Treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data available in the literature and expert opinion. SETTING: England. POPULATION: Women treated for CIN. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate the clinical course of 1000 women who received local treatment for CIN and were followed up for 10 years after treatment. In the model we considered surgical complications as well as oncological and reproductive outcomes over the 10-year period. The costs calculated were those incurred by the National Health Service (NHS) of England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per one CIN2+ recurrence averted (oncological outcome); cost per one preterm birth averted (reproductive outcome); overall cost per one adverse oncological or reproductive outcome averted. RESULTS: For young women of reproductive age, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) was the most cost-effective treatment overall at all willingness-to-pay thresholds. For postmenopausal women, LLETZ remained the most cost-effective treatment up to a threshold of £31,500, but laser conisation became the most cost-effective treatment above that threshold. CONCLUSIONS: LLETZ is the most cost-effective treatment for both younger and older women. However, for older women, more radical excision with laser conisation could also be considered if the NHS is willing to spend more than £31,500 to avert one CIN2+ recurrence.

RETRACTED: Cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy and dostarlimab for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Authors. The authors have independently identified an error in the formula that was utilized to calculate the Quality Adjusted Life Years which invalidates the data and the conclusion of the paper. The authors have contacted the journal requesting to retract the article. Apologies are offered to the readers of the journal for any confusion or inconvenience that may have resulted from the publication of this article.

Cost-effectiveness of surveillance intervals after curative resection of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Major guidelines consistently recommend 5 years of postoperative surveillance for patients with colorectal cancer. However, they differ in their recommendations for examination intervals and whether they should vary according to disease stage. Furthermore, there are no reports on the cost-effectiveness of the different surveillance schedules. The objective of this study is to identify the most cost-effective surveillance intervals after curative resection of colorectal cancer. METHODS: A total of 3701 patients who underwent curative surgery for colorectal cancer at the National Cancer Center Hospital were included. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted for the five surveillance strategies with reference to the guidelines. Expected medical costs and quality-adjusted life years after colorectal cancer resection were calculated using a state-transition model by Monte Carlo simulation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life years gained was calculated for each strategy, with a maximum acceptable value of 43 500-52 200 USD (5-6 million JPY). RESULTS: Stages I, II and III included 1316, 1082 and 1303 patients, respectively, with 45, 140 and 338 relapsed cases. For patients with stage I disease, strategy 4 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $26 555/quality-adjusted life year) was considered to be the most cost-effective, while strategies 3 ($83 071/quality-adjusted life year) and 2 ($289 642/quality-adjusted life year) exceeded the threshold value. In stages II and III, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for strategy 3 was the most cost-effective option, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $18 358-22 230/quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: In stage I, the cost-effectiveness of intensive surveillance is very poor and strategy 4 is the most cost-effective. Strategy 3 is the most cost-effective in stages II and III.