IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lee/wpaper/1702.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PET-CT guided management for locally advanced head and neck cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Alison F Smith

    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Peter Hall

    (Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK)

  • Claire Hulme

    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Janet A Dunn

    (Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, West Midlands, UK)

  • Christopher C McConkey

    (Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, West Midlands, UK)

  • Joy K Rahman

    (Institute of Head & Neck Studies and Education, University of Birmingham, UK)

  • Christopher McCabe

    (Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada)

  • Hisham Mehanna

    (Institute of Head & Neck Studies and Education, University of Birmingham, UK)

Abstract

Purpose: A recent large UK clinical trial demonstrated that positron-emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT)- guided administration of neck dissection in patients with advanced head and neck cancer after primary chemo-radiotherapy treatment produces similar survival outcomes to planned neck dissection (standard care) and is cost-effective over a short-term horizon. Further assessment of long-term outcomes is required in order to inform a robust adoption decision. Here we present results of a lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis of PET-CT guided management from a UK National Health Service (NHS) secondary care perspective.Methods: Initial 6-month cost and health outcomes were derived from trial data; subsequent incidence of recurrence events and mortality was simulated using a de novo Markov model. Health benefit was measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs reported in 2015 British pounds. Model transition probabilities, costs and utilities were derived from trial data and published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of uncertainty and broader NHS & personal social services (PSS) costs on the results. Results: PET-CT management produced an average lifetime NHS secondary care cost saving of £1,485 [$2,133] (95% CI: -2,815 to 159) and an additional 0.13 QALYs (95% CI: -0.49 to 0.79). At a £20,000 [$28,736] willingness-to-pay per additional QALY threshold there was a 75% probability that PET-CT was cost-effective, and the results remained cost-effective over the majority of sensitivity analyses. When adopting a broader NHS & PSS perspective, PET-CT management produced an average saving of £700 [$1,005] (95% CI: -6,190 to 5,362) and had an 81% probability of being cost-effective. Conclusions: This analysis indicates that PET-CT guided management is cost-effective in the long-term and supports the case for adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Alison F Smith & Peter Hall & Claire Hulme & Janet A Dunn & Christopher C McConkey & Joy K Rahman & Christopher McCabe & Hisham Mehanna, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of PET-CT guided management for locally advanced head and neck cancer," Working Papers 1702, Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds.
    • Handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/1153/auhe_wp1702
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    PET-CT; Head and Neck Cancer; Health Technology Assessment; Economic Evaluation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1702. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Judy Wright (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/heleeuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.