BACKGROUND Treatment of newly diagnosed advanced-stage ovarian cancer typically involves cytoreductive surgery and systemic chemotherapy. We conducted a trial to investigate whether the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery would improve outcomes among patients who were receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS In a multicenter, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 245 patients who had at least stable disease after three cycles of carboplatin (area under the curve of 5 to 6 mg per milliliter per minute) and paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter of body-surface area) to undergo interval cytoreductive surgery either with or without administration of HIPEC with cisplatin (100 mg per square meter). Randomization was performed at the time of surgery in cases in which surgery that would result in no visible disease (complete cytoreduction) or surgery after which one or more residual tumors measuring 10 mm or less in diameter remain (optimal cytoreduction) was deemed to be feasible. Three additional cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel were administered postoperatively. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival. Overall survival and the side-effect profile were key secondary end points. RESULTS In the intention-to-treat analysis, events of disease recurrence or death occurred in 110 of the 123 patients (89%) who underwent cytoreductive surgery without HIPEC (surgery group) and in 99 of the 122 patients (81%) who underwent cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (surgery-plus-HIPEC group) (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.87; P = 0.003). The median recurrencefree survival was 10.7 months in the surgery group and 14.2 months in the surgeryplus-HIPEC group. At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, 76 patients (62%) in the surgery group and 61 patients (50%) in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group had died (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.94; P = 0.02). The median overall survival was 33.9 months in the surgery group and 45.7 months in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. The percentage of patients who had adverse events of grade 3 or 4 was similar in the two groups (25% in the surgery group and 27% in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group, P = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer, the addition of HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery resulted in longer recurrence-free survival and overall survival than surgery alone and did not result in higher rates of side effects. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Society; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00426257; EudraCT number, 2006-003466-34.)

PURPOSE In the randomized open-label phase III OVHIPEC trial, the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS) improved recurrence-free and overall survival in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. We studied the cost effectiveness of the addition of HIPEC to interval CRS in patients with ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS We constructed a Markov health-state transition model to measure costs and clinical outcomes. Transition probabilities were derived from the OVHIPEC trial by fitting survival distributions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was calculated from a Dutch societal perspective, with a time horizon of 10 years. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the decision uncertainty. RESULTS Total health care costs were V70,046 (95% credibility interval [CrI], V64,016 to V76,661) for interval CRS compared with V85,791 (95% CrI, V78,766 to V93,935) for interval CRS plus HIPEC. The mean QALY in the interval CRS group was 2.12 (95% CrI, 1.66 to 2.64 QALYs) and 2.68 (95% CrI, 2.11 to 3.28 QALYs) in the interval CRS plus HIPEC group. The ICER amounted to V28,299/QALY. In univariable sensitivity analysis, the utility of recurrence-free survival and the number of days in the hospital affected the calculated ICER most. CONCLUSION On the basis of the trial data, treatment with interval CRS and HIPEC in patients with stage III ovarian cancer was accompanied by a substantial gain in QALYs. The ICER is below the willingness-to-pay threshold in the Netherlands, indicating interval CRS and HIPEC is cost effective for this patient population. These results lend additional support for reimbursing the costs of treating these patients with interval CRS and HIPEC in countries with comparable health care systems.

PURPOSE In the randomized open-label phase III OVHIPEC trial, the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS) improved recurrence-free and overall survival in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. We studied the cost effectiveness of the addition of HIPEC to interval CRS in patients with ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS We constructed a Markov health-state transition model to measure costs and clinical outcomes. Transition probabilities were derived from the OVHIPEC trial by fitting survival distributions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was calculated from a Dutch societal perspective, with a time horizon of 10 years. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the decision uncertainty. RESULTS Total health care costs were €70,046 (95% credibility interval [CrI], €64,016 to €76,661) for interval CRS compared with €85,791 (95% CrI, €78,766 to €93,935) for interval CRS plus HIPEC. The mean QALY in the interval CRS group was 2.12 (95% CrI, 1.66 to 2.64 QALYs) and 2.68 (95% CrI, 2.11 to 3.28 QALYs) in the interval CRS plus HIPEC group. The ICER amounted to €28,299/QALY. In univariable sensitivity analysis, the utility of recurrence-free survival and the number of days in the hospital affected the calculated ICER most. CONCLUSION On the basis of the trial data, treatment with interval CRS and HIPEC in patients with stage III ovarian cancer was accompanied by a substantial gain in QALYs. The ICER is below the willingness-to-pay threshold in the Netherlands, indicating interval CRS and HIPEC is cost effective for this patient population. These results lend additional support for reimbursing the costs of treating these patients with interval CRS and HIPEC in countries with comparable health care systems.

Introduction: The Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit (DGOA) was initiated in 2014 to serve as a nationwide audit, which registers the four most prevalent gynecological malignancies. This study presents the first results of clinical auditing for ovarian cancer in the Netherlands. Methods: The Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit is facilitated by the Dutch Institute of Clinical Auditing (DICA) and run by a scientific committee. Items are collected through a web-based registration based on a set of predefined quality indicators. Results of quality indicators are shown, and benchmarked information is given back to the user. Data verification was done in 2016.Results: Between January 01, 2014 and December 31, 2018, 6535 patients with ovarian cancer were registered. The case ascertainment was 98.3% in 2016. The number of patients with ovarian cancer who start therapy within 28 days decreased over time from 68.7% in 2014 to 62.7% in 2018 (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients with primary cytoreductive surgery decreased over time (57.8%e39.7%, P < 0.001). However, patients with complete primary cytoreductive surgery improved over time (53.5%e69.1%, P < 0.001). Other quality indicators did not significantly change over time. Conclusion:The Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit provides valuable data on the quality of care on patients with ovarian cancer in the Netherlands. Data show variation between hospitals with regard to pre-determined quality indicators. Results of 'best practices' will be shared with all participants of the clinical audit with the aim of improving quality of care nationwide.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

A433acquisition, administration and monitoring, routine follow-up, Grade ≥ 3 adverse events, and subsequent therapy costs. Drug costs for both palbociclib and ribociclib were adjusted for discontinuation and dose reductions. Health benefits were valued in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with utility weights derived from EQ-5D-5L data collected in MONALEESA-2 for PF and using literature for PD. Costs and effects were discounted at 3.5% per year for a lifetime horizon of 40 years. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: At lifetime, total discounted cost of ribociclib was £107,128 (drug cost = £58,939; health state cost = £48,189) versus £115,012 (69,949 and £45,063, respectively) for palbociclib. Discounted QALYs for ribociclib were 3.08 (PF = 2.33; PD = 0.75) versus 2.85 (PF = 2.15; PD = 0.70) for palbociclib. Ribociclib was less costly (-£7,884) and resulted in more QALYs (+0.230) than palbociclib, and was the dominant strategy. The probability of ribociclib being cost-effective versus palbociclib at £30,000 per QALY was 77.25%. Drug acquisition cost differences were key drivers of results. ConClusions: Ribociclib is likely to be dominant over palbociclib in cost-effectiveness terms as a first-line treatment for postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2-advanced/metastatic breast cancer.