IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v42y2024i6d10.1007_s40273-024-01371-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Risk-Stratifying Patients with Colorectal Cancer Using a Deep Learning-Based Prognostic Biomarker Cost-Effective?

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Kenseth

    (Oslo University Hospital)

  • Dominika Kantorova

    (Oslo University Hospital)

  • Mikyung Kelly Seo

    (University of Cambridge
    Queen Mary University of London
    Imperial College London)

  • Eline Aas

    (University of Oslo)

  • John Cairns

    (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

  • David Kerr

    (Oxford University)

  • Hanne Askautrud

    (Oslo University Hospital)

  • Jørn Evert Jacobsen

    (Oslo University Hospital
    Vestfold Hospital Trust)

Abstract

Objectives Accurate risk stratification of patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer (CRC) prior to treatment selection enables limited health resources to be efficiently allocated to patients who are likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a recently developed deep learning-based prognostic method, Histotyping, from the perspective of the Norwegian healthcare system. Methods Two partitioned survival models were developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of Histotyping for two treatment cohorts: patients with CRC stage II and III. For each of the two cohorts, Histotyping was used for risk stratification to assign adjuvant chemotherapy and was compared with the standard of care (SOC) (adjuvant chemotherapy to all patients). Health outcomes measured in the model were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years (LYs) gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the impact of uncertainty. Scenario analyses were performed to assess the impact of the parameters with the greatest uncertainty. Results Risk-stratifying patients with CRC stage II and III using Histotyping was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared to SOC. In patients with CRC stage II, the net monetary benefit of Histotyping was 270,934 Norwegian kroners (NOK) (year of valuation is 2021), and the net health benefit of Histotyping was 0.99. In stage III, the net monetary benefit of Histotyping was 195,419 NOK, and the net health benefit of Histotyping was 0.71. Conclusions Risk-stratifying patients with CRC using Histotyping prior to the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective strategy in Norway.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Kenseth & Dominika Kantorova & Mikyung Kelly Seo & Eline Aas & John Cairns & David Kerr & Hanne Askautrud & Jørn Evert Jacobsen, 2024. "Is Risk-Stratifying Patients with Colorectal Cancer Using a Deep Learning-Based Prognostic Biomarker Cost-Effective?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 679-691, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:42:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01371-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01371-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-024-01371-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-024-01371-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Briggs & Mark Sculpher & Martin Buxton, 1994. "Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: The role of sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(2), pages 95-104, March.
    2. Nicholas R. Latimer, 2013. "Survival Analysis for Economic Evaluations Alongside Clinical Trials—Extrapolation with Patient-Level Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(6), pages 743-754, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simon Wieser & Bruno Horisberger & Sara Schmidhauser & Claudia Eisenring & Urs Brügger & Andreas Ruckstuhl & Jürg Dietrich & Anne Mannion & Achim Elfering & Özgür Tamcan & Urs Müller, 2011. "Cost of low back pain in Switzerland in 2005," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(5), pages 455-467, October.
    2. Martin J. Buxton & Michael F. Drummond & Ben A. Van Hout & Richard L. Prince & Trevor A. Sheldon & Thomas Szucs & Muriel Vray, 1997. "Modelling in Ecomomic Evaluation: An Unavoidable Fact of Life," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 217-227, May.
    3. Isaac Corro Ramos & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken & Maiwenn J. Al, 2013. "The Role of Value-of-Information Analysis in a Health Care Research Priority Setting," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 472-489, May.
    4. Andrew Briggs & Paul Fenn, 1998. "Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost‐effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(8), pages 723-740, December.
    5. John Hutton, 2012. "‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 13-18, January.
    6. Berger, Loïc & Bleichrodt, Han & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2013. "Treatment decisions under ambiguity," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 559-569.
    7. Andrew H. Briggs & Milton C. Weinstein & Elisabeth A. L. Fenwick & Jonathan Karnon & Mark J. Sculpher & A. David Paltiel, 2012. "Model Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(5), pages 722-732, September.
    8. Bangzhu Zhu & Runzhi Pang & Julien Chevallier & Yi-Ming Wei & Dinh-Tri Vo, 2019. "Including intangible costs into the cost-of-illness approach: a method refinement illustrated based on the PM2.5 economic burden in China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(4), pages 501-511, June.
    9. Mikyung Kelly Seo & Oddbjørn Straume & Lars A. Akslen & John Cairns, 2020. "HSP27 Expression as a Novel Predictive Biomarker for Bevacizumab: is it Cost Effective?," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 529-539, September.
    10. Benjarin Santatiwongchai & Varit Chantarastapornchit & Thomas Wilkinson & Kittiphong Thiboonboon & Waranya Rattanavipapong & Damian G Walker & Kalipso Chalkidou & Yot Teerawattananon, 2015. "Methodological Variation in Economic Evaluations Conducted in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Information for Reference Case Development," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
    11. Gianluca Baio & Laura Magazzini & Claudia Oglialoro & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2005. "Medical Devices: Competitiveness and Impact on Public Health Expenditure," Working Papers CERM 05-2005, Competitività, Regole, Mercati (CERM).
    12. K Cooper & S C Brailsford & R Davies, 2007. "Choice of modelling technique for evaluating health care interventions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(2), pages 168-176, February.
    13. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    14. Kaan Sözmen & Belgin Unal & Simon Capewell & Julia Critchley & Martin O’Flaherty, 2015. "Estimating diabetes prevalence in Turkey in 2025 with and without possible interventions to reduce obesity and smoking prevalence, using a modelling approach," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 60(1), pages 13-21, January.
    15. Sebastian Gurtner, 2013. "An analysis of the influence of framework aspects on the study design of health economic modeling evaluations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 221-230, April.
    16. Caroline S Clarke & Rachael M Hunter & Andrea Gabrio & Christopher D Brawley & Fiona C Ingleby & David P Dearnaley & David Matheson & Gerhardt Attard & Hannah L Rush & Rob J Jones & William Cross & Ch, 2022. "Cost-utility analysis of adding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone to long-term hormone therapy in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer in England: Lifetime decision model based on S," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-17, June.
    17. Nancy Wolff & Thomas W. Helminiak, 1996. "Nonsampling measurement error in administrative data: Implications for economic evaluations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(6), pages 501-512, November.
    18. Kobelt, G., 2013. "Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000004.
    19. Janne Martikainen & Hannu Valtonen & Tuula Pirttilä, 2004. "Potential cost-effectiveness of a family-based program in mild Alzheimer’s disease patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(2), pages 136-142, May.
    20. Joanne Lord & Maxwell A. Asante, 1999. "Estimating uncertainty ranges for costs by the bootstrap procedure combined with probabilistic sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 323-333, June.

    More about this item

    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:spr:pharme:v:42:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01371-1. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.