Background and Objective There is no available evidence to recommend gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue-based ovarian suppression versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer, since the two approaches are considered equivalent in terms of oncologic outcome. The role of surgical ovarian ablation has been revitalized based on the advances of minimally invasive surgery, and a better understanding of clinical and molecular basis of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic BSO and GnRH analogue administration in patients aged 40-49 years with hormone-sensitive breast cancer.Methods A probabilistic decision tree model was developed to evaluate costs and outcomes of ovarian ablation through laparoscopic BSO, or ovarian suppression through monthly injections of GnRH analogue. Results were expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.Results Laparoscopic BSO strategy was associated with a lower mean total cost per patient than GnRH treatment, and considering the difference in terms of QALYs, the incremental effectiveness did not demonstrate a notable difference between the two approaches. From the National Health Service perspective, and for a time horizon of 5 years, laparoscopic BSO was the dominant option compared to GnRH treatment; laparoscopic BSO was less expensive than GnRH, (sic)2385 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2044, 2753] vs (sic)7093 (95% CI = 3409, 12,105), respectively, and more effective.Conclusion Surgical ovarian ablation is more cost-effective than GnRH administration in the adjuvant treatment of hormone-sensitive breast cancer patients aged 40-49 years, and the advantage of preventing ovarian cancer through laparoscopic BSO should be considered.
Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy Versus GnRH Analogue in the Adjuvant Treatment of Premenopausal Breast Cancer Patients: Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Breast Cancer Outcome, Ovarian Cancer Prevention and Treatment
Azzolini, Elena;
2017-01-01
Abstract
Background and Objective There is no available evidence to recommend gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue-based ovarian suppression versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer, since the two approaches are considered equivalent in terms of oncologic outcome. The role of surgical ovarian ablation has been revitalized based on the advances of minimally invasive surgery, and a better understanding of clinical and molecular basis of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic BSO and GnRH analogue administration in patients aged 40-49 years with hormone-sensitive breast cancer.Methods A probabilistic decision tree model was developed to evaluate costs and outcomes of ovarian ablation through laparoscopic BSO, or ovarian suppression through monthly injections of GnRH analogue. Results were expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.Results Laparoscopic BSO strategy was associated with a lower mean total cost per patient than GnRH treatment, and considering the difference in terms of QALYs, the incremental effectiveness did not demonstrate a notable difference between the two approaches. From the National Health Service perspective, and for a time horizon of 5 years, laparoscopic BSO was the dominant option compared to GnRH treatment; laparoscopic BSO was less expensive than GnRH, (sic)2385 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2044, 2753] vs (sic)7093 (95% CI = 3409, 12,105), respectively, and more effective.Conclusion Surgical ovarian ablation is more cost-effective than GnRH administration in the adjuvant treatment of hormone-sensitive breast cancer patients aged 40-49 years, and the advantage of preventing ovarian cancer through laparoscopic BSO should be considered.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
