Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of an 18-week exercise programme for patients with breast and colon cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy: the randomised PACT study [with consumer summary] |
May AM, Bosch MJC, Velthuis MJ, van der Wall E, Steins Bisschop CN, Los M, Erdkamp F, Bloemendal HJ, de Roos MAJ, Verhaar M, ten Bokkel Huinink D, Peeters PHM, de Wit GA |
BMJ Open 2017 Mar;7(3):e012187 |
clinical trial |
6/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
OBJECTIVE: Meta-analyses show that exercise interventions during cancer treatment reduce cancer-related fatigue. However, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of such interventions. Here we aim to assess the cost-effectiveness of the 18-week physical activity during cancer treatment (PACT) intervention for patients with breast and colon cancer. The PACT trial showed beneficial effects for fatigue and physical fitness. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analyses with a 9-month time horizon (18 weeks of intervention and 18 weeks of follow-up) within the randomised controlled multicentre PACT study. SETTING: Outpatient clinics of 7 hospitals in the Netherlands (1 academic and 6 general hospitals) PARTICIPANTS: 204 patients with breast cancer and 33 with colon cancer undergoing adjuvant treatment including chemotherapy. INTERVENTION: Supervised 1-hour aerobic and resistance exercise (twice per week for 18 weeks) or usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: For colon cancer, the cost-effectiveness analysis showed beneficial effects of the exercise intervention with incremental costs savings of Euro 4,321 and QALY improvements of 0.03. 100% of bootstrap simulations indicated that the intervention is dominant (ie, cheaper and more effective). For breast cancer, the results did not indicate that the exercise intervention was cost-effective. Incremental costs were Euro 2,912, and the incremental effect was 0.01 QALY. At a Dutch threshold value of Euro 20,000 per QALY, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective was 2%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the 18-week exercise programme was cost-effective for colon cancer, but not for breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43801571.
|