TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-effectiveness of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy versus routine surveillance in patients with unilateral breast cancer
AU - Zendejas, Benjamin
AU - Moriarty, James P.
AU - O'Byrne, Jamie
AU - Degnim, Amy C.
AU - Farley, David R.
AU - Boughey, Judy C.
PY - 2011/8/1
Y1 - 2011/8/1
N2 - Purpose: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates in women with unilateral breast cancer are increasing despite controversy regarding survival advantage. Current scrutiny of the medical costs led us to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CPM versus routine surveillance as an alternative contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk management strategy. Methods: Using a Markov model, we simulated patients with breast cancer from mastectomy to death. Model parameters were gathered from published literature or national databases. Base-case analysis focused on patients with average-risk breast cancer, 45 years of age at treatment. Outcomes were valued in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Patients' age, risk level of breast cancer, and quality of life (QOL) were varied to assess their impact on results. Results: Mean costs of treatment for women age 45 years are comparable: $36,594 for the CPM and $35,182 for surveillance. CPM provides 21.22 mean QALYs compared with 20.93 for surveillance, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $4,869/QALY gained for CPM. To prevent one CBC, six CPMs would be needed. CPM is no longer cost-effective for patients older than 70 years (ICER $62,750/QALY). For BRCA-positive patients, CPM is clearly cost-effective, providing more QALYs while being less costly. In non-BRCA patients, cost-effectiveness of CPM is highly dependent on assumptions regarding QOL for CPM versus surveillance strategy. Conclusion: CPM is cost-effective compared with surveillance for patients with breast cancer who are younger than 70 years. Results are sensitive to BRCA-positive status and assumptions of QOL differences between CPM and surveillance patients. This highlights the importance of tailoring treatment for individual patients.
AB - Purpose: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates in women with unilateral breast cancer are increasing despite controversy regarding survival advantage. Current scrutiny of the medical costs led us to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CPM versus routine surveillance as an alternative contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk management strategy. Methods: Using a Markov model, we simulated patients with breast cancer from mastectomy to death. Model parameters were gathered from published literature or national databases. Base-case analysis focused on patients with average-risk breast cancer, 45 years of age at treatment. Outcomes were valued in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Patients' age, risk level of breast cancer, and quality of life (QOL) were varied to assess their impact on results. Results: Mean costs of treatment for women age 45 years are comparable: $36,594 for the CPM and $35,182 for surveillance. CPM provides 21.22 mean QALYs compared with 20.93 for surveillance, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $4,869/QALY gained for CPM. To prevent one CBC, six CPMs would be needed. CPM is no longer cost-effective for patients older than 70 years (ICER $62,750/QALY). For BRCA-positive patients, CPM is clearly cost-effective, providing more QALYs while being less costly. In non-BRCA patients, cost-effectiveness of CPM is highly dependent on assumptions regarding QOL for CPM versus surveillance strategy. Conclusion: CPM is cost-effective compared with surveillance for patients with breast cancer who are younger than 70 years. Results are sensitive to BRCA-positive status and assumptions of QOL differences between CPM and surveillance patients. This highlights the importance of tailoring treatment for individual patients.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80051634416&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80051634416&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.6956
DO - 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.6956
M3 - Article
C2 - 21690472
AN - SCOPUS:80051634416
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 29
SP - 2993
EP - 3000
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 22
ER -