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

Predicting Return to Work after Head and Neck Cancer Treatment Is Challenging Due to Factors That Affect Work Ability

Striving to return to work is of great importance to many cancer survivors. The purpose of the study is to prospectively investigate the factors that hinder and facilitate return to work (RTW) at 3 and 12 months after the end of treatment in head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors and whether these factors influence the ability to continue working after treatment. Participants (n = 227) aged ≤ 65 years at diagnosis with HNC were included. Data were collected before the start of treatment and at 3 and 12 months after the end of treatment. The Rubin causal model was used for statistical analysis. Within the 3-month follow-up period, 92 participants had RTW and 30 had retired. At the 12-month follow-up, 80 of these participants were still working, another 51 participants had RTW, and five participants working still suffered from cancer. The hindrance to RTW within 3 months was advanced tumour stage (stage III and IV) (p = 0.0038). Hindrances to RTW at the 12-month follow-up were oral cancer (p = 0.0210) and larynx cancer (p = 0.0041), and facilitators were living in a relationship (p = 0.0445) and a white-collar job (p = 0.00267). Participants with early tumour stage (stage I and II) (p = 0.0019) and a white-collar job (p = 0.0185) had earlier RTW. The conclusion is that disease factors were the most important hindrances to RTW, and type of work and living with a spouse or partner were nonclinical factors influencing RTW.

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.