What is the Quality of Economic Evaluations of Non-Drug Therapies? A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Economic Evaluations of Radiotherapy for Cancer

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 497-510

  Barbieri, M ^a   Weatherly, H L A ^a   Ara, R ^b   Basarir, H ^b   Sculpher, M ^a   Adams, R ^c   Ahmed, H ^d   Coles, C ^e   Guerrero Urbano, T ^f   Nutting, C ^g   Powell, M ^h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c VELINDRE CANCER CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^f GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^g ROYAL MARSDEN HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^h ST BARTHOLOMEW S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EMBASE; HEAD AND NECK CANCER; HUMAN; MEDLINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROSTATE CANCER; QUALITY OF LIFE; REGISTER; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EVALUATION STUDY; FEMALE; HEAD AND NECK NEOPLASMS; MALE; NEOPLASMS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEAD AND NECK NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, ECONOMIC; NEOPLASMS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RADIOTHERAPY; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84919842271     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-014-0115-8     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Trueman P, Anokye NK. Applying economic evaluation to public health interventions: the case of interventions to promote physical activity. J Public Health. 2013;35(1):32–9.
2. Sorenson C, Tarricone R, Siebert M, Drummond M. Applying health economics for policy decision making: do devices differ from drugs? Europace. 2011;13(Suppl 2):54–8.
3. GLOBOCAN 2008. Estimated cancer incidence, mortality, prevalence and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). www.globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 06 May 2013.
4. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisals (June 2008). http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf.
5. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada (3rd Edition, 2006). http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/source/HTAGuidelinesfortheEconomicEvaluationofHealthTechnologies-Canada.pdf.
6. Academy of managed care pharmacy. The AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions (Version 3.0, October 2009). http://www.amcp.org/data/jmcp/1007_121%2019%2009(3).pdf.
7. PHARMAC (Pharmaceutical Management Agency). Prescription for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis: Methods for Cost-utility Analysis (May 2007). http://www.pharmac.health.nz/assets/pfpa-final.pdf.
8. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government. Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (December 2008). http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/source/Australia-Guidelines-for-preparing-submissions-to-the-Pharmaceutical-Benefits-Advisory-Committee-2008.pdf.
9. The Health Care Insurance Board (CVZ). Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Research in the Netherlands (April 2006). http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/source/PE_guidelines_english_Netherlands.pdf.
10. Lopez-Bastida J, Oliva J, Antonanzas F, et al. Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(5):513–20.
11. Lundkvist J, Ekman M, Ericsson SR, Jonsson B, Glimelius B. Proton therapy of cancer: potential clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness. Acta Oncol. 2005;44(8):850–61.
12. Prescott RJ, Kunkler IH, Williams LJ, King CC, Jack W, van der Pol M, et al. A randomised controlled trial of postoperative radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery in a minimum-risk older population. The PRIME trial. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(31):1–149.
13. Hayman JA, Hillner BE, Harris JR, Weeks JC. Cost-effectiveness of routine radiation therapy following conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(3):1022–9.
14. Hayman JA, Lash KA, Tao ML, Halman MA. A comparison of two methods for estimating the technical costs of external beam radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47(2):461–7.
15. Lee JH, Glick HA, Hayman JA, Solin LJ. Decision-analytic model and cost-effectiveness evaluation of postmastectomy radiation therapy in high-risk premenopausal breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(11):2713–25.
16. Marks LB, Hardenbergh PH, Winer ET, Prosnitz LR. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of postmastectomy radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;44(1):91–8.
17. Patrice JR, Patrice SJ, Hayman JA, Steinberg JS, Taghian AG. Cost-effectiveness of routine radiation therapy when added to tamoxifen following conservative surgery in older women with early-stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69(3):S91–2.
18. Sher DJ, Wittenberg E, Suh WW, Taghian AG, Punglia RS. Partial-breast irradiation versus whole-breast irradiation for early-stage breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(2):440–6.
19. Suh WW, Hillner BE, Pierce LJ, Hayman JA. Cost-effectiveness of radiation therapy following conservative surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61(4):1054–61.
20. Dunscombe P, Samant R, Roberts G. A cost-outcome analysis of adjuvant postmastectomy locoregional radiotherapy in premenopausal node-positive breast cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48(4):977–82.
21. Samant RS, Dunscombe P, Roberts G. A cost-outcome analysis of adjuvant postmastectomy locoregional radiotherapy in high-risk postmenopausals breast cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50(5):1376.
22. Alvegard TA, Borg S, Ferras-Nunez J, Franzen S, Genell A, Malmstrom PO, et al. The cost-effectiveness of post-operative radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery in stage I–II breast cancer in Sweden. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(16):79S.
23. Liljegren G, Karlsson G, Bergh J, Holmberg L. The cost-effectiveness of routine postoperative radiotherapy after sector resection and axillary dissection for breast cancer stage I. Results from a randomized trial. Ann Oncol. 1997;8(8):757–63.
24. Lievens Y, Kesteloot K, van den Bogaert W. Economic consequence of local control with radiotherapy: cost analysis of internal mammary and medial supraclavicular lymph node radiotherapy in breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63(4):1122–31.
25. van den Brink M, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM, Klein KE, Marijnen CA, van de Velde CJ, et al. Cost-utility analysis of preoperative radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer undergoing total mesorectal excision: a study of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(2):244–53.
26. Dahlberg M, Stenborg A, Pahlman L, Glimelius B. Swedish Rectal CT. Cost-effectiveness of preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer: results from the Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54(3):654–60.
27. Neymark N, Adriaenssen I, Gorlia T, Caleo S, Bolla M, Neymark N, et al. Estimating survival gain for economic evaluations with survival time as principal endpoint: a cost-effectiveness analysis of adding early hormonal therapy to radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Health Econ. 2002;11(3):233–48.
28. Hummel S, Paisley S, Morgan A, Currie E, Brewer N. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of new and emerging technologies for early localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(33):1–157.
29. Konski A, Speier W, Hanlon A, Beck JR, Pollack A, Konski A, et al. Is proton beam therapy cost effective in the treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3603–8.
30. Samant RS, Dunscombe PB, Roberts GH, Samant RS, Dunscombe PB, Roberts GH. A cost-outcome analysis of long-term adjuvant goserelin in addition to radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2003;21(3):171–7.
31. Basu A, Meltzer D. Implications of spillover effects within family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 2005;24(4):751–73.
32. Konski A, Watkins-Bruner D. The RTOG outcomes model: economic end points and measures. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2004;5(3):513–9.
33. Konski A, Konski A. Cost-effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005;5(2):137–40.
34. Konski A, Sherman E, Krahn M, Bremner K, Beck JR, Watkins-Bruner D, et al. Economic analysis of a phase III clinical trial evaluating the addition of total androgen suppression to radiation versus radiation alone for locally advanced prostate cancer (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 86-10). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63(3):788–94.
35. Konski A, Watkins-Bruner D, Feigenberg S, Hanlon A, Kulkarni S, Beck JR, et al. Using decision analysis to determine the cost-effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of intermediate risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66(2):408–15.
36. Hernàndez Alava M, Wailoo A, Wolfe F, Michaud K. A comparison of direct and indirect methods for the estimatio of health utilities from clinical outcomes. HEDS Discussion paper, No 12.12; 2012.
37. Higgins KM. What treatment for early-stage glottic carcinoma among adult patients: CO2 endolaryngeal laser excision versus standard fractionated external beam radiation is superior in terms of cost utility? Laryngoscope. 2011;121(1):116–34.
38. Kunkler IH, Canney P, Dunlop J, Anderson N, Aird E, Denvir M, et al. MRC supremo (Selected use of postoperative radiotherapy after mastectomy) (Big 2-04/EORTC 22051)- A Phase III multicentre international randomised trial assessing the role of adjuvant chest wall irradiation in ‘intermediate risk’ operable breast cancer following mastectomy and axillary surgery. Annals of Oncology Conference: IMPAKT Breast Cancer Conference Brussels Belgium Conference Start: 20090507 Conference End: 20090509 Conference Publication: (var pagings) 2009;20(pp ii28).
39. Vaidya JS, Joseph DJ, Tobias JS, Bulsara M, Wenz F, Saunders C, et al. Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT-A trial): an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9735):91–102.
40. Warde P, Mason M, Ding K, Kirkbride P, Brundage M, Cowan R, et al. NCIC CTG PR.3/MRC UK PR07 investigators. Combined androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9809):2104–11.
41. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet. 2012;379:432–44.
42. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S, et al. Prostate Cancer. Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) Study Group. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203–13.
43. Longworth L, Rowen D. Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE Health Technology Appraisals. Value Health. 2013;16(1):202–10.