J Gynecol Oncol.  2024 Nov;35(6):e117. 10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e117.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of simple hysterectomy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: analysis from the GCIG/CCTG CX.5/SHAPE trial

• Kwon JS
• McTaggart-Cowan H
• Ferguson SE
• Samouëlian V
• Lambaudie E
• Guyon F
• Tidy J
• Williamson K
• Gleeson N
• Kroon Cd
• Driel Wv
• Mahner S
• Hanker L
• Goffin F
• Berger R
• Eyjólfsdóttir B
• Kim JW
• Brotto LA
• Pataky R
• Yeung SS
• Chan KK
• Cheung MC
• Ubi J
• Tu D
• Shepherd LE
• Plante M

• KMID: 2564965
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e117

Abstract

Objective
SHAPE (Simple Hysterectomy And PElvic node assessment) was an international phase III trial demonstrating that simple hysterectomy was non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for pelvic recurrence risk, but superior for quality of life and sexual health. The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing simple vs. radical hysterectomy for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer.
Methods
Markov model compared the costs and benefits of simple vs. radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer over a 5-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from health utilities derived from EQ-5D-3L surveys. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around key parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated complication numbers according to surgical procedure.
Results
Simple hysterectomy was more effective and less costly than radical hysterectomy. Average overall costs were $11,022 and $12,533, and average gains were 3.56 and 3.54 QALYs for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. Baseline health utility scores were 0.81 and 0.83 for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. By year 3, these scores improved for simple hysterectomy (0.82) but not for radical hysterectomy (0.82). Assuming 800 early cervical cancer patients annually in Canada, the model estimated 3 vs. 82 patients with urinary retention, and 49 vs. 86 patients with urinary incontinence persisting 4 weeks after simple vs. radical hysterectomy, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variability in health utilities after surgery, but stable through wide ranges of costs and recurrence estimates.
Conclusion
Simple hysterectomy is less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.

Keyword

Low Risk; Early Stage Cervical Cancer; Simple Hysterectomy; Radical Hysterectomy; Quality-Adjusted Life Expectancy; Health Utility; Cost-Effectiveness