Treatment strategies for stage IB cervical cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis from Korean, Canadian and US perspectives

• We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis for stage IB cervical cancer.
• A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using data from US, Canada, and Korea.
• MRI-based triage strategy was cost-effective in all countries.

ObjectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of two commonly used strategies and an alternative triage strategy for patients with Stage IB cervical cancer in the US, Canada, and Korea.MethodsA Markov state-transition model was constructed to compare three strategies: (1) radical hysterectomy followed by tailored adjuvant therapy (primary surgery), (2) primary chemoradiation, and (3) an MRI-based triage strategy, in which patients without risk factors in preoperative MRI undergo primary surgery and those with risk factors undergo primary chemoradiation. All relevant literature was identified to extract the probability data. Cost data were calculated from the perspective of US, Canadian, and Korean payers. Strategies were compared using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Cost-effectiveness ratios were analyzed separately using data from each country.ResultsBase case analysis showed that the triage strategy was the most cost-effective of the three strategies in all countries at usual willingness-to-pay threshold (Korea: $30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), Canada and US: $100,000 per QALY). Monte Carlo simulation acceptability curves from Korea indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,000/QALY, triage strategy was the treatment of choice in 71% of simulations. Monte Carlo simulation acceptability curves from US and Canada indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, triage strategy was the treatment of choice in more than half of simulations.ConclusionsAn MRI-based triage strategy was shown to be more cost-effective than primary surgery or primary chemoradiation in the US, Canada, and Korea.