Cost-effectiveness analysis of imaging surveillance in stage II and III extremity soft tissue sarcoma: an Australian perspective.
Cost-effectiveness
Disease recurrence
Distant recurrence
Imaging surveillance
Local recurrence
Metastasectomy
Pulmonary metastases
Soft tissue sarcoma
Journal
Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E
ISSN: 1478-7547
Titre abrégé: Cost Eff Resour Alloc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170476
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
10
09
2019
accepted:
23
01
2020
entrez:
12
2
2020
pubmed:
12
2
2020
medline:
12
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Surveillance imaging is used to detect local and/or distant recurrence following primary treatment of localised soft tissue sarcoma (STS), however evidence supporting optimal surveillance modality or frequency is lacking. We used prospectively collected sarcoma data to describe current surveillance imaging practice in patients with AJCC stage II and III extremity STS and evaluate its cost-effectiveness. From three selected Australian sarcoma referral centres, we identified patients with stage II and III extremity STS treated between 2009 and 2013. Medical records were reviewed to ascertain surveillance imaging practices, including modality, frequency and patient outcomes. A discrete event simulation model was developed and calibrated using clinical data to estimate health service costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with alternative surveillance strategies. Of 133 patients treated for stage II and III extremity STS, the majority were followed up with CT chest (86%), most commonly at 3-monthly intervals and 62% of patients had the primary site imaged with MRI at 6-monthly. There was limited use of chest-X-ray. A discrete event simulation model demonstrated that CT chest screening was the most cost effective surveillance strategy, gaining additional QALYs at a mean incremental cost of $30,743. MRI alone and PET-CT alone were not cost-effective, whilst a combined strategy of CT + MRI had an incremental cost per QALY gained of $96,556. Wide variations were observed in surveillance imaging practices in this high-risk STS cohort. Modelling demonstrated the value of CT chest for distant recurrence surveillance over other forms of imaging in terms of cost and QALYs. Further work is required to evaluate cost-effectiveness in a prospective manner.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Surveillance imaging is used to detect local and/or distant recurrence following primary treatment of localised soft tissue sarcoma (STS), however evidence supporting optimal surveillance modality or frequency is lacking. We used prospectively collected sarcoma data to describe current surveillance imaging practice in patients with AJCC stage II and III extremity STS and evaluate its cost-effectiveness.
METHODS
METHODS
From three selected Australian sarcoma referral centres, we identified patients with stage II and III extremity STS treated between 2009 and 2013. Medical records were reviewed to ascertain surveillance imaging practices, including modality, frequency and patient outcomes. A discrete event simulation model was developed and calibrated using clinical data to estimate health service costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with alternative surveillance strategies.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 133 patients treated for stage II and III extremity STS, the majority were followed up with CT chest (86%), most commonly at 3-monthly intervals and 62% of patients had the primary site imaged with MRI at 6-monthly. There was limited use of chest-X-ray. A discrete event simulation model demonstrated that CT chest screening was the most cost effective surveillance strategy, gaining additional QALYs at a mean incremental cost of $30,743. MRI alone and PET-CT alone were not cost-effective, whilst a combined strategy of CT + MRI had an incremental cost per QALY gained of $96,556.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Wide variations were observed in surveillance imaging practices in this high-risk STS cohort. Modelling demonstrated the value of CT chest for distant recurrence surveillance over other forms of imaging in terms of cost and QALYs. Further work is required to evaluate cost-effectiveness in a prospective manner.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32042270
doi: 10.1186/s12962-020-0202-7
pii: 202
pmc: PMC6998821
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
5Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;29(Suppl 4):iv268-iv269
pubmed: 30285214
Cancer. 1992 Feb 1;69(3):662-8
pubmed: 1730117
Value Health. 2014 Sep;17(6):669-78
pubmed: 25236990
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Apr;90(4):484-7
pubmed: 18378924
Semin Surg Oncol. 1999 Jul-Aug;17(1):83-7
pubmed: 10402642
Sarcoma. 2010;2010:506182
pubmed: 20634933
Cancer. 2000 Feb 15;88(4):777-85
pubmed: 10679646
J Surg Oncol. 2014 May;109(6):593-6
pubmed: 24374823
Br J Cancer. 2014 May 13;110(10):2420-6
pubmed: 24736584
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012 Oct;15(4):612-7
pubmed: 22761121
Cancer Treat Rev. 2004 Feb;30(1):83-101
pubmed: 14766127
Int J Oncol. 2004 Aug;25(2):429-35
pubmed: 15254741
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 May;6(5):913-9
pubmed: 21750417
Sarcoma. 2016;2016:8289509
pubmed: 27478404
Acta Orthop Scand. 2000 Oct;71(5):488-95
pubmed: 11186407
Ann Surg Oncol. 2000 Jan-Feb;7(1):9-14
pubmed: 10674442
Eur J Cancer. 2008 Sep;44(13):1841-5
pubmed: 18640829
Skeletal Radiol. 2016 Oct;45(10):1375-84
pubmed: 27488833
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Nov 15;69(4):1173-80
pubmed: 17689031
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Dec 14;169(22):2071-7
pubmed: 20008689
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016 May;25(3):466-77
pubmed: 25923192
BMC Med. 2017 Aug 22;15(1):160
pubmed: 28826404
Semin Oncol. 2003 Jun;30(3):413-6
pubmed: 12870143
Cancer Epidemiol. 2019 Dec;63:101590
pubmed: 31520939
Sarcoma. 2007;2007:34128
pubmed: 18270541
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84
pubmed: 18046031
Acta Oncol. 2017 Jul;56(7):1004-1012
pubmed: 28287011
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Nov;18(12):3392-8
pubmed: 21537873
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 May;472(5):1568-75
pubmed: 24249538
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Mar;64(2):146-9
pubmed: 25742552
Arch Surg. 2007 Jan;142(1):70-5; discission 76
pubmed: 17224503
J Surg Oncol. 2015 Apr;111(5):641-5
pubmed: 25322963
J Surg Oncol. 2012 Aug 1;106(2):155-61
pubmed: 22297812
Curr Opin Oncol. 2004 Jul;16(4):328-32
pubmed: 15187887
Skeletal Radiol. 2018 Dec;47(12):1595-1606
pubmed: 29785452
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Oct;24(11):3264-3270
pubmed: 28718037
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Jun;24(6):1588-1595
pubmed: 28058559
CA Cancer J Clin. 2010 Sep-Oct;60(5):277-300
pubmed: 20610543
Bone Joint J. 2018 Feb;100-B(2):262-268
pubmed: 29437071
Br J Cancer. 2014 Mar 18;110(6):1456-64
pubmed: 24481401
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009 Apr;35(4):356-61
pubmed: 18294807
J Am Coll Surg. 2002 Apr;194(4):436-47
pubmed: 11949749
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2009 Aug;9(2):223-6
pubmed: 19454417