4.7 Article

Cost-effectiveness of sentinel lymph node biopsy vs inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy in women with vulval cancer

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 109, 期 10, 页码 2533-2547

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.631

关键词

vulvar cancer; cost-effectiveness; sentinel lymph node biopsy; inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy

类别

资金

  1. Health Technology Assessment
  2. National Institute of Health Research, United Kingdom [09/112/03]
  3. MRC [G0800808] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [G0800808] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. National Institute for Health Research [09/112/03] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study examines the cost-effectiveness of sentinel lymph node biopsy, a potentially less morbid procedure, compared with inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFL) among women with stage I and stage II vulval squamous cell carcinoma. Methods: A model-based economic evaluation was undertaken based on clinical evidence from a systematic review of published sources. A decision tree model was developed with the structure being informed by clinical input, taking the perspective of the health-care provider. Results: For overall survival for 2 years, IFL was found to be the most cost-effective option and dominated all other strategies, being the least costly and most effective. For morbidity-free related outcomes for 2 years, sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy with 99mTc and blue dye and haematoxylin &eosin (H&E) histopathology, with ultrastaging and immunohistochemistry reserved for those that test negative following H&E is likely to be the most effective approach. Conclusion: SLN biopsy using 99mTc and blue dye with ultrastaging may be considered the most cost-effective strategy based on the outcome of survival free of morbidity for 2 years. The findings here also indicate that using blue dye and H&E for the identification of the SLN and the identification of metastasis, respectively, are not sensitive enough to be used on their own.

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

4.7
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