Cost-Effectiveness of Surgery Versus Organ Preservation in Advanced Laryngeal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment decision-making for patients with laryngeal cancer consists of a complex trade-off between survival and quality of life. For decision makers on coverage and guidelines, costs come in addition to this equation. Our aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of surgery (laryngectomy with or without radiotherapy) versus organ preservation (OP: radiotherapy, chemo- and/or bioradiation) in advanced laryngeal cancer patients from a healthcare perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model. For each modality, data on survival and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were sourced from relevant articles in agreement with experts, and national benchmark cost prices were included regarding treatment, follow-up, adverse events, and rehabilitation. RESULTS: Total QALYs of the surgical approach (6.59) were substantially higher compared to the OP approach (5.44). Total lifetime costs were higher for the surgical approach compared to the OP approach, namely €95,881 versus €47,233. The surgical approach was therefore more effective and more costly compared to OP, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €42,383/QALY. CONCLUSION: Based on current literature, surgical treatment was cost-effective compared to OP in advanced laryngeal cancer within most willingness-to-pay thresholds. The study provides information on the survival adjusted for quality of life in combination with costs of two different approaches for advanced laryngeal cancer, relevant for patients, physicians, and policy makers. As financial toxicity is a relevant aspect in this population, collection of real-world data on country-specific costs and utilities is strongly recommended to enable further generalization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A. Laryngoscope, 131:E509-E517, 2021.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of using the heat and moisture exchangers compared with alternative stoma covers in laryngectomy rehabilitation: US perspective.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) vs alternative stoma covers (ASCs) following laryngectomy in the United States. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis were conducted including uncertainty analyses using real-world survey data with pulmonary events and productivity loss. RESULTS: HME use was more effective and less costly compared with ASCs. Quality-adjusted life years were slightly higher for HME-users. Total costs per patient (lifetime) were $59 362 (HME) and $102 416 (ASC). Pulmonary events and productivity loss occurred more frequently in the ASC-users. Annual budget savings were up to $40 183 593. Costs per pulmonary event averted were $3770. CONCLUSIONS: HME utilization in laryngectomy patients was cost-effective. Reimbursement of HME devices is thus recommended. Utilities may be underestimated due to the generic utility instrument used and sample size. Therefore, we recommend development of a disease-specific utility tool to incorporate in future analyses.

Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35 to the EQ-5D for head and neck cancer: Can disease-specific utilities be obtained?

INTRODUCTION: Innovations in head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment are often subject to economic evaluation prior to their reimbursement and subsequent access for patients. Mapping functions facilitate economic evaluation of new treatments when the required utility data is absent, but quality of life data is available. The objective of this study is to develop a mapping function translating the EORTC QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-derived utilities for HNC through regression modeling, and to explore the added value of disease-specific EORTC QLQ-H&N35 scales to the model. METHODS: Data was obtained on patients with primary HNC treated with curative intent derived from two hospitals. Model development was conducted in two phases: 1. Predictor selection based on theory- and data-driven methods, resulting in three sets of potential predictors from the quality of life questionnaires; 2. Selection of the best out of four methods: ordinary-least squares, mixed-effects linear, Cox and beta regression, using the first set of predictors from EORTC QLQ-C30 scales with most correspondence to EQ-5D dimensions. Using a stepwise approach, we assessed added values of predictors in the other two sets. Model fit was assessed using Akaike and Bayesian Information Criterion (AIC and BIC) and model performance was evaluated by MAE, RMSE and limits of agreement (LOA). RESULTS: The beta regression model showed best model fit, with global health status, physical-, role- and emotional functioning and pain scales as predictors. Adding HNC-specific scales did not improve the model. Model performance was reasonable; R2 = 0.39, MAE = 0.0949, RMSE = 0.1209, 95% LOA of -0.243 to 0.231 (bias -0.01), with an error correlation of 0.32. The estimated shrinkage factor was 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: Selected scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 can be used to estimate utilities for HNC using beta regression. Including EORTC QLQ-H&N35 scales does not improve the mapping function. The mapping model may serve as a tool to enable cost-effectiveness analyses of innovative HNC treatments, for example for reimbursement issues. Further research should assess the robustness and generalizability of the function by validating the model in an external cohort of HNC patients.

Study protocol of a prospective multicenter study comparing (cost-)effectiveness of a tailored interdisciplinary head and neck rehabilitation program to usual supportive care for patients treated with concomitant chemo- or bioradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Since 2011, a tailored, interdisciplinary head and neck rehabilitation (IHNR) program, covered by the basic healthcare insurance, is offered to advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) patients in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). This program is developed to preserve or restore patients' functioning, and to optimize health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It applies an integrated approach to define patients' individual goals and provide rehabilitation care throughout the cancer care continuum. The aim of the current study is to assess the (cost-) effectiveness of the IHNR approach compared to usual supportive care (USC) consisting of monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary care in advanced HNC patients. METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational study is designed to compare (cost-)effectiveness of the IHNR to USC for advanced HNC patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or bioradiotherapy (BRT). The primary outcome is HRQoL represented in the EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score. Functional HRQoL, societal participation, utility values, return to work (RTW), unmet needs (UN), patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes are secondary outcomes, assessed using the EORTC QLQ-H&N35, USER-P, EQ-5D-5 L, and study-specific questionnaires, respectively. Both patient groups (required sample size: 64 per arm) are requested to complete the questionnaires at: diagnosis (baseline; T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), 9 months (T3) and 12 months (T4) after start of medical treatment. Differences in outcomes between the intervention and control group will be analyzed using mixed effects models, Chi-square test and descriptive statistics. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be performed by means of a Markov decision model. The CEA will be performed using a societal perspective of the Netherlands. DISCUSSION: This prospective multicenter study will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IHNR compared to USC. RTW and societal participation, included as secondary outcomes, have not been studied sufficiently yet in cancer rehabilitation. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has not yet been implemented as usual care in all centers, which offers the opportunity to perform a controlled clinical study. If demonstrated to be (cost-)effective, national provision of the program can probably be advised. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry on April 24th 2018 ( NTR7140 ).