Cargando…

The cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)

BACKGROUND: To assess the within-trial cost-effectiveness of an NHS ovarian cancer screening (OCS) programme using data from UKCTOCS and extrapolate results based on average life expectancy. METHODS: Within-trial economic evaluation of no screening (C) vs either (1) an annual OCS programme using tra...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Menon, Usha, McGuire, Alistair J, Raikou, Maria, Ryan, Andy, Davies, Susan K, Burnell, Matthew, Gentry-Maharaj, Aleksandra, Kalsi, Jatinderpal K, Singh, Naveena, Amso, Nazar N, Cruickshank, Derek, Dobbs, Stephen, Godfrey, Keith, Herod, Jonathan, Leeson, Simon, Mould, Tim, Murdoch, John, Oram, David, Scott, Ian, Seif, Mourad W, Williamson, Karin, Woolas, Robert, Fallowfield, Lesley, Campbell, Stuart, Skates, Steven J, Parmar, Mahesh, Jacobs, Ian J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5572177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28742794
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.222
_version_ 1783259477842067456
author Menon, Usha
McGuire, Alistair J
Raikou, Maria
Ryan, Andy
Davies, Susan K
Burnell, Matthew
Gentry-Maharaj, Aleksandra
Kalsi, Jatinderpal K
Singh, Naveena
Amso, Nazar N
Cruickshank, Derek
Dobbs, Stephen
Godfrey, Keith
Herod, Jonathan
Leeson, Simon
Mould, Tim
Murdoch, John
Oram, David
Scott, Ian
Seif, Mourad W
Williamson, Karin
Woolas, Robert
Fallowfield, Lesley
Campbell, Stuart
Skates, Steven J
Parmar, Mahesh
Jacobs, Ian J
author_facet Menon, Usha
McGuire, Alistair J
Raikou, Maria
Ryan, Andy
Davies, Susan K
Burnell, Matthew
Gentry-Maharaj, Aleksandra
Kalsi, Jatinderpal K
Singh, Naveena
Amso, Nazar N
Cruickshank, Derek
Dobbs, Stephen
Godfrey, Keith
Herod, Jonathan
Leeson, Simon
Mould, Tim
Murdoch, John
Oram, David
Scott, Ian
Seif, Mourad W
Williamson, Karin
Woolas, Robert
Fallowfield, Lesley
Campbell, Stuart
Skates, Steven J
Parmar, Mahesh
Jacobs, Ian J
author_sort Menon, Usha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To assess the within-trial cost-effectiveness of an NHS ovarian cancer screening (OCS) programme using data from UKCTOCS and extrapolate results based on average life expectancy. METHODS: Within-trial economic evaluation of no screening (C) vs either (1) an annual OCS programme using transvaginal ultrasound (USS) or (2) an annual ovarian cancer multimodal screening programme with serum CA125 interpreted using a risk algorithm (ROCA) and transvaginal ultrasound as a second-line test (MMS), plus comparison of lifetime extrapolation of the no screening arm and the MMS programme using both a predictive and a Markov model. RESULTS: Using a CA125–ROCA cost of £20, the within-trial results show USS to be strictly dominated by MMS, with the MMS vs C comparison returning an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £91 452 per life year gained (LYG). If the CA125–ROCA unit cost is reduced to £15, the ICER becomes £77 818 per LYG. Predictive extrapolation over the expected lifetime of the UKCTOCS women returns an ICER of £30 033 per LYG, while Markov modelling produces an ICER of £46 922 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Analysis suggests that, after accounting for the lead time required to establish full mortality benefits, a national OCS programme based on the MMS strategy quickly approaches the current NICE thresholds for cost-effectiveness when extrapolated out to lifetime as compared with the within-trial ICER estimates. Whether MMS could be recommended on economic grounds would depend on the confirmation and size of the mortality benefit at the end of an ongoing follow-up of the UKCTOCS cohort.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5572177
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55721772017-08-29 The cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) Menon, Usha McGuire, Alistair J Raikou, Maria Ryan, Andy Davies, Susan K Burnell, Matthew Gentry-Maharaj, Aleksandra Kalsi, Jatinderpal K Singh, Naveena Amso, Nazar N Cruickshank, Derek Dobbs, Stephen Godfrey, Keith Herod, Jonathan Leeson, Simon Mould, Tim Murdoch, John Oram, David Scott, Ian Seif, Mourad W Williamson, Karin Woolas, Robert Fallowfield, Lesley Campbell, Stuart Skates, Steven J Parmar, Mahesh Jacobs, Ian J Br J Cancer Clinical Study BACKGROUND: To assess the within-trial cost-effectiveness of an NHS ovarian cancer screening (OCS) programme using data from UKCTOCS and extrapolate results based on average life expectancy. METHODS: Within-trial economic evaluation of no screening (C) vs either (1) an annual OCS programme using transvaginal ultrasound (USS) or (2) an annual ovarian cancer multimodal screening programme with serum CA125 interpreted using a risk algorithm (ROCA) and transvaginal ultrasound as a second-line test (MMS), plus comparison of lifetime extrapolation of the no screening arm and the MMS programme using both a predictive and a Markov model. RESULTS: Using a CA125–ROCA cost of £20, the within-trial results show USS to be strictly dominated by MMS, with the MMS vs C comparison returning an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £91 452 per life year gained (LYG). If the CA125–ROCA unit cost is reduced to £15, the ICER becomes £77 818 per LYG. Predictive extrapolation over the expected lifetime of the UKCTOCS women returns an ICER of £30 033 per LYG, while Markov modelling produces an ICER of £46 922 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Analysis suggests that, after accounting for the lead time required to establish full mortality benefits, a national OCS programme based on the MMS strategy quickly approaches the current NICE thresholds for cost-effectiveness when extrapolated out to lifetime as compared with the within-trial ICER estimates. Whether MMS could be recommended on economic grounds would depend on the confirmation and size of the mortality benefit at the end of an ongoing follow-up of the UKCTOCS cohort. Nature Publishing Group 2017-08-22 2017-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5572177/ /pubmed/28742794 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.222 Text en Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Menon, Usha
McGuire, Alistair J
Raikou, Maria
Ryan, Andy
Davies, Susan K
Burnell, Matthew
Gentry-Maharaj, Aleksandra
Kalsi, Jatinderpal K
Singh, Naveena
Amso, Nazar N
Cruickshank, Derek
Dobbs, Stephen
Godfrey, Keith
Herod, Jonathan
Leeson, Simon
Mould, Tim
Murdoch, John
Oram, David
Scott, Ian
Seif, Mourad W
Williamson, Karin
Woolas, Robert
Fallowfield, Lesley
Campbell, Stuart
Skates, Steven J
Parmar, Mahesh
Jacobs, Ian J
The cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)
title The cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)
title_full The cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)
title_fullStr The cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)
title_full_unstemmed The cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)
title_short The cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS)
title_sort cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the uk collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (ukctocs)
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5572177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28742794
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.222
work_keys_str_mv AT menonusha thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT mcguirealistairj thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT raikoumaria thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT ryanandy thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT daviessusank thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT burnellmatthew thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT gentrymaharajaleksandra thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT kalsijatinderpalk thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT singhnaveena thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT amsonazarn thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT cruickshankderek thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT dobbsstephen thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT godfreykeith thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT herodjonathan thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT leesonsimon thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT mouldtim thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT murdochjohn thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT oramdavid thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT scottian thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT seifmouradw thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT williamsonkarin thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT woolasrobert thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT fallowfieldlesley thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT campbellstuart thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT skatesstevenj thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT parmarmahesh thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT jacobsianj thecosteffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT menonusha costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT mcguirealistairj costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT raikoumaria costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT ryanandy costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT daviessusank costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT burnellmatthew costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT gentrymaharajaleksandra costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT kalsijatinderpalk costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT singhnaveena costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT amsonazarn costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT cruickshankderek costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT dobbsstephen costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT godfreykeith costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT herodjonathan costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT leesonsimon costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT mouldtim costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT murdochjohn costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT oramdavid costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT scottian costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT seifmouradw costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT williamsonkarin costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT woolasrobert costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT fallowfieldlesley costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT campbellstuart costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT skatesstevenj costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT parmarmahesh costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs
AT jacobsianj costeffectivenessofscreeningforovariancancerresultsfromtheukcollaborativetrialofovariancancerscreeningukctocs