Cost-utility of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer: A model-based economic evaluation of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

person Selai Akseer University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada info_outline Selai Akseer, Shant Yeretzian, Yeva Sahakyan, Lusine Abrahamyan, Martine Puts, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai

Authors person Selai Akseer University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada info_outline Selai Akseer, Shant Yeretzian, Yeva Sahakyan, Lusine Abrahamyan, Martine Puts, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai Organizations University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada, Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada Abstract Disclosures Research Funding Canadian Cancer Society Background: Geriatric assessment (GA) is a guideline-recommended approach to optimize cancer management in older adults undergoing chemotherapy. Our recent cost-utility analysis of the published 5C (Clinical and Cost-effectiveness of a Comprehensive geriatric assessment and management for Canadian elders with Cancer) RCT comparing GA and management (GAM) with usual care in older adults with cancer did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness overall. However, the trial was limited by <5% of study participants receiving GA prior to starting treatment. Three other GAM RCTs (GAIN, GAP-70, and INTEGERATE) have recently been published with evidence of efficacy on clinically relevant endpoints. Whether these are more cost effective than 5C is unclear. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of GAM versus usual care in older adults with cancer using a decision model under a range of plausible scenarios representing the 4 trials. Methods: We performed cost-effectiveness analyses using the healthcare payer perspective and a 12-month time horizon. We incorporated Canadian costs and utility data from 5C, and used intervention details and effectiveness data from the three RCTs. We reported healthcare costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) using a $50,000 per QALY threshold. In scenario analyses we examined the main cost drivers. Results: Across trials, the average QALY per patient ranged 0.577–0.662 for GA and 0.606–0.665 for UC, and the average total costs $31,234–$39,432 for GA and $29,261–$41,756 for UC. Chemotherapy expenses accounted for 46%-66% of total costs across trials. The INTEGERATE trial had a positive INMB of $6,074. The GAIN and GAP-70 trials had negative INMB value of -$2,123 and -$1,172, respectively. In comparison, in 5C, the total costs were $39,812 and $37,450 for GAM and UC, respectively, and QALYs were 0.728 and 0.751, respectively; the INMB was $-2,713. Conclusions: Trial results and the associated model of care from INTEGERATE suggested a positive net monetary benefit, primarily driven by reduced hospitalization. Evaluation of cost-effectiveness under a range of plausible scenarios from RCTs can provide important insights about GAM. Our results add to the growing data supporting the need to implement GAM in older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy and argue for its cost effectiveness under specific scenarios. Future trials should include hospitalization outcomes. Future economic analyses need to accurately capture chemotherapy costs.