Cost-Effectiveness of Watch and Wait: What is in the Box of this Organ-Preservation Strategy?

Abstract Background Watch and wait (WW) protocols have gained increasing popularity for patients diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer and presumed complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. While studies have demonstrated comparable survival and recurrence rates between WW and radical surgery, the decision to undergo surgery has significant effects on patient quality of life. We sought to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing WW with abdominoperineal resection (APR) and low anterior resection (LAR) among patients with stage II/III rectal cancer. Methods In this comparative-effectiveness study, we built Markov microsimulation models to simulate disease progression, death, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for WW or APR/LAR. We assessed cost effectiveness using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with ICERs under $100,000/QALY considered cost effective. Probabilities of disease progression, death, and health utilities were extracted from published, peer-reviewed literature. We assessed costs from the payer perspective. Results WW dominated both LAR and APR at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000. Our model was most sensitive to rates of distant recurrence and regrowth after WW. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that WW was the dominant strategy over both APR and LAR over 100% of iterations across a range of WTP thresholds from $0–250,000. Conclusions Our study suggests WW could reduce overall costs and increase effectiveness compared with either LAR or APR. Additional clinical research is needed to confirm the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of WW compared with surgery in rectal cancer.

Download Full-text

QOLP-09. HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF LOW-GRADE GLIOMA MANAGEMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Neuro-Oncology ◽

10.1093/neuonc/noaa215.734 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽

pp. ii176-ii176

Author(s):

Nima Hamidi ◽

Ajay Fernandez ◽

Kyle Tuohy ◽

Alireza Mansouri

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health Economic ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Health Economics ◽

Surgical Resection ◽

Low Grade Glioma ◽

Low Grade ◽

Baseline Scenario ◽

Watch And Wait ◽

The Cost

Abstract BACKGROUND Diffuse low-grade gliomas (DLGGs, WHO Grade II gliomas) comprise 13-16% of all primary brain tumors. Although there has been a paradigmatic shift toward upfront maximal safe resection (MSR) for these heterogeneous tumors, it is important to consider the health economic perspective of this approach, compared with the traditional watch-and-wait approach, as well. OBJECTIVE To conduct a systematic review of the health economic literature on the range of DLGG management options. METHODS Following the PRISMA guidelines, Medline, EMBASE, The Central Registration Depository (CRD), EconPapers, and EconLit were searched for ‘cost-effectiveness’, ‘health economics’ and ‘Low-grade glioma’. Grade I tumors were excluded. Pre-specified variables were extracted. All currencies were converted to USD. RESULTS Among 258 abstracts, 28 were selected for full-text screening, and 3 were selected for this review. A European study evaluated the role of intraoperative electrical stimulation (IES). Although IES was associated with higher direct costs upfront ($38,662.70 vs $32,116.10), this was offset by less long-term indirect costs ($12,222.30 vs $31,927.10; p=0.023), greater QALY (4.8 vs 2.9; p=0.001), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1,842.50. Another study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant PCV+RT vs RT alone, finding greater QALY for the former (9.94 vs 5.17) and an ICER of $10,186 per QALY gained. A third study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adding 18F-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine (FET) PET to MRI, compared to preoperative MRI alone. This resulted in an ICER of $7,193.58 for the baseline scenario (lowest reimbursement) and $10,236.12 for the morbidity-adjusted reimbursement rate scenario (highest reimbursement). There were no studies evaluating the health economics of maximal upfront surgical resection to the watch-and-wait approach. CONCLUSION We found a limited number of studies reporting on the health economics of DLGGs. Given the paradigmatic transition toward more aggressive upfront surgical resection, DLGG-specific health economic analyses are underway.

Download Full-text