Radical radiotherapy is more cost-effective for the treatment of cervical cancer than radical hysterectomy plus adjuvant radiotherapy, according to a recent study.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cervical cancer advise the use of chemoradiotherapy as the primary treatment for patients with stage 2B cervical cancer, but other studies have reported similar outcomes with radical hysterectomy plus adjuvant radiotherapy.
Prior research has shown that radical radiotherapy is associated with fewer treatment-related complications and achieves similar survival outcomes compared to radical hysterectomy plus adjuvant radiotherapy. The costs associated with each of these treatment approaches have not be previously addressed, however. Therefore, researchers from the First Affiliation Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University sought to discern which treatment method is more cost-effective. Results were published in the journal OncoTargets and Therapy.
The study included 148 patients who received hysterectomies plus postoperative radiotherapy and 290 patients who received radical radiotherapy. Patient demographics were similar for both groups, and follow-up occurred every 3 months during the first year, every 6 months from the Year 2 to the Year 5, and then once annually thereafter.
Results confirmed that there were no significant differences in outcomes between the two treatments, but researchers did find that radical hysterectomy plus adjuvant radiotherapy was associated with significantly higher rates of acute gastrointestinal reactions and intestinal injury or cystitis.
The average cost associated with radical hysterectomy plus adjuvant radiotherapy was $10,872, versus an average cost of $5702 for radical radiotherapy. Further analysis using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) quality measures confirmed radical radiotherapy as the more cost-effective option compared to the surgery-based approach.
Researchers concluded that radical radiotherapy is the more cost-effective approach to treating patients with cervical cancer. They caution that cost-effectiveness information should only be considered secondary to clinical considerations and patient preferences.
