treatment strategies throughout the study years (2006–2017), the use of the following strategies increased: adjuvant chemotherapy (20.1 vs 10.6%), and perioperative chemotherapy (21.3 vs 0.5%); while the use of the following strategies decreased: surgery only (36.2 vs 58.2%), and adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (22.4 vs 30.6%). Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, the following factors were associated with worse overall survival: older age (hazard [HR]: 1.021; 95% CI: 1.018–1.023), males (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.04–1.14), Black race (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.04–1.19), cardia subsite (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.02–1.17), grade 3–4 (HR:1.32; 95% CI: 1.25–1.40), diffuse histology (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.35–1.58), clinically node positive (HR:1.43; 95% CI: 1.34–1.53), total gastrectomy (HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.13–1.28), and surgery-only approach (HR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.55–1.75). Conclusion: Among patients with localized gastric cancer, patients who were treated with surgery-only, and to a less extent, patients who were treated with surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy have worse survival outcomes; while those treated with perioperative chemotherapy have the best survival outcomes.


2018 ◽  
Vol 146 (14) ◽  
pp. 1834-1840 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Kowada

AbstractGastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Gastric cancer screening using upper gastrointestinal series, endoscopy and serological testing has been performed in population-based (employee-based and community-based) and opportunistic cancer screening in Japan. There were 45 531 gastric cancer deaths in 2016, with the low screening and detection rates.Helicobacter pylori(H. pylori) screening followed by eradication treatment is recommended in high-risk population settings to reduce gastric cancer incidence. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness ofH. pyloriscreening followed by eradication treatment for a high-risk population in the occupational health setting. Decision trees and Markov models were developed for two strategies;H. pyloriantibody test (HPA) screening and no screening. Targeted populations were hypothetical cohorts of employees aged 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 years using a company health payer perspective on a lifetime horizon. Per-person costs and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years) were calculated and compared. HPA screening yielded greater benefits at the lower cost than no screening. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte-Carlo simulation showed strong robustness of the results.H. pyloriscreening followed by eradication treatment is recommended to prevent gastric cancer for employees in Japan, on the basis of cost-effectiveness.


2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 281
Author(s):  
Seong Kweon Hong ◽  
Min Gew Choi ◽  
Yong Hae Baik ◽  
Jae Hyung Noh ◽  
Tae Sung Sohn ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document