Ferrandina Gabriella, Amadio Giulia, Marcellusi Andrea, Azzolini Elena, Puggina Anna, Pastorino Roberta, Ricciardi Walter, Scambia Giovanni
Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione "Policlinico Universitario A.Gemelli", Catholic University, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Economic Evaluation and HTA (CEIS-EEHTA), IGF Department, Faculty of Economics, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Columbia 2, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Clin Drug Investig. 2017 Nov;37(11):1093-1102. doi: 10.1007/s40261-017-0571-7.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is no available evidence to recommend gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue-based ovarian suppression versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer, since the two approaches are considered equivalent in terms of oncologic outcome. The role of surgical ovarian ablation has been revitalized based on the advances of minimally invasive surgery, and a better understanding of clinical and molecular basis of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic BSO and GnRH analogue administration in patients aged 40-49 years with hormone-sensitive breast cancer.
A probabilistic decision tree model was developed to evaluate costs and outcomes of ovarian ablation through laparoscopic BSO, or ovarian suppression through monthly injections of GnRH analogue. Results were expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.
Laparoscopic BSO strategy was associated with a lower mean total cost per patient than GnRH treatment, and considering the difference in terms of QALYs, the incremental effectiveness did not demonstrate a notable difference between the two approaches. From the National Health Service perspective, and for a time horizon of 5 years, laparoscopic BSO was the dominant option compared to GnRH treatment; laparoscopic BSO was less expensive than GnRH, €2385 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2044, 2753] vs €7093 (95% CI = 3409, 12,105), respectively, and more effective.
Surgical ovarian ablation is more cost-effective than GnRH administration in the adjuvant treatment of hormone-sensitive breast cancer patients aged 40-49 years, and the advantage of preventing ovarian cancer through laparoscopic BSO should be considered.
背景与目的:在早期乳腺癌辅助治疗中,尚无证据表明基于促性腺激素释放激素(GnRH)类似物的卵巢抑制与双侧输卵管卵巢切除术(BSO)相比更具优势,因为这两种方法在肿瘤学结局方面被认为是等效的。基于微创手术的进展以及对遗传性乳腺癌/卵巢癌综合征临床和分子基础的更好理解,手术卵巢去势的作用得以复兴。本研究旨在分析腹腔镜 BSO 和 GnRH 类似物给药在 40 - 49 岁激素敏感性乳腺癌患者中的成本效益。
建立概率决策树模型,以评估通过腹腔镜 BSO 进行卵巢去势或通过每月注射 GnRH 类似物进行卵巢抑制的成本和结局。结果以每获得的质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本表示。
腹腔镜 BSO 策略与每位患者的平均总成本低于 GnRH 治疗相关,考虑到 QALY 的差异,两种方法在增量有效性方面未显示出显著差异。从英国国家医疗服务体系(National Health Service)的角度以及 5 年的时间范围来看,与 GnRH 治疗相比,腹腔镜 BSO 是主要选择;腹腔镜 BSO 比 GnRH 便宜,分别为 2385 欧元[95%置信区间(CI)= 2044, 2753]和 7093 欧元(95%CI = 3409, 12105),且更有效。
在 40 - 49 岁激素敏感性乳腺癌患者的辅助治疗中,手术卵巢去势比 GnRH 给药更具成本效益,并且应考虑通过腹腔镜 BSO 预防卵巢癌的优势。