AT AAES 2016
BALTIMORE (FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS) – Hemithyroidectomy for low-risk micropapillary thyroid cancer can have advantages over active surveillance, according to findings from a study that examined outcomes by cost and quality of life data.
Endocrinologists and surgeons need to have in-depth conversations with their patients to determine their level of anxiety about cancer, surgery, and about their quality of life, to determine the best course of treatment, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) reported at the annual meeting of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons.
“Our study found that hemithyroidectomy is cost effective in the majority of scenarios,” presenter Shriya Venkatesh said. “However, patient perception of micropapillary thyroid cancer as well as [the patient’s] life expectancy can play a major role in deciding which therapeutic option to choose.”
The study involved a cost-effectiveness analysis of the surgery vs. active surveillance, “which is especially relevant in our current times,” Ms. Venkatesh said in an interview. “What we wanted to do is give physicians information for when they approach their patients, not only in assessing the tumor from the medical aspect but also when looking at it from quality-of-life and cost-benefit perspectives.”
Both courses of management were modeled over a 20-year period with Medicare data and literature review to calculate costs and health utilities. The UCSF researchers used Markov statistical models for both approaches in which the reference case was a 40-year-old, otherwise healthy patient with a recent diagnosis of micropapillary thyroid cancer without high-risk factors. Either hemithyroidectomy or surveillance would be reasonable treatment options.
“We found that hemithyroidectomy was about $8,000 more costly than active surveillance, but it also afforded an increase in about 1.09 quality-adjusted life years,” Ms. Venkatesh said. Hemithyroidectomy is most cost effective for patients with a life expectancy of 3 years or more and who perceive that living with low-grade thyroid cancer would have even a modest detriment on their quality of life, she said.
“Unfortunately there is no current published quality-of-life assessment of active surveillance for thyroid cancer,” Ms. Venkatesh said. “We believe that estimating active surveillance to the equivalent of surgery underestimates the anxiety some patients may feel upon receiving their diagnosis.”
The paucity of literature on active surveillance for thyroid cancer prompted the UCSF researchers to turn to the prostate cancer literature, which has more data on active surveillance, to try to determine the disutility of active surveillance for micropapillary thyroid cancer. “Our extrapolation from the literature yields a mean disutility of 0.11,” she said.
However, the utility estimates the researchers came up with were variable, Ms. Venkatesh said. “This really pushes physicians to have that conversation with their patients, not only about the physical aspects of how they’re doing but also the mental aspects,” she said.
But quality of life is difficult to quantify, senior author Dr. Insoo Suh said in an interview. “What we found is that no matter how one measures quality of life, the qualitative degree of quality of life decrease that people associate with ‘living with cancer’ need not be that significant in order for surgery to be a potentially cost-effective treatment for them,” said Dr. Suh, an endocrine surgeon at UCSF and an ACS Fellow.
During the discussion, Dr. Peter Angelos of the University of Chicago and an ACS Fellow, said, “I’m curious how this information should impact the individual decision-making and informed consent for a specific patient, because I’m not sure that an individual patient would care if active surveillance is more cost effective or not.”
“When speaking to your patients, obviously discussing the rates of progression of the disease is important and then [so is] talking to them about different therapeutic options,” Ms. Venkatesh said. “The physician should also make an assessment about the patient’s quality of life to see if there are likely to be any changes due to the diagnosis.”
The limitations of the study include the extrapolation of data from the prostate cancer literature to define a utility scale and also the reference case used in the Markov model. Other utility measures showed variability as well.
Ms. Venkatesh, Dr. Suh and their coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.
