Cost-effectiveness of hypofractionated versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for the treatment of men with early glottic cancer: a study in the Brazilian public and private health system.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate whether hypofractionated radiotherapy (HYPOFRT) is a cost-effective strategy than conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) for early-stage glottic cancer (ESGC) in the Brazilian public and private health systems. METHODS: Adopting the perspective of the Brazilian public and private health system as the payer, a Markov model with a lifetime horizon was built to delineate the health states for a cohort of 65-year-old men after with ESGC treated with either HYPOFRT or CFRT. Probabilities of controlled disease, local failure, distant metastasis, and death and utilities scores were extracted from randomized clinical trials. Costs were based on the public and private health system reimbursement values. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, for both the public and private health systems, HYPOFRT dominated CFRT, being more effective and less costly, with a negative ICER of R$264.32 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (public health system) and a negative ICER of R$2870.69/ QALY (private health system). The ICER was most sensitive to the probability of local failure, controlled disease, and salvage treatment costs. For the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicates that there is a probability of 99.99% of HYPOFRT being cost-effective considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of R$2,000 ($905.39) per QALY (public sector) and willingness-to-pay threshold of R$16,000 ($7243.10) per QALY (private sector). The results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Considering a threshold of R$ 40,000 per QALY, HYPOFRT was cost-effective compared to CFRT for ESGC in the Brazilian public health system. The Net Monetary Benefit (NMB) is approximately 2,4 times (public health system) and 5,2 (private health system) higher for HYPOFRT than CFRT, which could open the opportunity of incorporating new technologies.

Cost-Effectiveness of BRCA 1/2 Genetic Test and Preventive Strategies: Using Real-World Data From an Upper-Middle Income Country.

Although BRCA1/2 genetic testing in developed countries is part of the reality for high-risk patients for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), the same is not true for upper-middle-income countries. For that reason, this study aimed to evaluate whether the BRCA1/2 genetic test and preventive strategies for women at high risk for HBOC are cost-effective compared to not performing these strategies in an upper-middle-income country. Adopting a payer perspective, a Markov model with a time horizon of 70 years was built to delineate the health states for a cohort of healthy women aged 30 years that fulfilled the BRCA1/2 testing criteria according to the guidelines. Transition probabilities were calculated based on real-world data of women tested for BRCA1/2 germline mutations in a cancer reference hospital from 2011 to 2020. We analyzed 275 BRCA mutated index cases and 356 BRCA mutation carriers that were first- or second-degree relatives of the patients. Costs were based on the Brazilian public health system reimbursement values. Health state utilities were retrieved from literature. The BRCA1/2 genetic test and preventive strategies result in more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$ 11,900.31 (U$ 5,504.31)/QALY. This result can represent a strong argument in favor of implementing genetic testing strategies for high-risk women even in countries with upper-middle income, considering not only the cancer prevention possibilities associated with the genetic testing but also its cost-effectiveness to the health system. These strategies are cost-effective, considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of R$ 25,000 (U$ 11,563.37)/QALY, indicating that the government should consider offering them for women at high risk for HBOC. The results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional radiotherapy for the treatment of surgically ineligible stage I non-small cell lung cancer in the Brazilian public health system.

Background: The Brazilian public health system does not pay for the use of Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) due to its costs and the absence of cost-effectiveness analysis showing its benefit. The present study aims to evaluate whether the SBRT is a more cost-effective strategy than the conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) for surgically ineligible stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the Brazilian public health system. Methods: Adopting the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Healthcare System (SUS) as the payer, a Markov model with a lifetime horizon was built to delineate the health states for a cohort of 75-years-old men with medically inoperable NSCLC after treatment with SBRT or CFRT. Transition probabilities and health states utilities were adapted from the literature. Costs were based on the public health system reimbursement values and simulated in the private sector. Findings: The SBRT strategy results in more quality-adjusted life-year (QALYs) and costs with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of R$ 164.86 (U$ 65.16) per QALY and R$ 105 (U$ 41.50) per life-year gained (LYG). This strategy was cost-effective, considering a willingness-to-pay of R$ 25,000 (U$ 9,881.42) per QALY. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was approximately twice higher. The outcomes were confirmed with 92% of accuracy in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Interpretation: Using a threshold of R$25,000 per QALY, SBRT was more cost-effective than CFRT for NSCLC in a public health system of an upper-middle-income country. SBRT generates higher NMB than CFRT, which could open the opportunity to incorporate new technologies. Funding: Varian Medical Systems.