Back to Search
Start Over
Does obesity influence the preferred treatment approach for early-stage cervical cancer? A cost-effectiveness analysis.
- Source :
-
International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society [Int J Gynecol Cancer] 2022 Feb; Vol. 32 (2), pp. 133-140. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Dec 09. - Publication Year :
- 2022
-
Abstract
- Objective: Abdominal radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer has higher rates of disease-free and overall survival compared with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. Abdominal radical hysterectomy may be technically challenging at higher body mass index levels resulting in poorer surgical outcomes. This study sought to examine the influence of body mass index on outcomes and cost effectiveness between different treatments for early-stage cervical cancer.<br />Methods: A Markov decision-analytic model was designed using TreeAge Pro software to compare the outcomes and costs of primary chemoradiation versus surgery in women with early-stage cervical cancer. The study used a theoretical cohort of 6000 women who were treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, or primary chemoradiation therapy. We compared the results for three body mass index groups: less than 30 kg/m <superscript>2</superscript> , 30-39.9 kg/m <superscript>2</superscript> , and 40 kg/m <superscript>2</superscript> or higher. Model inputs were derived from the literature. Outcomes included complications, recurrence, death, costs, and quality-adjusted life years. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year was used as our willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analyses were performed broadly to determine the robustness of the results.<br />Results: Comparing abdominal radical hysterectomy with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, abdominal radical hysterectomy was associated with 526 fewer recurrences and 382 fewer deaths compared with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy; however, abdominal radical hysterectomy resulted in more complications for each body mass index category. When the body mass index was 40 kg/m <superscript>2</superscript> or higher, abdominal radical hysterectomy became the dominant strategy because it led to better outcomes with lower costs than minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. Comparing abdominal radical hysterectomy with primary chemoradiation therapy, recurrence rates were similar, with more deaths associated with surgery across each body mass index category. Chemoradiation therapy became cost effective when the body mass index was 40 kg/m <superscript>2</superscript> or higher.<br />Conclusion: When the body mass index is 40 kg/m <superscript>2</superscript> or higher, abdominal radical hysterectomy is cost saving compared with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and primary chemoradiation is cost effective compared with abdominal radical hysterectomy. Primary chemoradiation may be the optimal management strategy at higher body mass indexes.<br />Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.<br /> (© IGCS and ESGO 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
- Subjects :
- Adult
Body Mass Index
Cohort Studies
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Female
Humans
Hysterectomy adverse effects
Hysterectomy classification
Hysterectomy statistics & numerical data
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local economics
Postoperative Complications economics
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms complications
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms economics
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms epidemiology
Chemoradiotherapy economics
Hysterectomy economics
Obesity, Morbid complications
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms therapy
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1525-1438
- Volume :
- 32
- Issue :
- 2
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 34887286
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2021-003004