Cost-utility-analysis of molecular-integrated-profile for women with (high)intermediate risk endometrial cancer − PORTEC-4a an international, randomised, phase 3 trial

Read full text
Authors: Anne Sophie V M van den Heerik, Nanda Horeweg, Marie A.D. Haverkort, Nienke Kuijsters, Stefan Kommoss, Friederike Koppe, Marlies E Nowee, Henrike Westerveld, Maria A.A. de Jong, Filip Frühauf, Jeltsje S. Cnossen, Jan Willem M. Mens
+18 more Jannet C. Beukema, Cyrus Chargari, Charles Gillham, Dorine S.J. Tseng, Katrien Vandecasteele, Moritz Hamann, Mandy Kiderlen, Stephan Polterauer, Annette Staebler, Hans W. Nijman, Bastiaan G. Wortman, Stephanie M. de Boer, Karen Verhoeven-Adema, Remi A. Nout, H. Putter, Vincent T.H.B.M. Smit, Carien L. Creutzberg, Wilbert van den Hout
Cited by: 3
References: 24

Abstract

PURPOSE: The international PORTEC-4a trial demonstrated that individualised adjuvant treatment for women with (high)intermediate risk endometrial cancer (HIR-EC), guided by a molecular-integrated-risk-profile, achieves similar high local tumour control, while nearly half of patients were spared adjuvant treatment. Although determination of the molecular-integrated-profile increases diagnostics costs due to additional immunohistochemistry and DNA-sequencing, these costs may be offset by savings on other care and improved patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with early-stage HIR-EC eligible for the PORTEC-4a trial, were randomised (2:1) to either adjuvant treatment according to their molecular-integrated-profile or standard vaginal brachytherapy (VBT). EC-related costs were evaluated from a healthcare perspective over a three-year follow-up period. Costs were related to quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) using the EORTC-QLU-C10D instrument. T-test compared mean QALYs and costs, with multiple imputation for missing data. RESULTS: All 564 patients were included in the cost-utility-analysis; 367 in molecular-profile arm and 197 in standard arm. QALYs were comparable (p = 0.58). Total healthcare costs were somewhat, but not significantly, lower in molecular-profile arm compared to standard arm (€11,898 vs €13,047, p = 0.11). Costs spent up until recurrence were significantly lower in molecular-profile arm (€9,995 vs €11,926, p < 0.01), while there was no significant difference in treatment for recurrence (€1,903 vs €1,121, p = 0.17). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/QALY, the strategy as proposed by PORTEC-4a was 89% likely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Individualised adjuvant treatment based on a molecular-integrated-profile was more cost-effective than standard VBT for patients with HIR-EC. These results further support the implementation of the molecular-integrated-profile in routine clinical practice.

Fields of Study & Subjects

Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments PARP inhibition in cancer therapy Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Publication details

Journal / source
Radiotherapy and Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Volume
217
Pages
111406–111406
Publication date
31 January 2026
Language
EN