Cost-Effectiveness Of Prophylaxis Treatment Strategies For Febrile Neutropenia In Recurrent Ovarian Cancer Patients

Abstract

A 1 -A 2 9 8 the clinical trial and assumed equal in the models. Costs and outcomes beyond first year were discounted at a 5% annual rate. RESULTS: Denosumab was associated with lower frequency of SRE due to clinical superiority versus ZA, and with higher costs. The incremental cost per SRE avoided was estimated at $78,844. Although a formal threshold for this outcome is not available in Mexico, the ICER obtained is 40% below the commonly accepted threshold in Mexico (based on the GDP per capita). The ICER remained below the local accepted threshold in all univariate sensitivity analyses. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, denosumab became the most preferred option from a willingness to pay of approximately 100 000 Mexican pesos. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest denosumab represents good value for money in the prevention of SRE in prostate cancer patients with BM in Mexico. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the most cost-effective strategy of staging non-small cell lung cancer with hybrid PET/CT to avoid unnecessary surgeries. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed with four work-up approaches: CT alone, PET/CT for all, PET/CT when negative CT, and CT plus PET/CT for all. Mediastinoscopy was included in all alternatives to confirm positive CT or PET/CT. Surgery was considered unnecessary when the work-up drives to resectable stage but the model predicts loco regional or distant metastasis. The model incorporated evidence-based data from the literature and associated costs were evaluated from the Brazilian public health care system perspective. The costs of PET/CT in Brazil were estimated in previous study by microcosts technique. The impact of uncertainties on the model was verified by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years

“…Fust et al evaluated primary prophylaxis or secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim as well as filgrastim (versus no prophylaxis) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan 83 . For patients receiving docetaxel, the ICER for primary versus secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim was $7900 per QALY gained; pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis dominated all comparators.…”