Are supportive care-based treatment strategies preferable to standard chemotherapy in recurrent cervical cancer?

Journal Article (Journal Article)

OBJECTIVE: Recurrent cervical cancer has a poor prognosis despite aggressive treatment. We evaluate the comparative-effectiveness of four management strategies in recurrent cervix cancer incorporating risk prognostication categories derived from pooled collaborative group trials: 1) standard doublet chemotherapy; 2) selective chemotherapy (home hospice with no chemotherapy for poorest prognosis patients with remainder receiving standard doublet chemotherapy); 3) single-agent chemotherapy with home hospice; and 4) home hospice. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness decision model was constructed. Survival reduction of 24% was assumed for single-agent chemotherapy and 40% for hospice only compared to standard doublet chemotherapy. Overall survival and strategy cost for each arm were modeled as follows: standard doublet chemotherapy 8.9 months ($33K); selective chemotherapy 8.7 months ($29K); single-agent chemotherapy with home hospice 6.7 months ($16K); and home hospice alone 5.3 months ($11K). Base case analysis assumed equal quality of life (QOL). Sensitivity analyses assessed model uncertainties. RESULTS: Standard doublet chemotherapy for all is not cost-effective compared to selective chemotherapy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $276K per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity analysis predicted that a 90% improvement in survival is required before standard doublet chemotherapy is cost-effective in the poorest prognosis patients. Selective chemotherapy is the most cost-effective strategy compared to single-agent chemotherapy with home hospice with an ICER of $78K/QALY. Chemotherapy containing regimens become cost-prohibitive with small decreases in QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Supportive care based treatment strategies are potentially more cost-effective than the current standard of doublet chemotherapy for all patients with recurrent cervical cancer and warrant prospective evaluation.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Phippen, NT; Leath, CA; Miller, CR; Lowery, WJ; Havrilesky, LJ; Barnett, JC

Published Date

  • August 2013

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 130 / 2

Start / End Page

  • 317 - 322

PubMed ID

  • 23707667

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1095-6859

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.019


  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States