Objective: SHAPE (Simple Hysterectomy And PElvic node assessment) was an international phase III trial demonstrating that simple hysterectomy was non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for pelvic recurrence risk, but superior for quality of life and sexual health.The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing simple vs. radical hysterectomy for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: Markov model compared the costs and benefits of simple vs. radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer over a 5-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from health utilities derived from EQ-5D-3L surveys. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around key parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated complication numbers according to surgical procedure. Results: Simple hysterectomy was more effective and less costly than radical hysterectomy. Average overall costs were $11,022 and $12,533, and average gains were 3.56 and 3.54 QALYs for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. Baseline health utility scores were 0.81 and 0.83 for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. By year 3, these scores improved for simple hysterectomy (0.82) but not for radical hysterectomy (0.82). Assuming 800 early cervical cancer patients annually in Canada, the model estimated 3 vs. 82 patients with urinary retention, and 49 vs. 86 patients with urinary incontinence persisting 4 weeks after simple vs.radical hysterectomy, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variability in health utilities after surgery, but stable through wide ranges of costs and recurrence estimates. Conclusion Simple hysterectomy is less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.

Objective: SHAPE (Simple Hysterectomy And PElvic node assessment) was an international phase III trial demonstrating that simple hysterectomy was non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for pelvic recurrence risk, but superior for quality of life and sexual health.The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing simple vs. radical hysterectomy for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: Markov model compared the costs and benefits of simple vs. radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer over a 5-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from health utilities derived from EQ-5D-3L surveys. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around key parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated complication numbers according to surgical procedure. Results: Simple hysterectomy was more effective and less costly than radical hysterectomy. Average overall costs were $11,022 and $12,533, and average gains were 3.56 and 3.54 QALYs for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. Baseline health utility scores were 0.81 and 0.83 for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. By year 3, these scores improved for simple hysterectomy (0.82) but not for radical hysterectomy (0.82). Assuming 800 early cervical cancer patients annually in Canada, the model estimated 3 vs. 82 patients with urinary retention, and 49 vs. 86 patients with urinary incontinence persisting 4 weeks after simple vs.radical hysterectomy, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variability in health utilities after surgery, but stable through wide ranges of costs and recurrence estimates. Conclusion Simple hysterectomy is less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.

Objective: SHAPE (Simple Hysterectomy And PElvic node assessment) was an international phase III trial demonstrating that simple hysterectomy was non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for pelvic recurrence risk, but superior for quality of life and sexual health.The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing simple vs. radical hysterectomy for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: Markov model compared the costs and benefits of simple vs. radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer over a 5-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from health utilities derived from EQ-5D-3L surveys. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around key parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated complication numbers according to surgical procedure. Results: Simple hysterectomy was more effective and less costly than radical hysterectomy. Average overall costs were $11,022 and $12,533, and average gains were 3.56 and 3.54 QALYs for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. Baseline health utility scores were 0.81 and 0.83 for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. By year 3, these scores improved for simple hysterectomy (0.82) but not for radical hysterectomy (0.82). Assuming 800 early cervical cancer patients annually in Canada, the model estimated 3 vs. 82 patients with urinary retention, and 49 vs. 86 patients with urinary incontinence persisting 4 weeks after simple vs.radical hysterectomy, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variability in health utilities after surgery, but stable through wide ranges of costs and recurrence estimates. Conclusion Simple hysterectomy is less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.

Objective: We sought to evaluate the impact on survival of tumor burden and surgical complexity in relation to the number of cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (OC) with minimal (CC-1) or no residual disease (CC-0). Methods: This retrospective study included patients with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics IIIC–IV stage OC who underwent debulking surgery at 4 high-volume institutions between January 2008 and December 2015. We assessed the overall survival (OS) of primary debulking surgery (PDS group), early interval debulking surgery after 3–4 cycles of NACT (early IDS group) and delayed debulking surgery after 6 cycles (DDS group) with CC-0 or CC-1 according to peritoneal cancer index (PCI) and Aletti score. Results: Five hundred forty-nine women were included: 175 (31.9%) had PDS, 224 (40.8%) early IDS and 150 (27.3%) DDS. Regardless of Aletti score, median OS after PDS was significantly higher than after early IDS or DDS, but the survival difference was higher in women with an Aletti score <8. Among patients with PCI ≤10, median OS after PDS was significantly higher than after early IDS or DDS. In women with PCI >10, there were no differences between PDS and early IDS, but DDS was associated with decreased OS. Conclusion The benefit of complete PDS compared with NACT was maximal in patients with a low complexity score. In patients with low tumor burden, there was a survival benefit of PDS over early IDS or DDS. In women with high tumor load, DDS impaired the oncological outcome.