A Guide to an Iterative Approach to Model-Based Decision Making in Health and Medicine: An Iterative Decision-Making Framework.

Decision makers frequently face decisions about optimal resource allocation. A model-based economic evaluation can be used to guide decision makers in their choices by systematically evaluating the magnitude of expected health effects and costs of decision options and by making trade-offs explicit. We provide a guide to an iterative approach to the medical decision-making process by following a coherent framework, and outline the overarching iterative steps of model-based decision making. We systematized the framework by performing three steps. First, we compiled the existing guidelines provided by the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force, and the ISPOR Value of Information Task Force. Second, we identified other previous work related to frameworks and guidelines for model-based decision analyses through a literature search in PubMed. Third, we assessed the role of the evidence and iterative process in decision making and formalized key steps in a model-based decision-making framework. We provide guidance on an iterative approach to medical decision making by applying the compiled iterative model-based decision-making framework. The framework formally combines the decision problem conceptualization (Part I), the model conceptualization and development (Part II), and the process of model-based decision analysis (Part III). Following the overarching steps of the framework ensures compliance to the principles of evidence-based medicine and regular updates of the evidence, given that value of information analysis represents an essential component of model-based decision analysis in the framework. Following the provided guide and the steps outlined in the framework can help inform various health care decisions, and therefore it has the potential to improve decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI): Explanation and Elaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Although the ISPOR Value of Information (VOI) Task Force's reports outline VOI concepts and provide good-practice recommendations, there is no guidance for reporting VOI analyses. VOI analyses are usually performed alongside economic evaluations for which the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Statement provides reporting guidelines. Thus, we developed the CHEERS-VOI checklist to provide reporting guidance and checklist to support the transparent, reproducible, and high-quality reporting of VOI analyses. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review generated a list of 26 candidate reporting items. These candidate items underwent a Delphi procedure with Delphi participants through 3 survey rounds. Participants rated each item on a 9-point Likert scale to indicate its relevance when reporting the minimal, essential information about VOI methods and provided comments. The Delphi results were reviewed at 2-day consensus meetings and the checklist was finalized using anonymous voting. RESULTS: We had 30, 25, and 24 Delphi respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After incorporating revisions recommended by the Delphi participants, all 26 candidate items proceeded to the 2-day consensus meetings. The final CHEERS-VOI checklist includes all CHEERS items, but 7 items require elaboration when reporting VOI. Further, 6 new items were added to report information relevant only to VOI (eg, VOI methods applied). CONCLUSIONS: The CHEERS-VOI checklist should be used when a VOI analysis is performed alongside economic evaluations. The CHEERS-VOI checklist will help decision makers, analysts and peer reviewers in the assessment and interpretation of VOI analyses and thereby increase transparency and rigor in decision making.

The cost-effectiveness of opt-in and send-to-all HPV self-sampling among long-term non-attenders to cervical cancer screening in Norway: The Equalscreen randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of mailing a human papillomavirus self-sampling (HPV-ss) kit, directly or via invitation to order, compared with mailing reminder letters among long-term non-attenders in Norway. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis using the Equalscreen study data with 6000 women aged 35-69 years who had not screened in 10+ years. Participants were equally randomized into three arms: reminder letter (control); invitation to order HPV-ss kit (opt-in); directly mailed HPV-ss kit (send-to-all). Cost-effectiveness (2020 Great British Pounds (GBP)) was estimated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per additional screened woman, and per additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) from extended and direct healthcare perspectives. RESULTS: Participation, CIN2+ detection, and total screening costs were highest in the send-to-all arm, followed by the opt-in and control arms. Non-histological physician appointments contributed to 67% of the total costs in the control arm and ≤ 31% in the self-sampling arms. From an expanded healthcare perspective, the ICERs were 135 GBP and 169 GBP per additional screened woman, and 2864 GBP and 4165 GBP per additional CIN2+ detected for the opt-in and send-to-all, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Opt-in and send-to-all self-sampling were more effective and, depending on willingness-to-pay, may be considered cost-effective alternatives to improve screening attendance in Norway.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line therapies in adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia.

Major options for second-line therapy in adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) include splenectomy, rituximab, and thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TRAs). The American Society of Hematology guidelines recommend rituximab over splenectomy, TRAs over rituximab, and splenectomy or TRAs while noting a lack of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of these therapies. Using prospective, observational, and meta-analytic data, we performed the first cost-effectiveness analysis of second-line therapies in chronic ITP, from the perspective of the U.S. health system. Over a 20-year time-horizon, our six-strategy Markov model shows that a strategy incorporating early splenectomy, an approach at odds with current guidelines and clinical practice, is the cost-effective strategy. All four strategies utilizing TRAs in the first or second position cost over $1 million per quality-adjusted life-year, as compared to strategies involving early use of splenectomy and rituximab. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, early use of splenectomy and rituximab in either order was favored in 100% of 10 000 iterations. The annual cost of TRAs would have to decrease over 80% to begin to become cost-effective in any early TRA strategy. Our data indicate that effectiveness of early TRA and late TRA strategies is similar with the cost significantly greater with early TRA strategies. Contrary to current practice trends and guidelines, early use of splenectomy and rituximab, rather than TRAs, constitutes cost-effective treatment in adults with chronic ITP.

Treatment Sequencing Patterns and Associated Direct Medical Costs of Metastatic Breast Cancer Care in the United States, 2011 to 2021.

Importance: Advances in treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) led to changes in clinical practice and treatment costs in the US over the past decade. There is limited information on current MBC treatment sequences and associated costs by MBC subtype in the US. Objectives: To identify treatment patterns by MBC subtype and associated anticancer and supportive drug costs from health care sector and Medicare perspectives. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation analyzed data of patients with MBC obtained from the nationwide Flatiron Health database, an electronic health record-derived, deidentified database with data from community and academic practices across the US from 2011 to 2021. Participants included women aged at least 18 years diagnosed with MBC, who had at least 6 months of follow-up data, known hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2) receptor status, and at least 1 documented line of therapy. Patients with documented receipt of clinical study drugs were excluded. Data were analyzed from June 2021 to May 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were frequency of different drug regimens received as a line of therapy by subtype for the first 5 lines and mean medical costs of documented anticancer treatment and supportive care drugs per patient by MBC subtype and years since metastatic diagnosis, indexed to 2021 US dollars. Results: Among 15 215 patients (10 171 patients [66.85%] with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative MBC; 2785 patients [18.30%] with HR-positive and ERBB2-positive MBC; 802 patients [5.27%] with HR-negative and ERBB2-positive MBC; 1457 patients [9.58%] with triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]) who met eligibility criteria, 1777 (11.68%) were African American, 363 (2.39%) were Asian, and 9800 (64.41%) were White; the median (range) age was 64 (21-84) years. The mean total per-patient treatment and supportive care drug cost using publicly available Medicare prices was $334 812 for patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-positive MBC, $284 609 for patients with HR-negative and ERBB2-positive MBC, $104 774 for patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative MBC, and $54 355 for patients with TNBC. From 2011 to 2019 (most recent complete year 1 data are for patients diagnosed in 2019), annual costs in year 1 increased from $12 986 to $80 563 for ERBB2-negative and HR-positive MBC, $99 997 to $156 712 for ERBB2-positive and HR-positive MBC, and $31 397 to $53 775 for TNBC. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation found that drug costs related to MBC treatment increased between 2011 and 2021 and differed by tumor subtype. These findings suggest the growing financial burden of MBC treatment in the US and highlights the importance of performing more accurate cost-effectiveness analysis of novel adjuvant therapies that aim to reduce metastatic recurrence rates for early-stage breast cancer.

Methods for Communicating the Impact of Parameter Uncertainty in a Multiple-Strategies Cost-Effectiveness Comparison.

PURPOSE: Analyzing and communicating uncertainty is essential in medical decision making. To judge whether risks are acceptable, policy makers require information on the expected outcomes but also on the uncertainty and potential losses related to the chosen strategy. We aimed to compare methods used to represent the impact of uncertainty in decision problems involving many strategies, enhance existing methods, and provide an open-source and easy-to-use tool. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search to identify methods used to represent the impact of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses comparing multiple strategies. We applied the identified methods to probabilistic sensitivity analysis outputs of 3 published decision-analytic models comparing multiple strategies. Subsequently, we compared the following characteristics: type of information conveyed, use of a fixed or flexible willingness-to-pay threshold, output interpretability, and the graphical discriminatory ability. We further proposed adjustments and integration of methods to overcome identified limitations of existing methods. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in the selection of 9 methods. The 3 methods with the most favorable characteristics to compare many strategies were 1) the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), 2) the expected loss curve (ELC), and 3) the incremental benefit curve (IBC). The information required to assess confidence in a decision often includes the average loss and the probability of cost-effectiveness associated with each strategy. Therefore, we proposed the integration of information presented in an ELC and CEAC into a single heat map. CONCLUSIONS: This article presents an overview of methods presenting uncertainty in multiple-strategy cost-effectiveness analyses, with their strengths and shortcomings. We proposed a heat map as an alternative method that integrates all relevant information required for health policy and medical decision making. HIGHLIGHTS: To assess confidence in a chosen course of action, decision makers require information on both the probability and the consequences of making a wrong decision.This article contains an overview of methods for presenting uncertainty in multiple-strategy cost-effectiveness analyses.We propose a heat map that combines the probability of cost-effectiveness from the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) with the consequences of a wrong decision from the expected loss curve.Collapsing of the CEAC can be reduced by relaxing the CEAC, as proposed in this article.Code in Microsoft Excel and R is provided to easily analyze data using the methods discussed in this article.

Emerging Therapies for COVID-19: The Value of Information From More Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates time-sensitive policy and implementation decisions regarding new therapies in the face of uncertainty. This study aimed to quantify consequences of approving therapies or pursuing further research: immediate approval, use only in research, approval with research (eg, emergency use authorization), or reject. METHODS: Using a cohort state-transition model for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs associated with the following interventions: hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, casirivimab-imdevimab, dexamethasone, baricitinib-remdesivir, tocilizumab, lopinavir-ritonavir, interferon beta-1a, and usual care. We used the model outcomes to conduct cost-effectiveness and value of information analyses from a US healthcare perspective and a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: Assuming a $100 000-per-QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, only remdesivir, casirivimab-imdevimab, dexamethasone, baricitinib-remdesivir, and tocilizumab were (cost-) effective (incremental net health benefit 0.252, 0.164, 0.545, 0.668, and 0.524 QALYs and incremental net monetary benefit $25 249, $16 375, $54 526, $66 826, and $52 378). Our value of information analyses suggest that most value can be obtained if these 5 therapies are approved for immediate use rather than requiring additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (net value $20.6 billion, $13.4 billion, $7.4 billion, $54.6 billion, and $7.1 billion), hydroxychloroquine (net value $198 million) is only used in further RCTs if seeking to demonstrate decremental cost-effectiveness and otherwise rejected, and interferon beta-1a and lopinavir-ritonavir are rejected (ie, neither approved nor additional RCTs). CONCLUSIONS: Estimating the real-time value of collecting additional evidence during the pandemic can inform policy makers and clinicians about the optimal moment to implement therapies and whether to perform further research.

Population-Based Newborn Screening for Germline TP53 Variants: Clinical Benefits, Cost-Effectiveness, and Value of Further Research.

BACKGROUND: Identification of children and infants with Li-Fraumeni syndrome prompts tumor surveillance and allows potential early cancer detection. We assessed the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of population-wide newborn screening for TP53 variants (TP53-NBS). METHODS: We simulated the impact of TP53-NBS using data regarding TP53-associated pediatric cancers and pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) TP53 variants from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results; ClinVar and gnomAD; and clinical studies. We simulated an annual US birth cohort under usual care and TP53-NBS and estimated clinical benefits, life-years, and costs associated with usual care and TP53-NBS. RESULTS: Under usual care, of 4 million newborns, 608 (uncertainty interval [UI] = 581-636) individuals would develop TP53-associated cancers before age 20 years. Under TP53-NBS, 894 individuals would have P/LP TP53 variants detected. These individuals would undergo routine surveillance after detection of P/LP TP53 variants decreasing the number of cancer-related deaths by 7.2% (UI = 4.0%-12.1%) overall via early malignancy detection. Compared with usual care, TP53-NBS had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $106 009 per life-year gained. Probabilistic analysis estimated a 40% probability that TP53-NBS would be cost-effective given a $100 000 per life-year gained willingness-to-pay threshold. Using this threshold, a value of information analysis found that additional research on the prevalence of TP53 variants among rhabdomyosarcoma cases would resolve most of the decision uncertainty, resulting in an expected benefit of 349 life-years gained (or $36.6 million). CONCLUSIONS: We found that TP53-NBS could be cost-effective; however, our findings suggest that further research is needed to reduce the uncertainty in the potential health outcomes and costs associated with TP53-NBS.

Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Mammography in Older Women.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has become a prevalent mode of breast cancer screening in recent years. Although older women are commonly screened for breast cancer, little is known about screening outcomes using DBT among older women. OBJECTIVE: To assess proximal screening outcomes with DBT compared to traditional two-dimensional(2-D) mammography among women 67-74 and women 75 and older. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 67 years and older with no history of prior cancer who received a screening mammogram in 2015. MAIN MEASURES: Use of subsequent imaging (ultrasound and diagnostic mammography) as an indication of recall, breast cancer detection, and characteristics of breast cancer at the time of diagnosis. Analyses used weighted logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders. KEY RESULTS: Our study included 26,406 women aged 67-74 and 17,001 women 75 and older who were screened for breast cancer. Among women 75 and older, the rate of subsequent imaging among women screened with DBT did not differ significantly from 2-D mammography (91.8 versus 97.0 per 1,000 screening mammograms, p=0.37). In this age group, DBT was associated with 2.1 additional cancers detected per 1,000 screening mammograms compared to 2D (11.5 versus 9.4, p=0.003), though these additional cancers were almost exclusively in situ and stage I invasive cancers. For women 67-74 years old, DBT was associated with a higher rate of subsequent imaging than 2-D mammography (113.9 versus 100.3, p=0.004) and a higher rate of stage I invasive cancer detection (4.7 versus 3.7, p=0.002), but not other stages. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer screening with DBT was not associated with lower rates of subsequent imaging among older women. Most additional cancers detected with DBT were early stage. Whether detecting these additional early-stage cancers among older women improves health outcomes remains uncertain.

Simulating Study Data to Support Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations: A Tutorial.

The expected value of sample information (EVSI) can be used to prioritize avenues for future research and design studies that support medical decision making and offer value for money spent. EVSI is calculated based on 3 key elements. Two of these, a probabilistic model-based economic evaluation and updating model uncertainty based on simulated data, have been frequently discussed in the literature. By contrast, the third element, simulating data from the proposed studies, has received little attention. This tutorial contributes to bridging this gap by providing a step-by-step guide to simulating study data for EVSI calculations. We discuss a general-purpose algorithm for simulating data and demonstrate its use to simulate 3 different outcome types. We then discuss how to induce correlations in the generated data, how to adjust for common issues in study implementation such as missingness and censoring, and how individual patient data from previous studies can be leveraged to undertake EVSI calculations. For all examples, we provide comprehensive code written in the R language and, where possible, Excel spreadsheets in the supplementary materials. This tutorial facilitates practical EVSI calculations and allows EVSI to be used to prioritize research and design studies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab With and Without Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (N+I+chemotherapy) improve overall survival and progression-free survival for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet researchers have not concomitantly compared the cost-effectiveness of N+I and N+I+chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using outcomes data from the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA phase 3 randomized trials, we developed a Markov model with lifetime horizon to compare the costs and effectiveness of N+I and N+I+chemotherapy versus chemotherapy from the U.S. health care sector perspective. Subgroup analysis by programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels (≥1% and <1%) and probabilistic analysis were performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of N+I versus chemotherapy was $239,072 per QALY, and $838,198 per QALY for N+I+chemotherapy versus N+I. The ICER of N+I versus chemotherapy was $246,584 per QALY for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% and $185,620 per QALY for those with PD-L1 < 1%. In probabilistic analysis, N+I had a 2.6% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The probability was 0.4% for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% and 10.6% for patients with PD-L1 < 1%. CONCLUSION: First-line N+I or N+I+chemotherapy for metastatic NSCLC was not cost-effective regardless of PD-L1 expression levels from the U.S. health care sector perspective.

Early Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Risk-Based Selection Strategies for Adjuvant Treatment in Stage II Colon Cancer: The Potential Value of Prognostic Molecular Markers.

BACKGROUND: To explore the potential value of consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in stage II colon cancer treatment selection, we carried out an early cost-effectiveness assessment of a CMS-based strategy for adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: We used a Markov cohort model to evaluate three selection strategies: (i) the Dutch guideline strategy (MSS+pT4), (ii) the mutation-based strategy (MSS plus a BRAF and/or KRAS mutation or MSS plus pT4), and (iii) the CMS-based strategy (CMS4 or pT4). Outcomes were number of colon cancer deaths per 1,000 patients, total discounted costs per patient (pp), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) pp. The analyses were conducted from a Dutch societal perspective. The robustness of model predictions was assessed in sensitivity analyses. To evaluate the value of future research, we performed a value of information (VOI) analysis. RESULTS: The Dutch guideline strategy resulted in 8.10 QALYs pp and total costs of €23,660 pp. The CMS-based and mutation-based strategies were more effective and more costly, with 8.12 and 8.13 QALYs pp and €24,643 and €24,542 pp, respectively. Assuming a threshold of €50,000/QALY, the mutation-based strategy was considered as the optimal strategy in an incremental analysis. However, the VOI analysis showed substantial decision uncertainty driven by the molecular markers (expected value of partial perfect information: €18M). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of current evidence, our analyses suggest that the mutation-based selection strategy would be the best use of resources. However, the extensive decision uncertainty for the molecular markers does not allow selection of an optimal strategy at present. IMPACT: Future research is needed to eliminate decision uncertainty driven by molecular markers.

A Review of Web-Based Tools for Value-of-Information Analysis.

Value-of-information analysis (VOI) is a decision-theoretic approach that is used to inform reimbursement decisions, optimise trial design and set research priorities. The application of VOI analysis for informing policy decisions in practice has been limited due, in part, to the perceived complexity associated with the calculation of VOI measures. Recent efforts have resulted in the development of efficient methods to estimate VOI measures and the development of user-friendly web-based tools to facilitate VOI calculations. We review the existing web-based tools including Sheffield Accelerated Value of Information (SAVI), the web interface to the BCEA (Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) R package (BCEAweb), Rapid Assessment of Need for Evidence (RANE), and Value of Information for Cardiovascular Trials and Other Comparative Research (VICTOR). We describe what each tool is designed to do, the inputs they require, and the outputs they produce. Finally, we discuss how tools for VOI calculations might be improved in the future to facilitate the use of VOI analysis in practice.

Understanding Regional Variation in the Cost of Breast Cancer Screening Among Privately Insured Women in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer screening for women aged 40-49 years is prevalent and costly, with costs varying substantially across US regions. Newer approaches to mammography may improve cancer detection but also increase screening costs. We assessed factors associated with regional variation in screening costs. METHODS: We used Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, a large US commercial claims database accessed through secure portal, to assess regional variation in screening utilization and costs. We included screening mammography±digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), screening ultrasound, diagnostic mammography±DBT, diagnostic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy, and evaluated their utilization and costs. We assessed regional variation in annual per-screened-beneficiary costs and examined potential savings from reducing regional variation. RESULTS: Of the 2,257,393 privately insured women, 41.2% received screening mammography in 2017 (range: 26.6%-54.2% across regions). Wide regional variation was found in the DBT proportion (0.7%-91.1%) and mean costs of DBT ($299; range: $113-714) and 2-dimensional (D) mammograms ($213; range: $107-471). In one-fourth of the regions, the mean DBT cost was lower than the mean 2D mammography cost in the full sample. Regional variation in the per-screened-beneficiary cost (mean: $353; range: $151-751) was mainly attributable to variation in the cost of DBT (accounting for 23.4% of regional variation) and 2D mammography (23.0%). Reducing regional variation by decreasing the highest values to the national mean was projected to save $79-335 million annually. CONCLUSIONS: The mean mammogram cost for privately insured women ages 40-49 varies 7-fold across regions, driving substantial variation in breast cancer screening costs. Reducing this regional variation would substantially decrease the screening costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant Treatment Strategies for Women With ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Breast Cancer.

Importance: The neoadjuvant treatment options for ERBB2-positive (also known as HER2-positive) breast cancer are associated with different rates of pathologic complete response (pCR). The KATHERINE trial showed that adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) can reduce recurrence in patients with residual disease compared with patients treated with trastuzumab; however, T-DM1 and other ERBB2-targeted agents are costly, and understanding the costs and health consequences of various combinations of neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatments in the United States is needed. Objective: To examine the costs and disease outcomes associated with selection of various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer from a health care payer perspective in the United States. The model was informed by the KATHERINE trial, other clinical trials with different regimens from the KATHERINE trial, the Flatiron Health Database, McKesson Corporation data, and other evidence in the published literature. Starting trial median age for KATHERINE patients was 49 years (range, 24-79 years in T-DM1 arm and 23-80 years in trastuzumab arm). The model simulated patients receiving 5 different neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies. Data analyses were performed from March 2019 to August 2020. Exposure: There were 4 neoadjuvant regimens: (1) HP: trastuzumab (H) plus pertuzumab (P), (2) THP: paclitaxel (T) plus H plus P, (3) DDAC-THP: dose-dense anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (DDAC) plus THP, (4) TCHP: docetaxel (T) plus carboplatin (C) plus HP. All patients with pCR, regardless of neoadjuvant regimen, received adjuvant H. Patients with residual disease received different adjuvant therapies depending on the neoadjuvant regimen according to the 5 following strategies: (1) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant H, (2) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant T-DM1, (3) neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1, (4) neoadjuvant HP followed by adjuvant DDAC/THP plus T-DM1, or (5) neoadjuvant TCHP followed by adjuvant T-DM1. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime costs in 2020 US dollars and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each treatment strategy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. A strategy was classified as dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative. Results: In the base-case analysis, costs ranged from $415 833 (strategy 3) to $518 859 (strategy 4), and QALYs ranged from 9.67 (strategy 1) to 10.73 (strategy 3). Strategy 3 was associated with the highest health benefits (10.73 QALYs) and lowest costs ($415 833) and dominated all other strategies. Probabilistic analysis confirmed that this strategy had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (>70% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0-200,000/QALY) and was associated with the highest net benefit. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant H for patients with pCR or followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1 for patients with residual disease was associated with the highest health benefits and lowest costs for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer compared with other treatment strategies considered.

Correction to: Perspective and Costing in Cost­Effectiveness Analysis, 1974-2018.

The article Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.