Optimizing the risk threshold of lymph node involvement for performing extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) may be omitted in prostate cancer (CaP) patients with a low predicted risk of lymph node involvement (LNI). The aim of the current study was to quantify the cost-effectiveness of using different risk thresholds for predicted LNI in CaP patients to inform decision making on omitting ePLND. METHODS: Five different thresholds (2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 100%) used in practice for performing ePLND were compared using a decision analytic cohort model with the 100% threshold (i.e., no ePLND) as reference. Compared outcomes consisted of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs. Baseline characteristics for the hypothetical cohort were based on an actual Dutch patient cohort containing 925 patients who underwent ePLND with risks of LNI predicted by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center web-calculator. The best strategy was selected based on the incremental cost effectiveness ratio when applying a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of €20,000 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed with Monte Carlo simulation to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Costs and health outcomes were lowest (€4,858 and 6.04 QALYs) for the 100% threshold, and highest (€10,939 and 6.21 QALYs) for the 2% threshold, respectively. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the 2%, 5%, 10%, and 20% threshold compared with the first threshold above (i.e., 5%, 10%, 20%, and 100%) were €189,222/QALY, €130,689/QALY, €51,920/QALY, and €23,187/QALY respectively. Applying a WTP threshold of €20.000 the probabilities for the 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 100% threshold strategies being cost-effective were 0.0%, 0.3%, 4.9%, 30.3%, and 64.5% respectively. CONCLUSION: Applying a WTP threshold of €20.000, completely omitting ePLND in CaP patients is cost-effective compared to other risk-based strategies. However, applying a 20% threshold for probable LNI to the Briganti 2012 nomogram or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center web-calculator, may be a feasible alternative, in particular when higher WTP values are considered.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the DiagnOSAS Screening Tool Compared With Polysomnography Diagnosis in Dutch Primary Care.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The growing recognition of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) as a serious health condition, increasing waiting lists for sleep tests, and a high proportion of unnecessary referrals from general practice highlight the need for alternative diagnostic strategies for OSA. This study's objective was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of DiagnOSAS, a screening tool that strives to facilitate fast and well-informed referral to hospitals and sleep clinics for diagnosis, in The Netherlands. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to assess cost-effectiveness in men aged 50 years. The diagnostic process of OSA was simulated with and without DiagnOSAS, taking into account the occurrence of hazardous OSA effects: car accidents, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The cost-effectiveness of "DiagnOSAS Strategy" and a "Rapid Diagnosis Scenario," in which time to diagnosis was halved, was assessed. RESULTS: Base case results show that, within a 10-year time period, DiagnOSAS saves €226 per patient at a negligible decrease (< 0.01) in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €56,997/QALY. The "Rapid Diagnosis Scenario" dominates usual care (ie, is both cheaper and more effective). For a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/QALY the probability that the "DiagnOSAS Strategy" and "Rapid Diagnosis Scenario" are cost-effective equals 91.7% and 99.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DiagnOSAS appears to be a cost-saving alternative for the usual OSA diagnostic strategy in The Netherlands. When DiagnOSAS succeeds in decreasing time to diagnosis, it could substantially improve health outcomes as well.