Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28895089›Full record

ArticleClinical drug investigation2017

Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy Versus GnRH Analogue in the Adjuvant Treatment of Premenopausal Breast Cancer Patients: Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Breast Cancer Outcome, Ovarian Cancer Prevention and Treatment.

Gabriella Ferrandina, Giulia Amadio, Andrea Marcellusi, Elena Azzolini, Anna Puggina, Roberta Pastorino, Walter Ricciardi, Giovanni Scambia

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Surgical ovarian suppression for adjuvant treatment in hormone receptor positive breast cancer in premenopausal patients.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gabriella FerrandinaGynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione "Policlinico Universitario A.Gemelli", Catholic University, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Giulia AmadioGynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione "Policlinico Universitario A.Gemelli", Catholic University, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. giulia.amadio82@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3989-4577
Andrea MarcellusiEconomic Evaluation and HTA (CEIS-EEHTA), IGF Department, Faculty of Economics, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Columbia 2, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Elena AzzoliniDepartment of Public Health, Catholic University, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Anna PugginaDepartment of Public Health, Catholic University, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Roberta PastorinoDepartment of Public Health, Catholic University, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Walter RicciardiDepartment of Public Health, Catholic University, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni ScambiaGynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione "Policlinico Universitario A.Gemelli", Catholic University, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThere is no available evidence to recommend gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue-based ovarian suppression versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer, since the two approaches are considered equivalent in terms of oncologic outcome. The role of surgical ovarian ablation has been revitalized based on the advances of minimally invasive surgery, and a better understanding of clinical and molecular basis of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic BSO and GnRH analogue administration in patients aged 40-49 years with hormone-sensitive breast cancer.

methodsA probabilistic decision tree model was developed to evaluate costs and outcomes of ovarian ablation through laparoscopic BSO, or ovarian suppression through monthly injections of GnRH analogue. Results were expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.

resultsLaparoscopic BSO strategy was associated with a lower mean total cost per patient than GnRH treatment, and considering the difference in terms of QALYs, the incremental effectiveness did not demonstrate a notable difference between the two approaches. From the National Health Service perspective, and for a time horizon of 5 years, laparoscopic BSO was the dominant option compared to GnRH treatment; laparoscopic BSO was less expensive than GnRH, €2385 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2044, 2753] vs €7093 (95% CI = 3409, 12,105), respectively, and more effective.

conclusionSurgical ovarian ablation is more cost-effective than GnRH administration in the adjuvant treatment of hormone-sensitive breast cancer patients aged 40-49 years, and the advantage of preventing ovarian cancer through laparoscopic BSO should be considered.

Indexed as

AdultBreast NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHumansMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSalpingo-oophorectomyGonadotropin-Releasing Hormone

Identifiers

PMID28895089
OpenAlexW2755894174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.