Objective. In patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), a diagnostic laparoscopy (DLS) to determine treatment regime prevents futile laparotomies and seems cost-neutral. The... Show moreObjective. In patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), a diagnostic laparoscopy (DLS) to determine treatment regime prevents futile laparotomies and seems cost-neutral. The uptake of DLS in current practice is unknown. We evaluated the clinical application of routine DLS in treatment planning in patients with advanced-stage EOC in the Netherlands. Methods: The implementation was evaluated over the period 2017-2019, using a health technology assessment including clinical, organizational, and economic factors. Barriers for implementation were identified and DLS use was assessed using semi-structured surveys with healthcare professionals. Data from the Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit were used to determine (un)successful CRS rates. To assess the economic impact, we performed a budget impact analysis (BIA) of the combined interventions of DLS and primary CRS. Results: The DLS use to guide treatment planning increased from 16% to 20%. The majority of the centers did not support routine DLS implementation, mainly because of logistic barriers and its invasive nature. The primary CRS rate of all CRS decreased from 44% to 36%, in favor of interval CRS. The unsuccessful primary CRS rate decreased from 15% to 9% resulting in fewer patients needed a second interval CRS. Consequently, total health care costs decreased from (sic)4.457.496 to (sic)4.274.751. Conclusions: The implementation of routine DLS for guiding treatment planning in patients with advancedstage EOC has limited support in the Netherlands. Over the years, total health care costs decreased. For current practice, it is advised that a DLS is useful in case it is uncertain whether a successful primary CRS is feasible based on conventional work-up. (C) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Show less
Byng, D.; Retel, V.P.; Engelhardt, E.G.; Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C.G.M.; Til, J.A. van; Schmitz, R.S.J.M.; ... ; Grand Challenge Precision Consorti 2021
Simple Summary Preferences for treatment strategies for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a potential precursor of invasive breast cancer (IBC) including a new active surveillance strategy,... Show moreSimple Summary Preferences for treatment strategies for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a potential precursor of invasive breast cancer (IBC) including a new active surveillance strategy, were elicited with a discrete choice experiment among recently-diagnosed women and oncologists involved in the care of women with DCIS. Patients exhibited strong preferences for active surveillance and seemed prepared to accept much higher levels of 10-year risk of developing ipsilateral invasive breast cancer than oncologists. Both patients and oncologists showed a strong aversion toward more extensive locoregional treatments (i.e., breast conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy, and mastectomy), while both groups demonstrated a strong preference toward shorter follow-up intervals.As ongoing trials study the safety of an active surveillance strategy for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), there is a need to explain why particular choices regarding treatment strategies are made by eligible women as well as their oncologists, what factors enter the decision process, and how much each factor affects their choice. To measure preferences for treatment and surveillance strategies, women with newly-diagnosed, primary low-risk DCIS enrolled in the Dutch CONTROL DCIS Registration and LORD trial, and oncologists participating in the Dutch Health Professionals Study were invited to complete a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The relative importance of treatment strategy-related attributes (locoregional intervention, 10-year risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC), and follow-up interval) were discerned using conditional logit models. A total of n = 172 patients and n = 30 oncologists completed the DCE. Patient respondents had very strong preferences for an active surveillance strategy with no surgery, irrespective of the 10-year risk of iIBC. Extensiveness of the locoregional treatment was consistently shown to be an important factor for patients and oncologists in deciding upon treatment strategies. Risk of iIBC was least important to patients and most important to oncologists. There was a stronger inclination toward a twice-yearly follow-up for both groups compared to annual follow-up. Show less
Doorn-Khosrovani, S.B.V. van; Pisters-van Roy, A.; Saase, L. van; Graaff, M. van der; Gijzen, J.; Sleijfer, S.; ... ; Voest, E.E. 2019
Background: Concomitant chemo-radiotherapy (CCRT) has become an indispensable organ, but not always function preserving treatment modality for advanced head and neck cancer. To prevent/limit the... Show moreBackground: Concomitant chemo-radiotherapy (CCRT) has become an indispensable organ, but not always function preserving treatment modality for advanced head and neck cancer. To prevent/limit the functional side effects of CCRT, special exercise programs are increasingly explored. This study presents cost-effectiveness analyses of a preventive (swallowing) exercise program (PREP) compared to usual care (UC) from a health care perspective.Methods: A Markov decision model of PREP versus UC was developed for CCRT in advanced head and neck cancer. Main outcome variables were tube dependency at one-year and number of post-CCRT hospital admission days. Primary outcome was costs per quality adjusted life years (cost/QALY), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as outcome parameter. The Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) was calculated to obtain the value of further research.Results: PREP resulted in less tube dependency (3% and 25%, respectively), and in fewer hospital admission days than UC (3.2 and 4.5 days respectively). Total costs for UC amounted to (sic)41,986 and for PREP to (sic)42,271. Quality adjusted life years for UC amounted to 0.68 and for PREP to 0.77. Based on costs per QALY, PREP has a higher probability of being cost-effective as long as the willingness to pay threshold for 1 additional QALY is at least (sic)3,200/QALY. At the prevailing threshold of (sic)20,000/QALY the probability for PREP being cost-effective compared to UC was 83%. The EVPI demonstrated potential value in undertaking additional research to reduce the existing decision uncertainty.Conclusions: Based on current evidence, PREP for CCRT in advanced head and neck cancer has the higher probability of being cost-effective when compared to UC. Moreover, the majority of sensitivity analyses produced ICERs that are well below the prevailing willingness to pay threshold for an additional QALY (range from dominance till (sic)45,906/QALY). Show less
