Search

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., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01658930., Competing Interests: JSK discloses research funding from Michael Smith Health Research BC (formerly Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research), ownership of shares from Hexamer Therapeutics, and speaker fee from Astra Zeneca. MP discloses research funding from Astra Zeneca, royalties from UpToDate, and serving as an Advisory Board member for Serono-Merck., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Background: Despite a better understanding of the increasing incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer (yCRC; age at diagnosis <50 years), little is known about its economic burden. Therefore, we estimated direct medical spending on yCRC before and after diagnosis., Methods: We used linked administrative health databases in British Columbia, Canada, to create a study population of yCRC and average-age onset colorectal cancer (aCRC; age at diagnosis ≥50 years) cases, along with cancer-free controls. Over the 1-year period preceding a colorectal cancer diagnosis, we estimated direct medical spending on hospital visits, healthcare practitioners, and prescription medications. After diagnosis, we calculated cost attributable to yCRC and aCRC, which additionally included the cost of cancer treatments (e.g., chemotherapy and radiotherapy) across phases of care., Results: We included 1,058 yCRC (45.4% females; age at diagnosis 42.4 ± 6.2 years) and 12,619 aCRC (44.8% females; age at diagnosis of 68.1 ± 9.2 years) cases. Direct medical spending on the average yCRC and aCRC case during the year before diagnosis was $6,711 and $8,056, respectively. After diagnosis, the overall average annualized cost attributable to yCRC significantly differed in comparison with aCRC for the initial ($50,216 vs. $37,842; P < 0.001), continuing ($8,361 vs. $5,014; P < 0.001), and end-of-life cancer phase ($86,125 vs. $61,512; P < 0.001) but not end-of-life non-cancer phase ($77,273 vs. $23,316; P = 0.372)., Conclusions: Reported cost estimates may be used as inputs for future economic evaluations pertaining to yCRC., Impact: We provided comprehensive cost estimates for healthcare spending on young-onset colorectal cancer., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Aims: To examine the real-world safety of adding bevacizumab to first-line irinotecan-based chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Materials and Methods: Patients diagnosed with CRC in three Canadian provinces (Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia) who received publicly funded bevacizumab and/or irinotecan from 2000 to 2016 were identified from cancer registries. Propensity score 1:1 matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed to contemporaneous and historical controls, adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Safety end points evaluated during first-line treatment plus 30 days included mortality within 30 days and all-cause-, chemotherapy- and bevacizumab-related hospitalisations. Chemotherapy- and bevacizumab-related visits were defined as hospitalisations for specific conditions commonly associated with chemotherapy (e.g. infections) or bevacizumab (e.g. arteriovenous thromboembolism) using most responsible diagnosis codes. In PSM and IPTW-weighted cohorts, we assessed event frequencies using odds ratios from logistic regressions and event rate ratios using negative binomial regression models. The results from each province and comparison were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis., Results: We identified 16 250 mCRC patients who received first-line irinotecan-based treatment. In PSM cohorts, bevacizumab was associated with fewer deaths within 30 days of treatment compared with contemporaneous (pooled odds ratio = 0.62; 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.75) and historical controls (pooled odds ratio = 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.93). Hospitalisations were more frequent among patients treated with bevacizumab compared with historical controls but similar to contemporaneous controls. As patients receiving bevacizumab were exposed to a longer average treatment duration, across their full treatment duration, patients receiving bevacizumab had significantly lower rates of hospitalisations (contemporaneous pooled rate ratio = 0.56; 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.67; historical pooled rate ratio = 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.95). Similar trends were observed for chemotherapy- and bevacizumab-related hospitalisations and in IPTW-weighted cohorts., Discussion: We did not observe any increase in rates of hospitalisation or death within 30 days of treatment among mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone; these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the risk of residual confounding., (Copyright © 2021 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)