Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, San Antonio Military Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA.
Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Aug;130(2):317-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.019. Epub 2013 May 23.
Recurrent cervical cancer has a poor prognosis despite aggressive treatment. We evaluate the comparative-effectiveness of four management strategies in recurrent cervix cancer incorporating risk prognostication categories derived from pooled collaborative group trials: 1) standard doublet chemotherapy; 2) selective chemotherapy (home hospice with no chemotherapy for poorest prognosis patients with remainder receiving standard doublet chemotherapy); 3) single-agent chemotherapy with home hospice; and 4) home hospice.
A cost-effectiveness decision model was constructed. Survival reduction of 24% was assumed for single-agent chemotherapy and 40% for hospice only compared to standard doublet chemotherapy. Overall survival and strategy cost for each arm were modeled as follows: standard doublet chemotherapy 8.9 months ($33K); selective chemotherapy 8.7 months ($29K); single-agent chemotherapy with home hospice 6.7 months ($16K); and home hospice alone 5.3 months ($11K). Base case analysis assumed equal quality of life (QOL). Sensitivity analyses assessed model uncertainties.
Standard doublet chemotherapy for all is not cost-effective compared to selective chemotherapy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $276K per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity analysis predicted that a 90% improvement in survival is required before standard doublet chemotherapy is cost-effective in the poorest prognosis patients. Selective chemotherapy is the most cost-effective strategy compared to single-agent chemotherapy with home hospice with an ICER of $78K/QALY. Chemotherapy containing regimens become cost-prohibitive with small decreases in QOL.
Supportive care based treatment strategies are potentially more cost-effective than the current standard of doublet chemotherapy for all patients with recurrent cervical cancer and warrant prospective evaluation.
尽管采用了积极的治疗方法,复发性宫颈癌的预后仍较差。我们评估了纳入来自合作组试验的风险预测类别后,复发性宫颈癌的四种管理策略的比较效果:1)标准双联化疗;2)选择性化疗(对预后最差的患者采用家庭临终关怀,不进行化疗,其余患者接受标准双联化疗);3)单药化疗加家庭临终关怀;4)家庭临终关怀。
构建了成本效益决策模型。假设单药化疗和仅临终关怀与标准双联化疗相比,生存时间分别减少 24%和 40%。每个臂的总生存和策略成本建模如下:标准双联化疗 8.9 个月(33K 美元);选择性化疗 8.7 个月(29K 美元);单药化疗加家庭临终关怀 6.7 个月(16K 美元);仅家庭临终关怀 5.3 个月(11K 美元)。基础分析假设生活质量(QOL)相同。敏感性分析评估了模型的不确定性。
与选择性化疗相比,标准双联化疗对所有患者均不具有成本效益,增量成本效益比(ICER)为每质量调整生命年(QALY)276K 美元。敏感性分析预测,在预后最差的患者中,标准双联化疗具有成本效益需要生存时间提高 90%。与单药化疗加家庭临终关怀相比,选择性化疗是最具成本效益的策略,ICER 为 78K/QALY。化疗方案随着 QOL 的微小下降而变得成本过高。
基于支持性护理的治疗策略可能比目前所有复发性宫颈癌患者的标准双联化疗更具成本效益,值得前瞻性评估。