Cost-effectiveness analysis of PET-CT guided management for locally advanced head and neck cancer

Alison Smith (), Peter Hall, Claire Hulme, Janet A Dunn, Christopher C McConkey, Joy K Rahman, Christopher McCabe and Hisham Mehanna
Additional contact information
Alison Smith: Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds
Peter Hall: Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Claire Hulme: Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds
Janet A Dunn: Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, West Midlands, UK
Christopher C McConkey: Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, West Midlands, UK
Joy K Rahman: Institute of Head & Neck Studies and Education, University of Birmingham, UK
Christopher McCabe: Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Hisham Mehanna: Institute of Head & Neck Studies and Education, University of Birmingham, UK

No 1702, Working Papers from Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds

Abstract: Purpose: A recent large UK clinical trial demonstrated that positron-emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT)- guided administration of neck dissection in patients with advanced head and neck cancer after primary chemo-radiotherapy treatment produces similar survival outcomes to planned neck dissection (standard care) and is cost-effective over a short-term horizon. Further assessment of long-term outcomes is required in order to inform a robust adoption decision. Here we present results of a lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis of PET-CT guided management from a UK National Health Service (NHS) secondary care perspective.Methods: Initial 6-month cost and health outcomes were derived from trial data; subsequent incidence of recurrence events and mortality was simulated using a de novo Markov model. Health benefit was measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs reported in 2015 British pounds. Model transition probabilities, costs and utilities were derived from trial data and published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of uncertainty and broader NHS & personal social services (PSS) costs on the results. Results: PET-CT management produced an average lifetime NHS secondary care cost saving of £1,485 [$2,133] (95% CI: -2,815 to 159) and an additional 0.13 QALYs (95% CI: -0.49 to 0.79). At a £20,000 [$28,736] willingness-to-pay per additional QALY threshold there was a 75% probability that PET-CT was cost-effective, and the results remained cost-effective over the majority of sensitivity analyses. When adopting a broader NHS & PSS perspective, PET-CT management produced an average saving of £700 [$1,005] (95% CI: -6,190 to 5,362) and had an 81% probability of being cost-effective. Conclusions: This analysis indicates that PET-CT guided management is cost-effective in the long-term and supports the case for adoption.

Keywords: PET-CT; Head and Neck Cancer; Health Technology Assessment; Economic Evaluation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C11 C63 D80 I10 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 34 pages
Date: 2017
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-hea
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/1153/auhe_wp1702 First version, 2011 (application/pdf)
Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 500 Can't connect to medicinehealth.leeds.ac.ukdownloads:443 (No such host is known. ) (http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/1153/auhe_wp1702 [301 Moved Permanently]--> https://medicinehealth.leeds.ac.ukdownloads/download/1153/auhe_wp1702)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:lee:wpaper:1702

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Judy Wright ().