Advertisement

A systematic review of economic evaluation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Published:October 09, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.035

      Highlights

      • Only 32 economic evaluations (EEs) have been published over the past 15-years.
      • A wide variety of methodological approaches were shown.
      • Nearly two-thirds of EEs are full and 40% are cost-utility analyses.
      • Only nearly one-third of EEs are of high quality.
      • Need to apply European and international recommendations to ensure quality of EEs.

      Abstract

      Objectives

      The economic evaluation (EE) of healthcare interventions has become a necessity. However, high quality needs to be ensured in order to achieve validated results and help making informed decisions. Thus, the objective of the present study was to systematically identify and review published pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma-related EEs and to assess their quality.

      Methods

      Systematic literature research was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane to identify published EEs between 2000 and 2015. The quality of each selected EE was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the Drummond's checklist.

      Results

      Our systematic review was based on 32 EEs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including different perspectives, time horizon, and cost effectiveness analyses. Nearly two-thirds of EEs are full EEs (n = 21), and about one-third of EEs had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous with ‘high quality’. Close to 50% of full EEs had a Drummond score ≥7, whereas all of partial EEs had a Drummond score <7 (n = 11).

      Conclusions

      Over the past 15 years, a lot of interest has been evinced over the EE of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and its direct impact on therapeutic advances in PDAC. To provide a framework for health care decision-making, to facilitate transferability and to lend credibility to health EEs, their quality must be improved. For the last 4 years, a tendency towards a quality improvement of these studies has been observed, probably coupled with a context of rational decision-making in health care, a better and wider spread of recommendations and thus, medical practitioners' full endorsement.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to European Journal of Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Malvezzi M.
        • Bertuccio P.
        • Levi F.
        • La Vecchia C.
        • Negri E.
        European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2014.
        Ann Oncol. 2014; 25: 1650-1656
        • Ducreux M.
        • Cuhna A.S.
        • Caramella C.
        • Hollebecque A.
        • Burtin P.
        • Goéré D.
        • et al.
        Cancer of the pancreas: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.
        Ann Oncol. 2015; 26: v56-68
        • Conroy T.
        • Desseigne F.
        • Ychou M.
        • Bouché O.
        • Guimbaud R.
        • Bécouarn Y.
        • et al.
        FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 364: 1817-1825
        • Gourgou-Bourgade S.
        • Bascoul-Mollevi C.
        • Desseigne F.
        • Ychou M.
        • Bouche O.
        • Guimbaud R.
        • et al.
        Impact of FOLFIRINOX compared with gemcitabine on quality of life in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: results from the PRODIGE 4/ACCORD 11 randomized trial.
        J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 23-29
        • Diouf M.
        • Filleron T.
        • Pointet A.-L.
        • Dupont-Gossard A.-C.
        • Malka D.
        • Artru P.
        • et al.
        Prognostic value of health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a random forest methodology.
        Qual Life Res. 2016; 25: 1713-1723
        • Greenberg D.
        • Earle C.
        • Fang C.-H.
        • Eldar-Lissai A.
        • Neumann P.J.
        When is cancer care cost-effective? A systematic overview of cost-utility analyses in oncology.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010; 102: 82-88
        • Frederix G.W.J.
        • Severens J.L.
        • Hövels A.M.
        • Raaijmakers J.A.M.
        • Schellens J.H.M.
        The cloudy crystal ball of cost-effectiveness studies.
        Value Health. 2013; 16: 1100-1102
      1. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions | Cochrane Training n.d. http://training.cochrane.org/handbook [Accessed 1 August 2017].

        • Drummond M.F.
        • Sculpher M.J.
        • Claxton K.
        • Stoddart G.L.
        • Torrance G.W.
        Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes.
        Oxford University Press, 2015
        • Fotso Kamdem A.
        • Nerich V.
        • Auber F.
        • Jantchou P.
        • Ecarnot F.
        • Woronoff-Lemsi M.-C.
        Quality assessment of economic evaluation studies in pediatric surgery: a systematic review.
        J Pediatr Surg. 2015; 50: 659-687
        • Guide A.M.
        Choices in methods for economic evaluation.
        Public Health Assessment Haute Autorité de Santé, 2012
        • Whitehead S.J.
        • Ali S.
        Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities.
        Br Med Bull. 2010; 96: 5-21
        • Husereau D.
        • Drummond M.
        • Petrou S.
        • Carswell C.
        • Moher D.
        • Greenberg D.
        • et al.
        Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force.
        Value Health. 2013; 16: 231-250
      2. FRB: G.5 Release–Foreign Exchange Rates–July 01, 2016 n.d. https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g5/current/ [Accessed 1 August 2017].

        • Adams M.E.
        • McCall N.T.
        • Gray D.T.
        • Orza M.J.
        • Chalmers T.C.
        Economic analysis in randomized control trials.
        Med Care. 1992; 30: 231-243
        • Drummond M.F.
        • Jefferson T.O.
        Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party.
        BMJ. 1996; 313: 275-283
        • Shepard D.S.
        Gold M.R. Siegel J.E. Russell L.B. Weinstein M.C. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York1996: 91-92 (J Ment Health Policy Econ 1999;2)
        • Evers S.
        • Goossens M.
        • de Vet H.
        • van Tulder M.
        • Ament A.
        Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005; 21: 240-245
        • Gonzalez-Perez J.G.
        Developing a scoring system to quality assess economic evaluations.
        Eur J Health Econ. 2002; 3: 131-136
        • Du W.
        • Touchette D.
        • Vaitkevicius V.K.
        • Peters W.P.
        • Shields A.F.
        Cost analysis of pancreatic carcinoma treatment.
        Cancer. 2000; 89: 1917-1924
        • O'Neill C.B.
        • Atoria C.L.
        • O'Reilly E.M.
        • LaFemina J.
        • Henman M.C.
        • Elkin E.B.
        Costs and trends in pancreatic cancer treatment: costs of pancreatic cancer treatment.
        Cancer. 2012; 118: 5132-5139
        • Abbott D.E.
        • Merkow R.P.
        • Cantor S.B.
        • Fleming J.B.
        • Varadhachary G.R.
        • Crane C.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma and potential opportunities for improvement.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19: 3659-3667
        • Abbott D.E.
        • Tzeng C.-W.D.
        • Merkow R.P.
        • Cantor S.B.
        • Chang G.J.
        • Katz M.H.
        • et al.
        The cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiation is superior to a surgery-first approach in the treatment of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20: 500-508
        • Aristides M.
        • Lees M.
        • Botwood N.
        • McKendrick J.
        • Stephenson D.A.
        • Maniadakis N.
        Economic evaluation of gemcitabine in the treatment of pancreatic cancer in the UK.
        Eur J Health Econ. 2003; 4: 216-221
        • Attard C.L.
        • Brown S.
        • Alloul K.
        • Moore M.J.
        Cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer.
        Curr Oncol. 2014; 21: 41-51
        • Zhou J.
        • Zhao R.
        • Wen F.
        • Zhang P.
        • Tang R.
        • Du Z.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine, S-1 and gemcitabine plus S-1 for treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer based on GEST study.
        Med Oncol. 2015; : 32
        • Carrato A.
        • García P.
        • López R.
        • Macarulla T.
        • Rivera F.
        • Sastre J.
        • et al.
        Cost-utility analysis of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in combination with gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic cancer in Spain: results of the PANCOSTABRAX study.
        Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015; 15: 579-589
        • Gharaibeh M.
        • McBride A.
        • Bootman J.L.
        • Abraham I.
        Economic evaluation for the UK of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer.
        Br J Cancer. 2015; 112: 1301-1305
        • Tam V.C.
        • Ko Y.J.
        • Mittmann N.
        • Cheung M.C.
        • Kumar K.
        • Hassan S.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness of systemic therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer.
        Curr Oncol. 2013; : 20https://doi.org/10.3747/co.20.1223
        • Ansari D.
        • Tingstedt B.
        • Andersson R.
        Pancreatic cancer – cost for overtreatment with gemcitabine.
        Acta Oncol. 2013; 52: 1146-1151
        • Wang C.
        • Wu H.
        • Xiong J.
        • Zhou F.
        • Tao J.
        • Liu T.
        • et al.
        Pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection for local advanced pancreatic head cancer: a single center retrospective study.
        J Gastrointest Surg. 2008; 12: 2183-2190
        • Mortenson M.M.
        • Ho H.S.
        • Bold R.J.
        An analysis of cost and clinical outcome in palliation for advanced pancreatic cancer.
        Am J Surg. 2005; 190: 406-411
        • Krzyzanowska M.K.
        • Earle C.C.
        • Kuntz K.M.
        • Weeks J.C.
        Using economic analysis to evaluate the potential of multimodality therapy for elderly patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007; 67: 211-218
        • Murphy J.D.
        • Chang D.T.
        • Abelson J.
        • Daly M.E.
        • Yeung H.N.
        • Nelson L.M.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness of modern radiotherapy techniques in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: RT cost effectiveness in pancreatic CA.
        Cancer. 2012; 118: 1119-1129
        • Tierney W.M.
        • Fendrick A.M.
        • Hirth R.A.
        • Scheiman J.M.
        The clinical and economic impact of alternative staging strategies for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2000; 95: 1708-1713
        • Harewood G.C.
        • Wiersema M.J.
        A cost analysis of endoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2001; 96: 2651-2656
        • McMahon P.M.
        • Halpern E.F.
        • Fernandez–del Castillo C.
        • Clark J.W.
        • Gazelle G.S.
        Pancreatic cancer: cost-effectiveness of imaging technologies for assessing resectability.
        Radiology. 2001; 221: 93-106
        • Chen V.K.
        • Arguedas M.R.
        • Kilgore M.L.
        • Eloubeidi M.A.
        A cost-minimization analysis of alternative strategies in diagnosing pancreatic cancer.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2004; 99: 2223-2234
        • Heinrich S.
        • Goerres G.W.
        • Schäfer M.
        • Sagmeister M.
        • Bauerfeind P.
        • Pestalozzi B.C.
        • et al.
        Positron emission tomography/computed tomography influences on the management of resectable pancreatic cancer and its cost-effectiveness.
        Ann Surg. 2005; 242: 235-243
        • Enestvedt C.K.
        • Mayo S.C.
        • Diggs B.S.
        • Mori M.
        • Austin D.A.
        • Shipley D.K.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic laparoscopy for patients with potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: is it cost-effective in the current era?.
        J Gastrointest Surg. 2008; 12: 1177-1184
        • Tapper E.
        • Kalb B.
        • Martin D.R.
        • Kooby D.
        • Adsay N.V.
        • Sarmiento J.M.
        Staging laparoscopy for proximal pancreatic cancer in a magnetic resonance imaging-driven practice: what's it worth?.
        HPB. 2011; 13: 732-737
        • Jayakrishnan T.T.
        • Nadeem H.
        • Groeschl R.T.
        • George B.
        • Thomas J.P.
        • Ritch P.S.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic laparoscopy should be performed before definitive resection for pancreatic cancer: a financial argument.
        HPB. 2015; 17: 131-139
        • Rulyak S.J.
        • Kimmey M.B.
        • Veenstra D.L.
        • Brentnall T.A.
        Cost-effectiveness of pancreatic cancer screening in familial pancreatic cancer kindreds.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 23-29
        • Latchford A.
        • Greenhalf W.
        • Vitone L.J.
        • Neoptolemos J.P.
        • Lancaster G.A.
        • Phillips R.K.S.
        Peutz–Jeghers syndrome and screening for pancreatic cancer.
        Br J Surg. 2006; 93: 1446-1455
        • Rubenstein J.H.
        • Scheiman J.M.
        • Anderson M.A.
        A clinical and economic evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound for patients at risk for familial pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
        Pancreatology. 2007; 7: 514-525
        • Ghatnekar O.
        • Andersson R.
        • Svensson M.
        • Persson U.
        • Ringdahl U.
        • Zeilon P.
        • et al.
        Modelling the benefits of early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using a biomarker signature: modelling benefits of early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.
        Int J Cancer. 2013; 133: 2392-2397
        • Arguedas M.R.
        • Heudebert G.H.
        • Stinnett A.A.
        • Wilcox C.M.
        Biliary stents in malignant obstructive jaundice due to pancreatic carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2002; 97: 898-904
        • Chen V.K.
        • Arguedas M.R.
        • Baron T.H.
        Expandable metal biliary stents before pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: a Monte-Carlo decision analysis.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005; 3: 1229-1237
        • Kahaleh M.
        • Brock A.
        • Conaway M.
        • Shami V.
        • Dumonceau J.
        • Northup P.
        • et al.
        Covered self-expandable metal stents in pancreatic malignancy regardless of resectability: a new concept validated by a decision analysis.
        Endoscopy. 2007; 39: 319-324
        • Witkowski E.R.
        • Smith J.K.
        • Ragulin-Coyne E.
        • Ng S.-C.
        • Shah S.A.
        • Tseng J.F.
        Is it worth looking? Abdominal imaging after pancreatic cancer resection: a national study.
        J Gastrointest Surg. 2012; 16: 121-128
        • Tzeng C.-W.D.
        • Abbott D.E.
        • Cantor S.B.
        • Fleming J.B.
        • Lee J.E.
        • Pisters P.W.T.
        • et al.
        Frequency and intensity of postoperative surveillance after curative treatment of pancreatic cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20: 2197-2203
        • Shea B.J.
        • Grimshaw J.M.
        • Wells G.A.
        • Boers M.
        • Andersson N.
        • Hamel C.
        • et al.
        Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7: 10
        • Shea B.J.
        • Hamel C.
        • Wells G.A.
        • Bouter L.M.
        • Kristjansson E.
        • Grimshaw J.
        • et al.
        AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1013-1020
        • Gharaibeh M.
        • Bootman J.L.
        • McBride A.
        • Martin J.
        • Abraham I.
        Economic evaluations of first-line chemotherapy regimens for pancreatic cancer: a critical review.
        PharmacoEconomics. 2017; 35: 83-95
      3. CADTH.ca n.d. https://www.cadth.ca/ [Accessed 1 August 2017].

      4. NICE | The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence n.d. https://www.nice.org.uk/ [Accessed 1 August 2017].

        • Gerkens S.
        • Crott R.
        • Cleemput I.
        • Thissen J.-P.
        • Closon M.-C.
        • Horsmans Y.
        • et al.
        Comparison of three instruments assessing the quality of economic evaluations: a practical exercise on economic evaluations of the surgical treatment of obesity.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008; 24: 318-325
        • Frederix G.W.J.
        • van Hasselt J.G.C.
        • Schellens J.H.M.
        • Hövels A.M.
        • Raaijmakers J.A.M.
        • Huitema A.D.R.
        • et al.
        The impact of structural uncertainty on cost-effectiveness models for adjuvant endocrine breast cancer treatments: the need for disease-specific model standardization and improved guidance.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2014; 32: 47-61
        • Briggs A.H.
        • Weinstein M.C.
        • Fenwick E.A.L.
        • Karnon J.
        • Sculpher M.J.
        • Paltiel A.D.
        • et al.
        Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force–6.
        Value Health. 2012; 15: 835-842
        • Neumann P.J.
        • Stone P.W.
        • Chapman R.H.
        • Sandberg E.A.
        • Bell C.M.
        The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976–1997.
        Ann Intern Med. 2000; 132: 964-972
        • Aguiar P.M.
        • Lima T.M.
        • Storpirtis S.
        Systematic review of the economic evaluations of novel therapeutic agents in multiple myeloma: what is the reporting quality?.
        J Clin PharmTher. 2016; 41: 189-197
        • Nerich V.
        • Saing S.
        • Gamper E.M.
        • Kemmler G.
        • Daval F.
        • Pivot X.
        • et al.
        Cost–utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016; 159: 407-424
      5. Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines (CHEERS): Good Reporting Practices n.d. http://www.ispor.org/Health-Economic-Evaluation-Publication-CHEERS-Guidelines.asp [Accessed 1 August 2017].