Cost-utility analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy after concurrent chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the cost utility of concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) to CCRT followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (CCRT/ACT) in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) using provider and societal viewpoints. METHODS: Data from our trial which was a multi-centre study evaluating the efficacy of ACT compared to CCRT/ACT were entered into a decision tree model. The data included clinical probability, direct medical and non-medical costs, and utility obtained from the patients. The total cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated for a time horizon of 3 years. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: The cost of CCRT and CCRT/ACT was approximately 3,058 and 6,896 USD and 4,309 and 7,480 USD from provider and from societal viewpoints, respectively. The QALYs for CCRT and CCRT/ACT were 2.31480 and 2.32045, respectively. The ICER was 569,575 USD per QALY. For stage III-IVA LACC, the ICER was 28,050 USD per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the cost of ACT was the most significant influential parameter on the ICER. The ICER would be 0.26-fold lower if the cost of ACT was reduced by 25%. At the current ceiling threshold of 5,000 USD/QALY, CCRT had a 100% probability of being the best option. CONCLUSIONS: In the Thai context, CCRT is more cost effective than CCRT/ACT for stage IIB-IVA LACC. CCRT/ACT may be considered only for stage III-IVA LACC because it has a lower ICER than other types of LACC.

A randomized controlled trial comparing concurrent chemoradiation versus concurrent chemoradiation followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer patients: ACTLACC trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare response rate and survivals of locally advanced stage cervical cancer patients who had standard concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) alone to those who had adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) after CCRT. METHODS: Patients aged 18-70 years who had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIB-IVA without para-aortic lymph node enlargement, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores 0-2, and non-aggressive histopathology were randomized to have CCRT with weekly cisplatin followed by observation (arm A) or by ACT with paclitaxel plus carboplatin every 4 weeks for 3 cycles (arm B). RESULTS: Data analysis of 259 patients showed no significant difference in complete responses at 4 months after treatment between arm A (n=129) and arm B (n=130): 94.1% vs. 87.0% (p=0.154) respectively. With the median follow-up of 27.4 months, 15.5% of patients in arm A and 10.8% in arm B experienced recurrences (p=0.123). There were no significant differences of overall or loco-regional failure. However, systemic recurrences were significantly lower in arm B than arm A: 5.4% vs. 10.1% (p=0.029). The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS) of the patients in both arms were not significantly different. The hazard ratio of PFS and OS of arm B compared to arm A were 1.26 (95% CI=0.82-1.96; p=0.293) and 1.42 (95% CI=0.81-2.49; p=0.221) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ACT with paclitaxel plus carboplatin after CCRT did not improve response rate and survival compared to CCRT alone. Only significant decrease of systemic recurrences with ACT was observed, but not overall or loco-regional failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02036164, Thai Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: TCTR 20140106001.