IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v8y2024i1d10.1007_s41669-023-00454-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Early Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer Patients with Limited Peritoneal Carcinomatosis

Author

Listed:
  • Joost G. E. Verbeek

    (The Netherlands Cancer Institute
    University of Twente)

  • Karen Sluis

    (The Netherlands Cancer Institute)

  • Marieke A. Vollebergh

    (The Netherlands Cancer Institute)

  • Johanna W. Sandick

    (The Netherlands Cancer Institute)

  • Wim H. Harten

    (The Netherlands Cancer Institute
    University of Twente)

  • Valesca P. Retèl

    (The Netherlands Cancer Institute
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

Background Gastric cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival of 10 months when treated with systemic chemotherapy only. Cohort studies showed that cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) might improve the prognosis for gastric cancer patients with limited PC. Besides generating trial data on clinical effectiveness, it is crucial to timely collect information on economic aspects to guide the reimbursement decision-making process. No previous data have been published on the cost(-effectiveness) of CRS/HIPEC in this group of patients. Therefore, we performed an early model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of CRS/HIPEC for gastric cancer patients with limited PC in the Dutch setting. Methods We constructed a two-state (alive-dead) Markov transition model to evaluate costs and clinical outcomes from a Dutch healthcare perspective. Clinical outcomes, transition probabilities and utilities were derived from literature and verified by clinical experts in the field. Costs were measured using two available representative cohorts (2010–2017): one ‘systemic chemotherapy only’ cohort and one ‘CRS/HIPEC’ cohort (n = 10 each). Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were expressed as Euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We performed probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity, scenario, and value-of-information analyses using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €80,000/QALY, which reflects the Dutch norm for severe diseases. Results In the base-case analysis, CRS/HIPEC yielded more QALYs (increment of 0.68) and more costs (increment of €34,706) compared with systemic chemotherapy only, resulting in an ICUR of €50,990/QALY. The probability that CRS/HIPEC was cost effective compared with systemic chemotherapy alone was 64%. To reduce uncertainty, the expected value of perfect information amounted to €4,021,468. The scenario analyses did not alter the results and showed that treatment costs, lifetime health-related quality of life and overall survival had the largest influence on the model. Conclusions The presented early cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that adding CRS/HIPEC to systemic chemotherapy for gastric cancer patients with limited PC has a good chance of being cost-effectiveness compared with systemic chemotherapy alone when using a WTP of €80,000/QALY. However, there is substantial uncertainty in view of the current available data on effectiveness. Results from the ongoing phase III PERISCOPE II trial are therefore crucial for further decisions on treatment policy and its cost-effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Joost G. E. Verbeek & Karen Sluis & Marieke A. Vollebergh & Johanna W. Sandick & Wim H. Harten & Valesca P. Retèl, 2024. "Early Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer Patients with Limited Peritoneal Carcinomatosis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 119-131, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00454-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00454-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-023-00454-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-023-00454-7?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reckers-Droog, V.T. & van Exel, N.J.A. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2018. "Looking back and moving forward: On the application of proportional shortfall in healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 621-629.
    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. Becky Pennington & Hareth Al-Janabi, 2024. "Modelling Informal Carers’ Health-Related Quality of Life: Challenges for Economic Evaluation," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 9-16, January.
    2. Mos, Philipa & Reckers-Droog, Vivian, 2024. "Examining the underpinnings of decisions to allocate public resources to social care: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 355(C).
    3. Fang Wu & Wei Chen & Lingling Lin & Xu Ren & Yingna Qu, 2022. "The Balanced Allocation of Medical and Health Resources in Urban Areas of China from the Perspective of Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Nanjing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-28, May.
    4. Sándor Kovács & Bertalan Németh & Dalma Erdősi & Valentin Brodszky & Imre Boncz & Zoltán Kaló & Antal Zemplényi, 2022. "Should Hungary Pay More for a QALY Gain than Higher-Income Western European Countries?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 291-303, May.
    5. Werner Brouwer & Pieter Baal & Job Exel & Matthijs Versteegh, 2019. "When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 175-180, March.
    6. Saygın Avşar, Tuba & Yang, Xiaozhe & Lorgelly, Paula, 2024. "Equity in national healthcare economic evaluation guidelines: Essential or extraneous?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 357(C).
    7. Matthijs M. Versteegh & Isaac Corro Ramos & Nasuh C. Buyukkaramikli & Amir Ansaripour & Vivian T. Reckers-Droog & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2019. "Severity-Adjusted Probability of Being Cost Effective," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(9), pages 1155-1163, September.
    8. Al-Janabi, Hareth & Wittenberg, Eve & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2022. "The relative value of carer and patient quality of life: A person trade-off (PTO) study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    9. Niek Stadhouders & Xander Koolman & Christel van Dijk & Patrick Jeurissen & Eddy Adang, 2019. "The marginal benefits of healthcare spending in the Netherlands: Estimating cost‐effectiveness thresholds using a translog production function," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(11), pages 1331-1344, November.
    10. Linda M. Vries & Pieter H. M. Baal & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2019. "Future Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Past, Present, Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 119-130, February.
    11. Hausman, Daniel M., 2024. "Problems with NICE's severity weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    12. Stenmarck, Mille Sofie & Whitehurst, David GT. & Baker, Rachel & Barra, Mathias, 2024. "Charting public views on the meaning of illness severity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 347(C).
    13. Krzysztof Goniewicz & Eric Carlström & Attila J. Hertelendy & Frederick M. Burkle & Mariusz Goniewicz & Dorota Lasota & John G. Richmond & Amir Khorram-Manesh, 2021. "Integrated Healthcare and the Dilemma of Public Health Emergencies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-13, April.

    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:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00454-7. 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.