Cost-effectiveness analysis of simple hysterectomy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: analysis from the GCIG/CCTG CX.5/SHAPE trial

• Published in: Journal of gynecologic oncology 2024, 35(6), , pp.1-11
• Main Authors: Kwon, Janice S, McTaggart-Cowan, Helen, Ferguson, Sarah E, Samouëlian, Vanessa, Lambaudie, Eric, Guyon, Frédéric, Tidy, John, Williamson, Karin, Gleeson, Noreen, de Kroon, Cor, van Driel, Willemien, Mahner, Sven, Hanker, Lars, Goffin, Frédéric, Berger, Regina, Eyjólfsdóttir, Brynhildur, Kim, Jae-Weon, Brotto, Lori A, Pataky, Reka, Yeung, Shirley S T, Chan, Kelvin K W, Cheung, Matthew C, Ubi, Juliana, Tu, Dongsheng, Shepherd, Lois E, Plante, Marie
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy - economics; Hysterectomy - methods; Markov Chains; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Original; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - economics; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - pathology; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - surgery; 산부인과학
• ISSN: 2005-0380; 2005-0399; 2005-0399
• DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e117

SHAPE (Simple Hysterectomy And PElvic node assessment) was an international phase III trial demonstrating that simple hysterectomy was non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for pelvic recurrence risk, but superior for quality of life and sexual health. The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing simple vs. radical hysterectomy for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer. Markov model compared the costs and benefits of simple vs. radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer over a 5-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from health utilities derived from EQ-5D-3L surveys. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around key parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated complication numbers according to surgical procedure. Simple hysterectomy was more effective and less costly than radical hysterectomy. Average overall costs were $11,022 and $12,533, and average gains were 3.56 and 3.54 QALYs for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. Baseline health utility scores were 0.81 and 0.83 for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. By year 3, these scores improved for simple hysterectomy (0.82) but not for radical hysterectomy (0.82). Assuming 800 early cervical cancer patients annually in Canada, the model estimated 3 vs. 82 patients with urinary retention, and 49 vs. 86 patients with urinary incontinence persisting 4 weeks after simple vs. radical hysterectomy, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variability in health utilities after surgery, but stable through wide ranges of costs and recurrence estimates. Simple hysterectomy is less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01658930.