A cost-effectiveness analysis of a preventive exercise program for patients with advanced head and neck cancer treated with concomitant chemo-radiotherapy

BMC Cancer

Valesca P Retèl³  Lisette van der Molen²  Frans JM Hilgers⁶  Coen RN Rasch⁵  Annemiek AAMHJ L'Ortye¹  Lotte MG Steuten⁴  Wim H van Harten⁴ 

[1] Reade, Centre for Rehabilitation and Rheumatology, location Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC Amsterdam, the Netherlands

[2] Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (NKI-AVL), Department of Head and Neck Oncology & Surgery, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands

[3] Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (NKI-AVL), Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands

[4] University of Twente, Department of Health Technology and Services Research, MB-HTSR, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands

[5] Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (NKI-AVL), Department of Radiation Oncology, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands

[6] Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands

关键词: rehabilitation;    cost-effectiveness;    concomitant chemo-radiotherapy;    head and neck cancer;   

Others  :  1080660
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2407-11-475

 received in 2011-03-02, accepted in 2011-11-03,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

Concomitant chemo-radiotherapy (CCRT) has become an indispensable organ, but not always function preserving treatment modality for advanced head and neck cancer. To prevent/limit the functional side effects of CCRT, special exercise programs are increasingly explored. This study presents cost-effectiveness analyses of a preventive (swallowing) exercise program (PREP) compared to usual care (UC) from a health care perspective.

Methods

A Markov decision model of PREP versus UC was developed for CCRT in advanced head and neck cancer. Main outcome variables were tube dependency at one-year and number of post-CCRT hospital admission days. Primary outcome was costs per quality adjusted life years (cost/QALY), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as outcome parameter. The Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) was calculated to obtain the value of further research.

Results

PREP resulted in less tube dependency (3% and 25%, respectively), and in fewer hospital admission days than UC (3.2 and 4.5 days respectively). Total costs for UC amounted to €41,986 and for PREP to €42,271. Quality adjusted life years for UC amounted to 0.68 and for PREP to 0.77. Based on costs per QALY, PREP has a higher probability of being cost-effective as long as the willingness to pay threshold for 1 additional QALY is at least €3,200/QALY. At the prevailing threshold of €20,000/QALY the probability for PREP being cost-effective compared to UC was 83%. The EVPI demonstrated potential value in undertaking additional research to reduce the existing decision uncertainty.

Conclusions

Based on current evidence, PREP for CCRT in advanced head and neck cancer has the higher probability of being cost-effective when compared to UC. Moreover, the majority of sensitivity analyses produced ICERs that are well below the prevailing willingness to pay threshold for an additional QALY (range from dominance till €45,906/QALY).

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Retèl et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Van der Molen L, van Rossum MA, Ackerstaff AH, Smeele LE, Rasch CR, Hilgers FJ: Pretreatment organ function in patients with advanced head and neck cancer: clinical outcomes measures and patient' views. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord 2009, 9:10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [2]Van der Molen L, van Rossum MA, Burkhead LM, Smeele LE, Hilgers FJ: Functional outcomes and rehabilitation strategies in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer: a systematic review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009, 266(6):901-2.
• [3]Ackerstaff AH, Balm AJ, Rasch CR, et al.: First year quality-of-life assessment of an intra-arterial (RADPLAT) versus intravenous chemoradiation phase III trial. Head Neck 2009, 31(1):77-84.
• [4]Van der Molen L, van Rossum MA, Burkhead LM, Smeele LE, Rasch CR, Hilgers FJ: A Randomized Preventive Rehabilitation Trial in Advanced Head and Neck Cancer Patients Treated with Chemoradiotherapy: Feasibility, Compliance and short-term effects. Dysphagia 2010.
• [5]Kreeft A, Tan IB, van den Brekel MW, Hilgers FJ, Balm AJ: The surgical dilemma of 'functional inoperability' in oral and oropharyngeal cancer: current consensus on operability with regard to functional results. Clin Otolaryngol 2009, 34(2):140-6.
• [6]Rasch CR, Hauptmann M, Schornagel J, et al.: Intra-arterial versus intravenous chemoradiation for advanced head and neck cancer- Results of a randomized phase 3 trial. Cancer 2010, 116(9):2159-65.
• [7]Bernier J, Domenge C, Ozsahin M, et al.: Postoperative irradiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 2004, 350(19):1945-52.
• [8]Nguyen NP, Frank C, Moltz CC, et al.: Analysis of factors influencing aspiration risk following chemoradiation for oropharyngeal cancer. Br J Radiol 2009, 82(980):675-80.
• [9]Langerman A, MacCracken E, Kasza K, et al.: Aspiration in Chemoradiated patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol head and neck surg 2007, 133(12):1289-1295.
• [10]Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH: Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en richtlijnprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Amstelveen: www.cvz.nl Health Care Insurance Board; 2000.
• [11]Weinstein MC: Recent Developments in Decision-Analytic Modelling for Economic Evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2006, 24:1043-1053.
• [12]Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M: Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001, 10:779-787.
• [13]Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M: Decicion Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press; 2006.
• [14]Vallejo-Torres L, Steuten LM, Buxton MJ, et al.: Integrating health economics modeling in the product development cycle of medical deviced: a Bayesian approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008, 24(4):459-64.
• [15]Willan AR, Pinto EM: The value of information and optimal clinical trial design. Stat Med 2005, 24:1791-1806.
• [16]Burkhead LM, Sapienza CM, Rosenbek JC: Strength-training exercise in dysphagia rehabilitation: principles, procedures, and directions for future research. Dysphagia 2007, 22(3):251-65.
• [17]Kubrak C, Olson K, Jha N, Jensen L, McCargar L, Seikaly H, et al.: Nutrition impact symptoms: Key determinants of reduced dietary intake, weight loss, and reduced functional capacity of patients with head and neck cancer before treatment. Head Neck 2009.
• [18]Lazarus CL, Logemann JA, Pauloski BR, Rademaker AW, Larson CR, Mittal BB, et al.: Swallowing and tongue function following treatment for oral and oropharyngeal cancer. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000, 43(4):1011-23.
• [19]List MA, Bilir SP: Functional outcomes in head and neck cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 2004, 14(2):178-89.
• [20]Reilly JJ: Does nutrition management benefit the head and neck cancer patient? Oncology (Williston Park) 1990, 4(6):105-15.
• [21]Rosenthal EL, Lindeboom JA, Eisbruch A: Prevention and treatment of dysphagia and aspiration after chemoradiation for head and neck cancer. Journal of clinical oncology 2006, 24(17):2636-43.
• [22]Salerno G, Cavaliere M, Foglia A, Pellicoro DP, Mottola G, Nardone M, et al.: The 11th nerve syndrome in functional neck dissection. Laryngoscope 2002, 112(7 Pt 1):1299-307.
• [23]World Health Organization: Dutch translation of 'International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF'. Geneva: WHO; 2001.