Cost-Effectiveness of Intensive Vs. Standard Follow-Up Models for Patients with Breast Cancer in Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

<br /> <strong><span style="font-size: small;">Background: </span></strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer amongst women throughout the world. Currently, there are various follow-up strategies implemented in Iran, which are usually dependent on clinic policies and agreement among the resident oncologists. </span></span><strong><span style="font-size: small;">Purpose: </span></strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;">A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive follow-up versus standard models for early breast cancer patients in Iran. </span></span><strong><span style="font-size: small;">Materials and methods: </span></strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;">This </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;">cross sectional study was performed with 382 patients each in the intensive and standard groups. Costs were identified </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;">and measured from a payer perspective, including direct medical outlay. To assess the effectiveness of the two follow-up models we used a decision tree along with indicators of detection of recurrence and metastasis, calculating expected costs and effectiveness for both cases; in addition, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were determined. </span></span><strong><span style="font-size: small;">Results: </span></strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;">The results of decision tree showed expected case detection rates of 0.137 and 0.018 and expected costs of US$24,494.62 and US$6,859.27, respectively, for the intensive and standard follow-up models. Tornado diagrams revealed the highest sensitivity to cost increases using the intensive follow-up model with an ICER=US$148,196.2. </span></span><strong><span style="font-size: small;">Conclusion: </span></strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Overall, the results showed that the intensive follow-up method is not cost-effective when compared to the standard model. </span></span>