Heterogeneity in Radiotherapeutic Parameter Assumptions in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Prostate Cancer: A Call for Uniformity

被引:0
作者
Butala, Anish A. [1 ]
Huang, Christina C. [2 ]
Bryant, Curtis M. [3 ]
Henderson, Randal H. [3 ]
Hoppe, Bradford S. [4 ]
Mendenhall, Nancy P. [3 ]
Vapiwala, Neha [1 ]
Vega, Raymond B. Mailhot [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Dept Radiat Oncol, Perelman Sch Med, Philadelphia, PA USA
[2] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Dept Radiat Oncol, Indianapolis, IN USA
[3] Univ Florida, Dept Radiat Oncol, Coll Med, Gainesville, FL USA
[4] Mayo Clin, Dept Radiat Oncol, Jacksonville, FL USA
关键词
cost-effectiveness analysis; prostate cancer; radiation therapy; RISK;
D O I
10.1016/j.jval.2021.08.010
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objectives: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may provide useful data to inform management decisions depending on the robustness of a model's input parameters. We sought to determine the level of heterogeneity in health state utility values, transition probabilities, and cost estimates across published CEAs assessing primarily radiotherapeutic management strategies in prostate cancer. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of prostate cancer CEAs indexed in MEDLINE between 2000 and 2018 comparing accepted treatment modalities across all cancer stages. Search terms included "cost effectiveness prostate," "prostate cancer cost model," "cost utility prostate," and "Markov AND prostate AND (cancer OR adenocarcinoma)." Included studies were agreed upon. A Markov model was designed using the parameter estimates from the systematic review to evaluate the effect of estimate heterogeneity on strategy cost acceptability. Results: Of 199 abstracts identified, 47 publications were reviewed and 37 were included; 508 model estimates were compared. Estimates varied widely across variables, including gastrointestinal toxicity risk (0%-49.5%), utility of metastatic disease (0.25-0.855), intensity-modulated radiotherapy cost ($21 193-$61 996), and recurrence after external-beam radiotherapy (1.5%-59%). Multiple studies assumed that different radiotherapy modalities delivering the same dose yielded varying cancer control rates. When using base estimates for similar parameters from included studies, the designed model resulted in 3 separate acceptability determinations. Conclusions: Significant heterogeneity exists across parameter estimates used to perform CEAs evaluating treatment for prostate cancer. Heterogeneity across model inputs yields variable conclusions with respect to the favorability and costeffectiveness of treatment options. Decision makers are cautioned to review estimates in CEAs to ensure they are up to date and relevant to setting and population.
引用
收藏
页码:171 / 177
页数:7
相关论文
共 12 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], NCCN CLIN PRACTICE G
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2017, PER LIF TABL
  • [3] [Anonymous], Proton Therapy vs. IMRT for Low or Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer (PARTIQoL)
  • [4] Prostate cancer incidence across stage, NCCN risk groups, and age before and after USPSTF Grade D recommendations against prostate-specific antigen screening in 2012
    Butler, Santino S.
    Muralidhar, Vinayak
    Zhao, Shuang G.
    Sanford, Nina N.
    Franco, Idalid
    Fullerton, Zoe H.
    Chavez, Janice
    D'Amico, Anthony, V
    Feng, Felix Y.
    Rebbeck, Timothy R.
    Nguyen, Paul L.
    Mahal, Brandon A.
    [J]. CANCER, 2020, 126 (04) : 717 - 724
  • [5] A cost-effectiveness modelling study of strategies to reduce risk of infection following primary hip replacement based on a systematic review
    Graves, Nicholas
    Wloch, Catherine
    Wilson, Jennie
    Barnett, Adrian
    Sutton, Alex
    Cooper, Nicola
    Merollini, Katharina
    McCreanor, Victoria
    Cheng, Qinglu
    Burn, Edward
    Lamagni, Theresa
    Charlett, Andre
    [J]. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2016, 20 (54) : 1 - +
  • [6] Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement
    Husereau, Don
    Drummond, Michael
    Petrou, Stavros
    Carswell, Chris
    Moher, David
    Greenberg, Dan
    Augustovski, Federico
    Briggs, Andrew H.
    Mauskopf, Josephine
    Loder, Elizabeth
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2013, 16 (02) : E1 - E5
  • [7] Radiation Oncology APM: Why Us? Why Now?
    Kavanagh, Brian
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2019, 105 (01): : 22 - 24
  • [8] Updating Cost-Effectiveness - The Curious Resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY Threshold
    Neumann, Peter J.
    Cohen, Joshua T.
    Weinstein, Milton C.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2014, 371 (09) : 796 - 797
  • [9] SEER, EXPL INT WEBS SEER C
  • [10] Cost-effectiveness Analysis of SBRT Versus IMRT for Low-risk Prostate Cancer
    Sher, David J.
    Parikh, Ravi B.
    Mays-Jackson, Shawnda
    Punglia, Rinaa S.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY-CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS, 2014, 37 (03): : 215 - 221