Cost-effectiveness analysis of a multivariate index assay compared to modified American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists criteria and CA-125 in the triage of women with adnexal masses.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the multivariate index assay (MIA) for use in triaging women with an adnexal mass relative to modified American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (mACOG) referral guidelines and CA-125 testing alone. METHODS: The MIA triage algorithm was based on qualitative serum testing of five biomarkers: transthyretin, apolipoprotein, A-1, 2-microglobulin, transferrin, and CA-125. An economic analysis was developed to evaluate the clinical and cost implications of adopting MIA in clinical practice versus the mACOG referral guidelines and CA-125 alone, over a lifetime horizon, from the perspective of the public payer. Clinical parameters used to characterize patients' disease status, quality of life, and treatment decisions were estimated using the results of published studies; costs were approximated using reimbursement rates from CMS fee schedules. Model endpoints included overall survival (OS), costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The cost-effectiveness threshold was set to $50,000 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to assess uncertainty of individual parameters included in the analysis. All costs were reported in 2014 US dollars. RESULTS: Use of MIA was cost-effective, resulting in fewer re-operations and pre-treatment CT scans. Overall MIA resulted in an ICER of $35,094/QALY gained. MIA was also cost-saving and QALY-increasing compared to use of CA-125 alone with an ICER of $12,189/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the ICER was most affected by the following parameters: (1) sensitivity of MIA; (2) sensitivity of mACOG; and (3) percentage of patients, not referred to a gynecologic oncologist, who were correctly diagnosed with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). CONCLUSION: Use of MIA is a more cost-effective triage strategy than mACOG or CA-125. It is expected to increase the percentage of women with ovarian cancer that are referred to gynecologic oncologists, which is shown to improve clinical outcomes. Limitations include the use of assumptions when published data was unavailable, and the use of multiple sources for survival data.

Costs of treatment for elderly women with advanced ovarian cancer in a Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost of treating women with advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) undergoing primary debulking surgery (PDS) or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) - Medicare database (1992 to 2009) was used to evaluate the 7-month cost of care following PDS and NACT for advanced EOC. Multivariate analyses were used to evaluate differences between women treated by PDS and NACT on cost and survival. RESULTS: Of the 4506 women eligible for analysis, 82.4% underwent PDS and 17.6% received NACT. Eighty-five percent with stage IIIC and 78.5% with stage IV EOC underwent PDS (p<0.0001). No significant difference in the median cost of care between PDS and NACT existed in women with stage IIIC EOC ($59,801 vs. $59,905). There was a 12% increase in adjusted cost of care for stage IV patients ($63,131 vs. $55,302) who received PDS (p<0.0001). Increasing Charlson score was associated with an increase in 7-month cost of care in both stages. NACT was associated with a decreased 5-year overall survival in women with stage IIIC EOC (HR=1.27, 95% CI: 1.10-1.47) and stage IV EOC (HR=1.19, 95% CI: 1.03-1.37) compared to PDS. CONCLUSION: NACT and PDS are comparable in cost for women with stage IIIC EOC, and PDS is minimally more expensive for women with stage IV EOC. PDS was associated with an increase 5-year overall survival. Future investigations should include cost-effectiveness analyses where additional measures such as quality adjusted life years and propensity scored survival are included.