A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation of Thyroid Cancer
10.11106/ijt.2022.15.2.74
- Author:
Mijin KIM
1
;
Woojin LIM
;
Kyungsik KIM
;
Ja Seong BAE
;
Byung Joo LEE
;
Bon Seok KOO
;
Eun Kyung LEE
;
Eu Jeong KU
;
June Young CHOI
;
Bo Hyun KIM
;
Sue K. PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Internal Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan,
- Publication Type:R E V IE W A R T IC L E
- From:International Journal of Thyroidology
2022;15(2):74-104
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:This systematic review was conducted to identify and summarize key factors, including economic methods, topics, results, and indicators, within relevant economic evaluation research on thyroid cancer.
Materials and Methods:A literature search on the economic evaluation of thyroid cancer treatment was conducted using the MEDLINE database up to May 2021. Data on population, intervention, comparison, outcome, time, setting, and study design were extracted from each study. The economic evaluation method in each study was re-classified according to the theoretical criteria defined by the international economic evaluation guidelines.
Results:A total of 49 studies were included, involving cost analysis (CA, n=9), cost-minimization analysis (CMA, n=3), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA, n=29), and cost-utility analysis (CUA, n=8). When CEA and CUA were classified as one method, the consistency between the methods of the reviewers based on the theoretical criteria and those from the original studies was 77% (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.92). Most studies dealt with specific period-related controversial issues including comparison between treatment strategies, and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic central neck dissection, molecular testing, and rhTSH. Contrasting results have been obtained when different economic evaluation methods were applied for the same topic (e.g., total thyroidectomy [TT] was more dominant than hemithyroidectomy [HT] in CEA, but HT was more dominant than TT in CUA), and different clinical and economic inputs were applied. All studies included direct medical costs, which were mostly derived from Medicare and input probabilities in each economic model, and utility scores for outcomes were mostly based on literature reviews.Few studies included non-medical direct costs and indirect costs.
Conclusion:Our systematic review provides information on how to design and proceed to overcome the limitations of existing studies and ensure validity.
