1.Cost-utility analysis of treatments for stage IB cervical cancer.
Kanyarat KATANYOO ; Naiyana PRADITSITTHIKORN ; Siriwan TANGJITGAMOL ; Sumonmal MANUSIRIVITHAYA ; Busaba SUPAWATTANABODEE
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2014;25(2):97-104
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost-utility of two common clinical practices for stage IB cervical cancer patients from provider and societal viewpoints. METHODS: A decision tree model was conducted to examine value for expenditure between the following: (1) radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection (RHPLND) with or without postoperative adjuvant therapy according to the risk of recurrence and (2) concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). The relevant studies were identified to extract the probability data, and meta-analysis was performed. Direct medical costs were estimated from hospital database and medical records review. Direct non-medical costs and utility parameters were obtained through interviews with patients to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) outcome. The time horizon was according to the life expectancy of Thai women. RESULTS: From provider viewpoint, RHPLND and CCRT resulted in approximate costs of US $5,281 and US $5,218, respectively. The corresponding costs from societal viewpoint were US $6,533 and US $6,335, respectively. QALYs were 16.40 years for RHPLND and 15.94 years for CCRT. The estimated incremental cost effectiveness ratio of RHPLND in comparison to CCRT from provider and societal viewpoints were US $100/QALY and US $430/QALY, respectively. RHPLND had more cost-effectiveness than CCRT if patients did not need adjuvant therapy. The most effective parameter in model was a direct medical cost of CCRT. At the current ceiling ratio in Thailand, RHPLND provides better value for money than CCRT, with a probability of 75%. CONCLUSION: RHPLND is an efficient treatment for stage IB cervical cancer. This advantage is only for patients who require no adjuvant treatment.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group
;
Chemoradiotherapy
;
Cost-Benefit Analysis
;
Decision Trees
;
Female
;
Health Expenditures
;
Humans
;
Hysterectomy
;
Life Expectancy
;
Lymph Node Excision
;
Medical Records
;
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
;
Recurrence
;
Thailand
;
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms*
2.A randomized controlled trial comparing concurrent chemoradiation versus concurrent chemoradiation followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer patients: ACTLACC trial
Siriwan TANGJITGAMOL ; Ekkasit THARAVICHITKUL ; Chokaew TOVANABUTRA ; Kanisa RONGSRIYAM ; Tussawan ASAKIJ ; Kannika PAENGCHIT ; Jirasak SUKHABOON ; Somkit PENPATTANAGUL ; Apiradee KRIDAKARA ; Jitti HANPRASERTPONG ; Kittisak CHOMPRASERT ; Sirentra WANGLIKITKOON ; Thiti ATJIMAKUL ; Piyawan PARIYAWATEEKUL ; Kanyarat KATANYOO ; Prapai TANPRASERT ; Wanwipa JANWEERACHAI ; Duangjai SANGTHAWAN ; Jakkapan KHUNNARONG ; Taywin CHOTTETANAPRASITH ; Busaba SUPAWATTANABODEE ; Prasert LERTSANGUANSINCHAI ; Jatupol SRISOMBOON ; Wanrudee ISARANUWATCHAI ; Vichan LORVIDHAYA
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2019;30(4):e82-
OBJECTIVE: To compare response rate and survivals of locally advanced stage cervical cancer patients who had standard concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) alone to those who had adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) after CCRT. METHODS: Patients aged 18–70 years who had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIB–IVA without para-aortic lymph node enlargement, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores 0–2, and non-aggressive histopathology were randomized to have CCRT with weekly cisplatin followed by observation (arm A) or by ACT with paclitaxel plus carboplatin every 4 weeks for 3 cycles (arm B). RESULTS: Data analysis of 259 patients showed no significant difference in complete responses at 4 months after treatment between arm A (n=129) and arm B (n=130): 94.1% vs. 87.0% (p=0.154) respectively. With the median follow-up of 27.4 months, 15.5% of patients in arm A and 10.8% in arm B experienced recurrences (p=0.123). There were no significant differences of overall or loco-regional failure. However, systemic recurrences were significantly lower in arm B than arm A: 5.4% vs. 10.1% (p=0.029). The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS) of the patients in both arms were not significantly different. The hazard ratio of PFS and OS of arm B compared to arm A were 1.26 (95% CI=0.82–1.96; p=0.293) and 1.42 (95% CI=0.81–2.49; p=0.221) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ACT with paclitaxel plus carboplatin after CCRT did not improve response rate and survival compared to CCRT alone. Only significant decrease of systemic recurrences with ACT was observed, but not overall or loco-regional failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02036164 Thai Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: TCTR 20140106001
Arm
;
Asian Continental Ancestry Group
;
Carboplatin
;
Chemoradiotherapy
;
Chemotherapy, Adjuvant
;
Cisplatin
;
Disease-Free Survival
;
Follow-Up Studies
;
Gynecology
;
Humans
;
Lymph Nodes
;
Obstetrics
;
Paclitaxel
;
Recurrence
;
Statistics as Topic
;
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms