Cost effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced operable head and neck cancer followed by surgery and postoperative radiotherapy: a Markov model-based decision analysis

Economic Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

In the absence of evidence on whether neoadjuvant (NAC) or adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is more beneficial for various tumor treatments, economic evaluation (EE) can assist medical decision making. There is limited evidence on their cost-effectiveness and their prospective evaluation is less likely in the future. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis about EE for NAC versus AC in solid tumor help compare these therapies from various perspectives.

METHODS

Various databases were searched for studies published from inception to 2021. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines and economic-specific guidelines. The data were pooled using a random effects model when possible.

RESULTS

The retrieval identified 15 EE studies of NAC versus AC in 8 types of cancer. NAC is the dominant strategy for pancreatic, head and neck, rectal, prostate cancers and colorectal liver metastases. For ovarian cancer, NAC is cost-effective with a lower cost and higher or similar quality-adjusted life-year. There were no significant differences in cost and outcomes for lung cancer. For stage IV or high-risk patients with ovarian or prostate cancer, NAC was cost-effective but not for patients who were not high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The EEs results for NAC versus AC were inconsistent because of their different model structures, assumptions, cost inclusions, and a shortage of studies. There are multiple sources of heterogeneity across EEs evidence synthesis. More high-quality EE studies on NAC versus AC in initial cancer treatment are necessary.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for cT2-4N0-1 non-small cell lung cancer patients during initial treatment phase

Objective

The choice between neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) remains controversial in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There is no significant difference in NAC and AC’s effectiveness. We investigate the cost-effectiveness of NAC versus AC for NSCLC.

Method

A decision tree model was designed from a payer perspective to compare NAC and AC treatments for NSCLC patients. Parameters included overall survival (OS), surgical complications, chemotherapy adverse events (AEs), treatment initiation probability, treatment time frame, treatment cost, and quality of life (QOL). Sensitivity analyses were performed to characterize model uncertainty in the base cases.

Result

AC treatment strategy produced a cost saving of ¥3064.90 and incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of 0.10 years per patient with the same OS. NAC would be cost-effective at a ¥35,446/QALY threshold if the median OS of NAC were 2.3 months more than AC. The model was robust enough to handle variations to all input parameters except OS. In the probability sensitivity analysis, AC remained dominant in 54.4% of simulations.

Conclusion

The model cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that with operable NSCLC, AC treatment is more cost-effective to NAC. If NAC provides a longer survival advantage, this treatment strategy may be cost-effective. The OS is the main factor that influences cost-effectiveness and should be considered in therapeutic regimes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-021-00280-w.

The economic burden of head and neck cancer: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

This systematic literature review aimed to evaluate and summarize the existing evidence on resource use and costs associated with the diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC) in adult patients, to better understand the currently available data. The costs associated with HNC are complex, as the disease involves multiple sites, and treatment may require a multidisciplinary medical team and different treatment modalities.

METHODS

Databases (MEDLINE and Embase) were searched to identify studies published in English between October 2003 and October 2013 analyzing the economics of HNC in adult patients. Additional relevant publications were identified through manual searches of abstracts from recent conference proceedings.

RESULTS

Of 606 studies initially identified, 77 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated in the assessment. Most included studies were conducted in the USA. The vast majority of studies assessed direct costs of HNC, such as those associated with diagnosis and screening, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery, side effects of treatment, and follow-up care. The costs of treatment far exceeded those for other aspects of care. There was considerable heterogeneity in the reporting of economic outcomes in the included studies; truly comparable cost data were sparse in the literature. Based on these limited data, in the US costs associated with systemic therapy were greater than costs for surgery or radiotherapy. However, this trend was not seen in Europe, where surgery incurred a higher cost than radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies investigating the direct healthcare costs of HNC have utilized US databases of claims to public and private payers. Data from these studies suggested that costs generally are higher for HNC patients with recurrent and/or metastatic disease, for patients undergoing surgery, and for those patients insured by private payers. Further work is needed, particularly in Europe and other regions outside the USA; prospective studies assessing the cost associated with HNC would allow for more systematic comparison of costs, and would provide valuable economic information to payers, providers, and patients.