Cost Effectiveness of Interval Cytoreductive Surgery With Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Stage III Ovarian Cancer on the Basis of a Randomized Phase III Trial.


Journal

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
ISSN: 1527-7755
Titre abrégé: J Clin Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8309333

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 08 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 30 6 2019
medline: 21 5 2020
entrez: 29 6 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In the randomized open-label phase III OVHIPEC trial, the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS) improved recurrence-free and overall survival in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. We studied the cost effectiveness of the addition of HIPEC to interval CRS in patients with ovarian cancer. We constructed a Markov health-state transition model to measure costs and clinical outcomes. Transition probabilities were derived from the OVHIPEC trial by fitting survival distributions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was calculated from a Dutch societal perspective, with a time horizon of 10 years. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the decision uncertainty. Total health care costs were €70,046 (95% credibility interval [CrI], €64,016 to €76,661) for interval CRS compared with €85,791 (95% CrI, €78,766 to €93,935) for interval CRS plus HIPEC. The mean QALY in the interval CRS group was 2.12 (95% CrI, 1.66 to 2.64 QALYs) and 2.68 (95% CrI, 2.11 to 3.28 QALYs) in the interval CRS plus HIPEC group. The ICER amounted to €28,299/QALY. In univariable sensitivity analysis, the utility of recurrence-free survival and the number of days in the hospital affected the calculated ICER most. On the basis of the trial data, treatment with interval CRS and HIPEC in patients with stage III ovarian cancer was accompanied by a substantial gain in QALYs. The ICER is below the willingness-to-pay threshold in the Netherlands, indicating interval CRS and HIPEC is cost effective for this patient population. These results lend additional support for reimbursing the costs of treating these patients with interval CRS and HIPEC in countries with comparable health care systems.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31251694
doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00594
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT00426257']
EudraCT
['2006-003466-34']

Types de publication

Clinical Trial, Phase III Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2041-2050

Auteurs

Simone N Koole (SN)

1The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
2Center for Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Christiaan van Lieshout (C)

1The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
3University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

Willemien J van Driel (WJ)

1The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
2Center for Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
4The Dutch Gynecological Oncology Group, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
5The Dutch Peritoneal Oncology Group, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Evi van Schagen (E)

6Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Karolina Sikorska (K)

1The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Jacobien M Kieffer (JM)

1The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Jules H Schagen van Leeuwen (JH)

7St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.

Henk W R Schreuder (HWR)

8UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Ralph H Hermans (RH)

9Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Ignace H de Hingh (IH)

5The Dutch Peritoneal Oncology Group, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
9Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Jacobus van der Velden (J)

2Center for Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
10Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Henriette J Arts (HJ)

11University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Leon F A G Massuger (LFAG)

12Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Arend G Aalbers (AG)

1The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Victor J Verwaal (VJ)

13Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Koen K Van de Vijver (KK)

14University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.

Neil K Aaronson (NK)

1The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Harm van Tinteren (H)

1The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Gabe S Sonke (GS)

1The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
4The Dutch Gynecological Oncology Group, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Wim H van Harten (WH)

1The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
3University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

Valesca P Retèl (VP)

1The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
3University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH