| Title |
Cost-effectiveness of primary debulking surgery when compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the management of stage III C and IV epithelial ovarian cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceor.s91844 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gareth K Forde, Jenny Chang, Argyrios Ziogas |
| Abstract |
To examine the cost-effectiveness of primary debulking surgery (PDS) when compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data linked to Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare). Using a Markov model, the cost-effectiveness of PDS was compared to that of NACT. We modeled cost and survival inputs using data from women in the SEER-Medicare database with ovarian cancer treated by either PDS or NACT between 1992 and 2009. Direct and indirect costs were discounted by an annual rate of 3%. Utility weights were obtained from published data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PDS compared to NACT was calculated. In our model, women with stage IIIC EOC had a higher mean adjusted treatment cost for PDS when compared to NACT ($31,945 vs $30,016) but yielded greater quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.79 vs 1.69). The ICER was $19,359/QALY gained. Women with stage IV EOC had a higher mean adjusted treatment cost following PDS when compared to NACT ($31,869 vs $27,338) but yielded greater QALYs (1.69 vs 1.66). The ICER was $130,083/QALY gained. A sensitivity analysis showed that for both PDS and NACT the ICER was sensitive to incremental changes in the utility weight. PDS is significantly more cost-effective for women with stage IIIC when compared to NACT. In women with stage IV EOC, PDS is also more cost-effective though the QALYs gained are much more costly and exceed a $50,000 willingness to pay. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 24% |
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 34% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,723,696
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#445
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,690
of 381,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#19
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 381,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.