Cost-effectiveness of postremission intensive therapy in patients with acute leukemia.

Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Taipei-Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan 11217, Republic of China.
Annals of Oncology (Impact Factor: 6.58). 04/2007; 18(3):529-34. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdl420
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We assessed the cost-effectiveness of high-dose arabinoside (HiDAC)-based and allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (alloSCT)-based therapy in patients with acute leukemia.
We analyzed the outcome, cost and cost-effectiveness of 106 patients treated from January 1994 to January 2002 [94 acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)/12 acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)]. Forty-two young patients at either intermediate or unknown cytogenetic risk received postremission intensive therapy (24 HiDAC-based/18 alloSCT-based therapy).
After a median follow-up of 50 months, the estimated 7-year overall survival for the HiDAC-based group showed a tendency to be higher than the alloSCT-based group (48% versus 28%, P = 0.1452). The HiDAC-based group spent a significantly lower total cost ($US51,857 versus 75,474, P = 0.004) than the alloSCT-based group. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the mean cost per year of life saved for the HiDAC-based group is considerably less expensive than the alloSCT-based group ($US11,224 versus 21,564). The reduced total cost for the HiDAC-based group originated from lower cost in room fees, medication, laboratory and procedure, but not in blood transfusion and professional manpower fees.
For the postremission therapy in young AML patients at either intermediate or unknown cytogenetic risk, cost-effectiveness of HiDAC-based therapy compares favorably with that of alloSCT-based therapy, which deserves further clinical trials.


Available from: Yuan-Bin Yu, Mar 06, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Survival for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has reached 80-90%. Future improvement in treatment success will involve new technologies and medication, adding to the pressure on limited financial resources. Therefore a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of ALL treatment with chemotherapy only according to the two most recent Dutch Childhood Oncology Group treatment protocols was performed. The most recent protocol ALL10 included more expensive medication (pegasparaginase) and implemented a new diagnostic technique (minimal residual disease levels) compared to the previous ALL9 protocol. Fifty children from a single center cohort were included. All direct medical costs made during treatment, including those in satellite hospitals, were determined. Costs per life year saved (LYS) were calculated. The cost-effectiveness ratio of the most recent treatment protocol was determined. LYS were calculated based on national 5-year event-free survival. Mean total costs were between $115,858 (ALL9) and $163,350 (ALL10) per patient. Hospital admissions (57%) and medication (11-17%) were important drivers of overall costs, and were higher in the most recent protocol ALL10. Costs per LYS were $1,962 (ALL9) and $2,655 (ALL10) and the cost-effectiveness ratio was $8,215. Treatment of childhood ALL with chemotherapy only is well within accepted ranges of cost-effectiveness. The use of new technology and more expensive medication in the most recent protocol ALL10 lead to higher costs but more LYS. In future (ALL) treatment protocols, costs in relation to effects should be taken into account in order to establish more cost-effective disease management without jeopardizing survival and quality of life.
    Pediatric Blood & Cancer 12/2011; 57(6):1005-10. DOI:10.1002/pbc.23197 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Interest is growing in economic and comparative effectiveness analyses, with increasing emphasis on optimizing healthcare resources and costs. Limited information is available on the economic aspects of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). We review contemporary literature on the costs and cost-effectiveness of HCT in the United States and worldwide. Published studies confirm the high costs associated with HCT, although the reported costs are highly variable, related to the differing methodologies used across studies. We examine the challenges in reviewing costs and cost-effectiveness across studies specific to HCT and highlight factors identified as associated with higher costs of HCT. We also discuss opportunities for future research in this area.
    Biology of blood and marrow transplantation: journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation 04/2012; 18(11):1620-8. DOI:10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.04.001 · 3.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: High-dose arabinoside (HiDAC) and daunorubicin (DNR)-based chemotherapy are the primary consolidation treatment options for older adults (50-60 years old) with acute myeloid leukemia in China. We analyzed the event-free survival (EFS) and hospital treatment charges of older adult patients with different cytogenetic risk profiles. In patients with a better/intermediate risk profile, the average total treatment cost of HiDAC was similar to that of DNR (P = 0.11). A 5-year follow-up of patients with better/intermediate cytogenetic risk profiles revealed that the median EFS of patients who received HiDAC was significantly longer than for patients who received the DNR-based regimen (27 vs. 20 months, P = 0.03). Average cost per year of life saved was 18,746.84 USD for HiDAC, compared to 32,733.37 USD for DNR. In contrast, for patients with a poor cytogenetic risk profile, the average total treatment cost for HiDAC was higher than for DNR (P < 0.005). In addition, the median EFS in the HiDAC protocol group was significantly lower than in the DNR group (11 vs. 20 months, P = 0.003). Meanwhile, in this risk group, the average cost per year of life saved was 103,237.70 USD compared to 32,277.93 USD, respectively, in the HiDAC and DNR regimens. We conclude that HiDAC is a more efficacious and cost-effective consolidation treatment regimen in the better/intermediate risk group, while the DNR-based regimen is more cost-effective in the poor risk group.
    International journal of hematology 03/2011; 93(4):474-81. DOI:10.1007/s12185-011-0804-0 · 1.68 Impact Factor