Role of chemotherapy for patients with recurrent platinum-resistant advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.
BACKGROUND
Current chemotherapy in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients has demonstrated minimal to no improvements in survival. Despite the lack of benefit, significant resources are utilized with such therapies. Therefore, the objective in the current study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of salvage chemotherapy for patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).


METHODS
A decision analysis model evaluated a hypothetical cohort of 4000 platinum-resistant patients with recurrent EOC. Several chemotherapy strategies were analyzed: 1) best supportive care (BSC); 2) second-line chemotherapy-monotherapy; 3) second-line chemotherapy-combination therapy; 4) third-line chemotherapy after disease progression on second-line monotherapy; and 5) third-line chemotherapy after disease progression on second-line combination therapy. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all pertinent uncertainties.


RESULTS
Using costs alone, BSC was the only definitive cost-effective treatment for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer patients, and second-line monotherapy was a reasonable cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 64,104 dollars. The cost-effectiveness ranged from 4,065 dollars per month of overall survival (OS) for BSC to 12,927 dollars for third-line previous combination therapy. Compared with BSC, second-line monotherapy gained an additional 3 months of OS, with a cost-effectiveness of 4,703 dollars per month of OS. Second-line combination therapy and third-line therapies exhibited unfavorable ICER.


CONCLUSIONS
The current decision analysis was intended to be thought-provoking and bring awareness to the high costs of subsequent chemotherapy with limited effectiveness in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant EOC. Although actual patients may receive multiple lines of chemotherapy, from the perspective of costs alone this model using a hypothetical cohort demonstrated that best supportive care was the only cost-effective strategy, with second-line monotherapy appearing to be a reasonable cost-effective strategy given current chemotherapeutic options.
Rocconi
Rodney P
RP
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35233, USA. rocconi@uab.edu
Case
Ashley S
AS
Straughn
J Michael
JM
Estes
Jacob M
JM
Partridge
Edward E
EE
D000970:Antineoplastic Agents / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D000971:Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols / Q000191:economics; D002945:Cisplatin / Q000627:therapeutic use; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003841:Deoxycytidine / Q000031:analogs & derivatives / Q000627:therapeutic use; D004317:Doxorubicin / Q000627:therapeutic use; D019008:Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; D004847:Epithelial Cells / Q000473:pathology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D018803:Models, Economic; D009364:Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; D010051:Ovarian Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000191:economics / Q000453:epidemiology; D010984:Platinum / Q000494:pharmacology / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D000093542:Gemcitabine
D000970:Antineoplastic Agents; D003841:Deoxycytidine; D010984:Platinum; D004317:Doxorubicin; D002945:Cisplatin; D000093542:Gemcitabine