A study comparing the cost‐effectiveness of conventional and drug‐eluting transarterial chemoembolisation (cTACE and DEBTACE) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in an Australian public hospital

Author:

Clements Warren123ORCID,Chenoweth Abigail1,Phipps Benjamin1,Mozo Lowella1,Bolger Mark1ORCID,Morphett Laura4,Phan Tuan12ORCID,Koukounaras Jim12ORCID,Lukies Matthew W125ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Radiology Alfred Health Melbourne Victoria Australia

2. Department of Surgery Monash University Central Clinical School Melbourne Victoria Australia

3. National Trauma Research Institute Melbourne Victoria Australia

4. Department of Finance Alfred Health Melbourne Victoria Australia

5. Department of Medical Imaging Monash Health Melbourne Victoria Australia

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer‐related mortality and transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is an established technique to treat patients with intermediate‐stage HCC. The aim of this study was to generate accurate costing data on cTACE and DEB‐TACE in an Australian setting and assess whether one of the procedures offers favourable cost‐effectiveness.MethodsCosting study using data from all TACE procedures performed at a single centre between January 2018 and December 2022. Data were included from all direct and indirect costs including operative costs, wages, overheads, ward costs, transfusion, pathology, pharmacy and ward support. Cost‐effectiveness was assessed by dividing local costs by existing high‐quality data on quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs).Results64 TACE treatments were performed on 44 patients. Mean age was 66.5 years and 91% were male. Overall median total cost per patient for the entire TACE treatment regime was AUD$7380 (range AUD$3719–$20,258). However, 39% of patients received more than one treatment, and the median cost per individual treatment was AUD$5270 (range AUD$3533–$15,818). The difference in median cost between cTACE (AUD$4978) and DEB‐TACE (AUD$9202) was significant, P < 0.001. In calculating cost‐effectiveness, each cTACE treatment cost AUD$2489 per QALY gained, while each DEB‐TACE cost AUD$3834 per QALY gained. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) for DEB‐TACE over cTACE was AUD$10,560 per QALY gained.ConclusionBoth cTACE and DEB‐TACE are low‐cost treatments in Australia. However, DEB‐TACE offers a solution with an ICER of AUD$10,560 per QALY gained which is below the Australian government willingness to pay threshold and thus is a more cost‐effective treatment.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3