Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Treatment for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. Issue 21 (20th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gupta, Apar; Jhawar, Sachin R.; Sayan, Mutlay; Yehia, Zeinab A.; Haffty, Bruce G.; Yu, James B.; Wang, Shi-Yi
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical oncology. Volume 39:Issue 21(2021)
• Page Start: 2386
• Page End: 2396
• Publication Date: 2021-07-20
• Subjects: Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Periodicals; Oncology; Medical Oncology; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Cancer -- Périodiques; Cancérologie; Cancer; Oncology; Oncologia; Càncer; Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1200/JCO.21.00831
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0732-183X

Abstract

Abstract : PURPOSE: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) accounts for 20% of breast cancer cases in the United States and is potentially overtreated, leading to high expenditures and low-value care. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating all adjuvant treatment strategies for DCIS. METHODS: A Markov model was created with six competing treatment strategies: observation, tamoxifen (TAM) alone, aromatase inhibitor (AI) alone, radiation treatment (RT) alone, RT + TAM, and RT + AI. Baseline recurrence rates were modeled using the NSABP B17 and RTOG 9804 trials for standard-risk and good-risk DCIS, respectively. Relative risk reductions and adverse event rates for each treatment strategy were derived from meta-analyses of large randomized trials. We used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100, 000 in US dollars/quality-adjusted life-year and a lifetime horizon for two cohorts of women, age 40 and 60 years. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of base-case results. RESULTS: RT alone was cost-effective for patients with standard-risk DCIS, and observation was cost-effective for patients with good-risk DCIS, across both age groups. Strategies including TAM or AI resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years than observation, because of the prolonged decrement in quality of life outweighing the modest benefit in ipsilateral risk reduction. In sensitivity analysis, RT alone was cost-effective for age 40, good-risk patients when ipsilateral risk reduction matched that of the RTOG 9804 trial, there was minimal increased risk of contralateral breast secondary malignancy, or there was strong patient willingness to pursue RT. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that cost-effective and clinically optimal treatment strategies are RT alone for standard-risk DCIS and observation for good-risk DCIS, with personalization on the basis of patient age and preference for RT. Hormonal therapy is likely suboptimal for most patients with DCIS.