4.6 Article

Bariatric surgery as a means to decrease mortality in women with type I endometrial cancer - An intriguing option in a population at risk for dying of complications of metabolic syndrome

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 138, 期 3, 页码 597-602

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.07.002

关键词

Obesity; Endometrial cancer; Weight loss surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To estimate the cost-effectiveness and utility of a strategy of offering weight loss surgery (WLS) to women with low risk stage I endometrial cancer (EC) and BMI >= 40 kg/m(2). Methods. A modified Markov state transition model was designed to compare routine care to WLS for women with low risk stage I endometrioid EC, age <70, with a mean BMI 40. A time horizon of 15 years was used to simulate the overall survival (OS) of 96,232 women treated from 1988-2010 from SEER*Stat data. To simulate the effects of WLS on OS, a hazard ratio (0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.99) representing the OS improvement achieved from this intervention (derived from a prospective trial) was modeled. We assumed that 90% of women undergoing bariatric procedures would experience a reduction in BMI. We assumed that 5% of women not undergoing WLS would achieve weight loss to a BMI of 35. Costs of treatment for obesity-related chronic diseases and quality of life (QOL)-related utilities were modeled from published reports. Results. The mean cost-effectiveness for each strategy was: $69,295 and 8.10 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for routine care versus $100,675 and 930 QALYs for WLS. WLS had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $26,080/QALY compared to routine care. At a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, WLS was the strategy of choice in 100% of simulations. Conclusions. WLS is a potentially cost-effective intervention in women with low risk, early stage EC, at least in part due to improved quality of life with weight reduction. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据