Ovarian preservation compared to oophorectomy in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial Cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Standard treatment for endometrial cancer is a hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and lymph node assessment. In premenopausal women, removal of the ovaries may not be necessary and could increase the risk of all-cause mortality. We sought to estimate the outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of oophorectomy versus ovarian preservation in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was designed using TreeAge software comparing oophorectomy to ovarian preservation in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer. We used a theoretical cohort of 10,600 women to represent our population of interest in the United States in 2021. Outcomes included cancer recurrences, ovarian cancer diagnoses, deaths, rates of vaginal atrophy, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $100,000/QALY. Model inputs were derived from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Oophorectomy resulted in more deaths and higher rates of vaginal atrophy, while ovarian preservation resulted in 100 cases of ovarian cancer. Ovarian preservation resulted in lower costs and higher QALYs making it cost effective when compared to oophorectomy. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the probability of cancer recurrence after ovarian preservation and probability of developing ovarian cancer were the most impactful variables in our model. CONCLUSION: Ovarian preservation is cost-effective in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer when compared to oophorectomy. Ovarian preservation may prevent surgical menopause, which may improve quality of life and overall mortality without compromising oncologic outcomes, and should be strongly considered in premenopausal women with early stage disease.

Does obesity influence the preferred treatment approach for early-stage cervical cancer? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

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. 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/m2, 30-39.9 kg/m2, and 40 kg/m2 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. 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/m2 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/m2 or higher. CONCLUSION: When the body mass index is 40 kg/m2 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.