Cost-effectiveness of Post-Mastectomy Radiotherapy (PMRT) for breast cancer in India: An economic modelling study.
Breast cancer radiotherapy
Economic evaluation
Hypofractionation
Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT)
Radiation toxicity
Journal
The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia
ISSN: 2772-3682
Titre abrégé: Lancet Reg Health Southeast Asia
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918419282806676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
medline:
29
6
2023
pubmed:
29
6
2023
entrez:
29
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The role of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) for breast cancer is controversial when 3-or-less lymph nodes are metastatic. Apart from local control, survival and toxicity, cost also plays an important role in decision-making. A Markov model was designed to assess cost, health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of different radiotherapy techniques for management of PMRT patients. Thirty-nine scenarios were modelled based on type of radiotherapy, laterality, pathologic nodal burden, and dose fractionation. We considered a societal perspective, lifetime horizon and a 3% discount rate. The data on quality of life (QoL) was derived using the cancer database on cost and QoL. Published data on cost of services delivered in India were used. Post-mastectomy radiotherapy results in incremental quality adjusted life years (QALYs) that ranged from -0.1 to 0.38 across different scenarios. The change in cost ranged from estimated median savings of USD 62 (95% confidence intervals: -168 to -47) to incurring an incremental cost of USD 728 (650-811) across different levels of nodal burden, breast laterality and dose fractionation. For women with node-negative disease, disease-specific systemic therapy remains to be the preferred strategy. For women with node-positive disease, two-dimensional radiotherapy (2DRT) with hypofractionation is the most cost-effective strategy. However, a CT based planning is preferred when maximum heart distance (MHD) >1cm, irregular chest wall contour and inter-field separation >18cm. PMRT is cost-effective for all node-positive patients. With similar toxicity and effectiveness profile compared with conventional fractionation, moderate hypofractionation significantly reduces the cost of treatment and should be the standard of care. Conventional techniques for PMRT are cost-effective over newer modalities which provide minimal additional benefit, at high cost. The funding to collect primary data for study was provided by Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, wide letter number F. No. T.11011/02/2017-HR/3100291.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The role of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) for breast cancer is controversial when 3-or-less lymph nodes are metastatic. Apart from local control, survival and toxicity, cost also plays an important role in decision-making.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A Markov model was designed to assess cost, health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of different radiotherapy techniques for management of PMRT patients. Thirty-nine scenarios were modelled based on type of radiotherapy, laterality, pathologic nodal burden, and dose fractionation. We considered a societal perspective, lifetime horizon and a 3% discount rate. The data on quality of life (QoL) was derived using the cancer database on cost and QoL. Published data on cost of services delivered in India were used.
Findings
UNASSIGNED
Post-mastectomy radiotherapy results in incremental quality adjusted life years (QALYs) that ranged from -0.1 to 0.38 across different scenarios. The change in cost ranged from estimated median savings of USD 62 (95% confidence intervals: -168 to -47) to incurring an incremental cost of USD 728 (650-811) across different levels of nodal burden, breast laterality and dose fractionation. For women with node-negative disease, disease-specific systemic therapy remains to be the preferred strategy. For women with node-positive disease, two-dimensional radiotherapy (2DRT) with hypofractionation is the most cost-effective strategy. However, a CT based planning is preferred when maximum heart distance (MHD) >1cm, irregular chest wall contour and inter-field separation >18cm.
Interpretation
UNASSIGNED
PMRT is cost-effective for all node-positive patients. With similar toxicity and effectiveness profile compared with conventional fractionation, moderate hypofractionation significantly reduces the cost of treatment and should be the standard of care. Conventional techniques for PMRT are cost-effective over newer modalities which provide minimal additional benefit, at high cost.
Funding
UNASSIGNED
The funding to collect primary data for study was provided by Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, wide letter number F. No. T.11011/02/2017-HR/3100291.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37383992
doi: 10.1016/j.lansea.2022.100043
pii: S2772-3682(22)00053-1
pmc: PMC10306019
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100043Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The funding to collect primary data for the study was provided by Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, wide letter number F. No. T.11011/02/2017-HR/3100291.
Références
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019 Feb 26;20(2):403-409
pubmed: 30803199
Breast Care (Basel). 2008;3(1):21-27
pubmed: 20824016
Pharmacoecon Open. 2018 Mar;2(1):1-3
pubmed: 29464668
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Dec 20;31(36):4488-95
pubmed: 24043742
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Oct;19(10):3275-81
pubmed: 22851048
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Jun 1;101(2):316-324
pubmed: 29534902
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 11;13(1):e0191132
pubmed: 29324861
PLoS Med. 2016 Jun 28;13(6):e1002056
pubmed: 27351744
Radiat Oncol. 2020 Jan 17;15(1):17
pubmed: 31952507
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020 Aug 03;18:26
pubmed: 32774176
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Sep 10;33(26):2870-6
pubmed: 26195709
Clin Ther. 2015 Nov 1;37(11):2515-2526.e5
pubmed: 26475419
Lancet. 2014 Jun 21;383(9935):2127-35
pubmed: 24656685
JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Feb;6:205-216
pubmed: 32045547
J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 1;24(13):2028-37
pubmed: 16648502
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021 May;19(3):353-370
pubmed: 33462775
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Apr 1;44(1):91-8
pubmed: 10219800
J Clin Oncol. 2017 May 20;35(15):1641-1649
pubmed: 28319436
JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Jun;6:789-798
pubmed: 32511068
Breast. 2021 Aug;58:72-79
pubmed: 33933925
Radiat Oncol J. 2016 Jun;34(2):81-7
pubmed: 27306774
Indian J Cancer. 2019 Oct-Dec;56(4):359-363
pubmed: 31607709
BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 29;11(7):e048513
pubmed: 34326050
Lancet. 2005 Dec 17;366(9503):2087-106
pubmed: 16360786
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Nov 1;48(4):977-82
pubmed: 11072153
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jun 1;20(11):2713-25
pubmed: 12039934
Breast Cancer. 2014 Jul;21(4):402-8
pubmed: 22968629
Oncol Rep. 2014 May;31(5):2195-205
pubmed: 24604635
N Engl J Med. 1992 Mar 19;326(12):781-5
pubmed: 1538720
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Dec 1;22(23):4691-9
pubmed: 15570071
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Nov 1;54(3):963-71
pubmed: 12377351
Radiother Oncol. 2008 Feb;86(2):171-6
pubmed: 17961777
Eur J Breast Health. 2019 Apr 01;15(2):85-89
pubmed: 31001609
N Engl J Med. 2013 Mar 14;368(11):987-98
pubmed: 23484825