BACKGROUNDThe role of image-guided surveillance as compared with planned neck dissection in the treatment of patients with squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck who have advanced nodal disease (stage N2 or N3) and who have received chemoradiotherapy for primary treatment is a matter of debate. METHODSIn this prospective, randomized, controlled trial, we assessed the noninferiority of positron-emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT)-guided surveillance (performed 12 weeks after the end of chemoradiotherapy, with neck dissection performed only if PET-CT showed an incomplete or equivocal response) to planned neck dissection in patients with stage N2 or N3 disease. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTSFrom 2007 through 2012, we recruited 564 patients (282 patients in the planned-surgery group and 282 patients in the surveillance group) from 37 centers in the United Kingdom. Among these patients, 17% had nodal stage N2a disease and 61% had stage N2b disease. A total of 84% of the patients had oropharyngeal cancer, and 75% had tumor specimens that stained positive for the p16 protein, an indicator that human papillomavirus had a role in the causation of the cancer. The median follow-up was 36 months. PET-CT-guided surveillance resulted in fewer neck dissections than did planned dissection surgery (54 vs. 221); rates of surgical complications were similar in the two groups (42% and 38%, respectively). The 2-year overall survival rate was 84.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7 to 89.1) in the surveillance group and 81.5% (95% CI, 76.9 to 86.3) in the planned-surgery group. The hazard ratio for death slightly favored PET-CT-guided surveillance and indicated noninferiority (upper boundary of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio, <1.50; P = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to p16 expression. Quality of life was similar in the two groups. PET-CT-guided surveillance, as compared with neck dissection, resulted in savings of £1,492 (approximately $2,190 in U.S. dollars) per person over the duration of the trial. CONCLUSIONSSurvival was similar among patients who underwent PET-CT-guided surveillance and those who underwent planned neck dissection, but surveillance resulted in considerably fewer operations and it was more cost-effective.

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background:The rising financial burden of cancer on health-care systems worldwide has led to the increased demand for evidence-based research on which to base reimbursement decisions. Economic evaluations are an integral component of this necessary research. Ascertainment of reliable health-care cost and quality-of-life estimates to inform such studies has historically been challenging, but recent advances in informatics in the United Kingdom provide new opportunities.Methods:The costs of hospital care for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer disease-free survivors were calculated over 15 months from initial diagnosis of cancer using routinely collected data within a UK National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Trust. Costs were linked at patient level to patient-reported outcomes and registry-derived sociodemographic factors. Predictors of cost and the relationship between costs and patient-reported utility were examined.Results:The study population included 223 breast cancer patients, 145 colorectal and 104 prostate cancer patients. The mean 15-month cumulative health-care costs were £12 595 (95% CI £11 517–£13 722), £12 643 (£11 282–£14 102) and £3722 (£3263–£4208), per-patient respectively. The majority of costs occurred within the first 6 months from diagnosis. Clinical stage was the most important predictor of costs for all cancer types. EQ-5D score was predictive of costs in colorectal cancer but not in breast or prostate cancer.Conclusion:It is now possible to evaluate health-care cost using routine NHS data sets. Such methods can be utilised in future retrospective and prospective studies to efficiently collect economic data.

a multicentre randomised Phase III non-inferiority trial comparing a positron emission tomographycomputerised tomography-guided watch-and-wait policy with planned neck dissection in the management of locally advanced (N2/N3) nodal metastases in patients with squamous cell head and neck cancer. Health Technol Assess 2017;21(17). This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/). Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted inEditorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 06/302/129. The contractual start date was in April 2007. The draft report began editorial review in July 2015 and was accepted for publication in June 2016. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily ref...

Molecular tests are likely to be cost-effective, but an optimal test is yet to be identified. Health economics modeling to inform the design of a randomized controlled trial looking at diagnostic technology has been demonstrated to be feasible as a method for improving research efficiency.

Diagnostic tests are expensive and time-consuming to develop. Early economic evaluation using decision modeling can reduce commercial risk by providing early evidence on cost-effectiveness. The National Institute for Health Research Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives (DECs) was established to catalyze evidence generation for diagnostic tests by collaborating with commercial developers; DEC researchers have consequently made extensive use of early modeling. The aim of this article is to summarize the experiences of the DECs using early modeling for diagnostics. We draw on 8 case studies to illustrate the methods, highlight methodological strengths and weaknesses particular to diagnostics, and provide advice. The case studies covered diagnosis, screening, and treatment stratification. Treatment effectiveness was a crucial determinant of cost-effectiveness in all cases, but robust evidence to inform this parameter was sparse. This risked limiting the usability of the results, although characterization of this uncertainty in turn highlighted the value of further evidence generation. Researchers evaluating early models must be aware of the importance of treatment effect evidence when reviewing the cost-effectiveness of diagnostics. Researchers planning to develop an early model of a test should also 1) consult widely with clinicians to ensure the model reflects real-world patient care; 2) develop comprehensive models that can be updated as the technology develops, rather than taking a “quick and dirty” approach that may risk producing misleading results; and 3) use flexible methods of reviewing evidence and evaluating model results, to fit the needs of multiple decision makers. Decision models can provide vital information for developers at an early stage, although limited evidence mean researchers should proceed with caution.

BACKGROUND For medical tests that have a central role in clinical decision-making, current guidelines advocate outcome-based analytical performance specifications. Given that empirical (clinical trial-style) analyses are often impractical or unfeasible in this context, the ability to set such specifications is expected to rely on indirect studies to calculate the impact of test measurement uncertainty on downstream clinical, operational, and economic outcomes. Currently, however, a lack of awareness and guidance concerning available alternative indirect methods is limiting the production of outcome-based specifications. Therefore, our aim was to review available indirect methods and present an analytical framework to inform future outcome-based performance goals. CONTENT A methodology review consisting of database searches and extensive citation tracking was conducted to identify studies using indirect methods to incorporate or evaluate the impact of test measurement uncertainty on downstream outcomes (including clinical accuracy, clinical utility, and/or costs). Eighty-two studies were identified, most of which evaluated the impact of imprecision and/or bias on clinical accuracy. A common analytical framework underpinning the various methods was identified, consisting of 3 key steps: (a) calculation of “true” test values; (b) calculation of measured test values (incorporating uncertainty); and (c) calculation of the impact of discrepancies between (a) and (b) on specified outcomes. A summary of the methods adopted is provided, and key considerations are discussed. CONCLUSIONS Various approaches are available for conducting indirect assessments to inform outcome-based performance specifications. This study provides an overview of methods and key considerations to inform future studies and research in this area.

This analysis indicates that PET-CT-guided management is cost-effective in the long-term and supports the case for wide-scale adoption.