Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cost-Effectiveness of Intensive Vs. Standard Follow-Up Models for Patients with Breast Cancer in Shiraz, Iran

  • Hatam, Nahid (Department of Health Service Administration, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Ahmadloo, Niloofar (Department of Radiation Oncology, Nemazi Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Vazirzadeh, Mina (Student Research Committee, School of Management and Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Jafari, Abdossaleh (Health Management and Economics Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Askarian, Mehrdad (Department of Community Medicine, Shiraz Nephro - Urology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2016.12.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer amongst women throughout the world. Currently, there are various follow-up strategies implemented in Iran, which are usually dependent on clinic policies and agreement among the resident oncologists. Purpose: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive follow-up versus standard models for early breast cancer patients in Iran. Materials and methods: This cross sectional study was performed with 382 patients each in the intensive and standard groups. Costs were identified and measured from a payer perspective, including direct medical outlay. To assess the effectiveness of the two follow-up models we used a decision tree along with indicators of detection of recurrence and metastasis, calculating expected costs and effectiveness for both cases; in addition, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were determined. Results: The results of decision tree showed expected case detection rates of 0.137 and 0.018 and expected costs of US$24,494.62 and US$6,859.27, respectively, for the intensive and standard follow-up models. Tornado diagrams revealed the highest sensitivity to cost increases using the intensive follow-up model with an ICER=US$148,196.2. Conclusion: Overall, the results showed that the intensive follow-up method is not cost-effective when compared to the standard model.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Shiraz University of Medical Sciences

References

  1. Baena J M, Ramirez P, Cortes C, et al (2013). Follow-up of long-term survivors of breast cancer in primary care versus specialist attention. Family practice, 30, 525-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmt030
  2. Daroudi R, Akbari Sari A, Nahvijou A, et al (2015). The economic burden of breast cancer in Iran. Iran J Public Health, 44, 1225-33.
  3. Eichler HG KS, Gerth WC, Mavros P, Gerth WC, Mavros P (2004). Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care resource allocation decision- making: how are cost- effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge?. Value Health, 7, 518-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.75003.x
  4. Ferlay J, Autier P, Boniol M, et al (2007). Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. Ann Oncol, 18, 581-92.
  5. Gohari MR, Mahmoudi M, Kazem M, Pasha E, Khodabakhshi R (2006). Recurrence in breast cancer analysis with frailty model. Saudi Med J, 27, 1187-93.
  6. Hatam N, Dehghani M, Habibian M, Jafari A (2015). Cost-utility analysis of IEV drug regimen versus ESHAP drug regimen for the patients with relapsed and refractory hodgkin and non-hodgkin's lymphoma in Iran. Iran J Cancer Prev, 8, e4061.
  7. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Default.aspx Accessed 21 Sept 2015.
  8. Kimman ML, Dirksen CD, Voogd AC , et al (2011). Economic evaluation of four follow-up strategies after curative treatment for breast cancer: results of an RCT. EJC, 47, 1175-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.12.017
  9. Kimman ML, Voogd AC, Dirksen CD, et al (2007). Improving the quality and efficiency of follow-up after curative treatment for breast cancer: rational and study design of MaCare trial. BMC Cancer, 7, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-7-1
  10. Koko R, Hakama M, Holli K (2005). Follow-up cost of breast cancer patients with localized disease after primary treatment: a randomized trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 93, 255-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-005-5199-2
  11. Kolahdoozan S, Sadjadi A, Radmard AR, Khademi H (2010). five common cancers in Iran. Arch Iran Med, 13,143-6.
  12. Lauzier S, Levesque P, Mondor M, et al (2013). Out-of-pocket costs in the year after early breast cancer among Canadian women and spouses. JNCI, 105, 280-92. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs512
  13. Lu W, Greuter MJ, Schaapveld M, et al (2012). Safety and cost effectiveness of shorting hospital follow-up after breast cancer treatment. BJS, 99, 1227-33. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8850
  14. Margenthaler JA, Allam E, Chen L, et al (2012). Surveillance of patients with the breast cancer after curative-intent primary treatment: current practice patterns. J Oncol Prac, 8, 79-83. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2011.000289
  15. Margenthaler JA, Johnson FE, Cyr AE (2014). Intensity of follow-up after breast cancer surgery: low versus high. Ann Surg Oncol J, 21, 733-7. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3251-8
  16. Moschetti I, Cinquini M, Lambertini M, Levaggi A, Liberati A (2016). Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 5, CD001768.
  17. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Available from:http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#breast. Accessed 4 Sept 2013.
  18. Oltra A, Santaballa A, Munarriz B, Pastor M, Montalar J (2007). Cost-benefit analysis of a follow-up program in patients with breast cancer: a randomized prospective study. Breast J, 13, 571-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2007.00506.x
  19. Rosselli Del Turco M, Palli D, Cariddi A, et al (1994). Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. A randomized trial. National research council project on breast cancer follow- up. JAMA, 271, 1593-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03510440053032
  20. The GIVIO Investigators (1994). Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. A multicenter randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 271, 1587-92. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03510440047031
  21. The world bank [online].2016; Available from: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=ny.gdp. pcap.cd&country=irn. Accessed 13 july 2015.
  22. Van hezewijk M, van den akker ME, van de velde CJH, Scholten AN, Hille E TM (2012). Costs of different follow-up strategies in early breast cancer: a review of the literature. Breast J, 21, 693-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2012.09.009