Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of PET-CT Surveillance After Treatment of Human Papillomavirus-Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of surveillance imaging with PET/CT scan among patients with human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Oncologic care centers in the United States with head and neck oncologic surgeons and physicians. METHODS: We compared the cost-effectiveness of 2 posttreatment surveillance strategies: clinical surveillance with the addition of PET/CT scan versus clinical surveillance alone in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma patients. We constructed a Markov decision model which was analyzed from a third-party payer's perspective using 1-year Markov cycles and a 30-year time horizon. Values for transition probabilities, costs, health care utilities, and their studied ranges were derived from the literature. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PET/CT with clinical surveillance versus clinical surveillance alone was $89,850 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Flexible fiberoptic scope exams during clinical surveillance would have to be over 51% sensitive or PET/CT scan cost would have to exceed $1678 for clinical surveillance alone to be more cost-effective. The willingness-to-pay threshold at which imaging surveillance was equally cost-effective to clinical surveillance was approximately $80,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: Despite lower recurrence rates of human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer, a single PET/CT scan within 6 months after primary treatment remains a cost-effective tool for routine surveillance when its cost does not exceed $1678. The cost-effectiveness of this strategy is also dependent on the clinical surveillance sensitivity (flexible fiberoptic pharyngoscopy), and willingness-to-pay thresholds which vary by country.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Submandibular Gland Preservation With Sialendoscopy for the Management of Sialolithiasis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Outpatient surgery centers. METHODS: A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer's perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. RESULTS: Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. CONCLUSION: Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.

Reconstruction After Salvage Total Laryngectomy: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most cost-effective reconstruction method after salvage total laryngectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Tertiary care hospitals with head and neck oncologic and reconstructive surgeons. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov-based decision model to compare reconstruction by primary closure to pectoralis flap and free flap after salvage total laryngectomy. The model simulated disease with transition probabilities and health utilities found in primary literature and estimated the average overall cost of each reconstructive method using Medicare billing codes. Effectiveness was compared using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to scrutinize the conclusions of our model. Reconstruction methods were compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). In the United States, less than $150,000 per QALY gained is considered cost-effective (2019 US dollars). RESULTS: Our base case analysis revealed that primary closure was less expensive ($44,370) and yielded more QALYs (0.91) than both pectoralis ($45,163, 0.81 QALYs) and free flap ($46,244, 0.85 QALYs), making it the most cost-effective option. Between flaps, free flap was cost-effective over pectoralis flap (ICER = $27,025/QALY gained). Sensitivity analyses showed primary closure as cost-effective 69% of the time over either flap. These conclusions were sensitive to the health utilities (quality of life) of each method of reconstruction. CONCLUSION: Tissue flaps to augment closure after salvage total laryngectomy are not always the most cost-effective reconstructive option. The long-term morbidity of flap surgery oftentimes outweighs the benefit of lowering fistula rates after surgery. Careful consideration must be taken when advising patients of their reconstructive options.

Do Research Groups Align on an Intervention's Value? Concordance of Cost-Effectiveness Findings Between the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and Other Health System Stakeholders.

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) employs fixed cost-effectiveness (CE) thresholds that guide their appraisal of an intervention's long-term economic value. Given ICER's rising influence in the healthcare field, we undertook an assessment of the concordance of ICER's CE findings to the published CE findings from other research groups (i.e., "non-ICER" researchers including life science manufacturers, academics, and government institutions). Disease areas and pharmaceutical interventions for comparison were determined based on ICER evaluations conducted from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017. A targeted literature search was conducted for non-ICER CE publications using PubMed. Studies had to be conducted from the US setting, include the same disease characteristics (e.g., disease severity; treatment history), incorporate the same pharmaceutical interventions and comparison groups, and present incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the healthcare sector or payer perspective. Discordance was measured as the proportion of unique interventions that would have had more favorable valuations (i.e., low, intermediate, high value-for-money) if the CE findings from other research groups had been used for decision making instead of ICER's findings. More favorable valuations were defined as transitioning from low value (as determined by ICER) to intermediate or high value (as determined by other researchers) and from intermediate value (as determined by ICER) to high value (as determined by other researchers). Among the 13 non-ICER studies meeting inclusion criteria, six disease areas and 14 interventions were assessed. Of the 14 interventions, a more favorable valuation would have been recommended for ten therapies if the CE ratios from other research groups had been used for decision making instead of ICER's findings, representing a 71.4% (10/14) discordance rate. Moreover, these discrepancies were found in each of the evaluated disease areas, with the largest number of discordant valuations found in rheumatoid arthritis (five out of six interventions were discordant) followed by one valuation each in multiple sclerosis (one out of three), non-small cell lung cancer (one out of two), multiple myeloma (one out of one), high cholesterol (one out of one), and congestive heart failure (one out of one). Our findings indicate high discordance when comparing ICER's appraisals to the CE findings of non-ICER researchers. To understand the value of new interventions, the totality of evidence on the CE of an intervention-including results from ICER and non-ICER modeling efforts-should be considered when making coverage and reimbursement decisions.