Abstract

The standard of care for early-stage Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) is combined modality therapy (CMT) consisting of chemotherapy and involved site radiation therapy (ISRT). Recent treatment de-escalation trials have assessed the impact of omitting radiation with the use of positron emission tomography (PET) and have suggested a detriment in progression free survival (PFS) for patients who do not receive radiation therapy (RT) but similar overall survival. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of PET-directed therapy versus standard of care CMT. This study used a cost-effectiveness Markov model simulating 5 year outcomes for 1 million patients with early-stage HL treated with either PET-directed therapy consisting of 2 cycles of ABVD chemotherapy ± ISRT or CMT consisting of 2 cycles of ABVD+ISRT. Patients progressed to no evidence of disease, progression of disease (PD), or death. Patients with PD underwent salvage therapy with high dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant (HDC-SCT). The primary outcome measured was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. We found that PET-directed therapy and CMT strategies were associated with costs of $47,362 and $41,167, respectively. The CMT strategy was equally as effective as the PET-directed therapy strategy with QALYs of 3.4. On 1-way sensitivity analyses, the model was most sensitive to CMT and HDC-SCT costs. Two-way sensitivity analyses showed the model was sensitive to the relative costs of these treatments. For patients with early-stage HL, CMT is the cost-effective strategy as compared with PET-directed therapy.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.