Chan, Raymond J.

Abstract Introduction While randomized clinical trials (RCT) confirmed superiority of Mepitel film (MF) in reducing acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) compared to standard-of-care (SoC), the incremental cost difference has limited its use. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted from a Canadian healthcare payer’s perspective to guide policy decisions. Methods: A decision model was constructed to perform a CEA for MF compared to SoC (moisturisers) for prevention of grade 2 or higher ARD following adjuvant hypo-fractionated whole-breast radiotherapy (RT) based on a Canadian multicentre RCT. Direct and indirect cost data were collected from two oncology centres in Canada. Quality-of-life (QoL) utility values were derived from mapping Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores for patients with grade 2 or higher ARD at week 6 of RT to EQ-5D. A willingness-to-pay (WTF) threshold of CAD 50,000 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained was used. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty in decision model assumptions. Results: Base case analysis demonstrated that MF is cost-effective in preventing grade 2 or higher ARD as compared with SoC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 3,366 per QALY gained. When nursing costs were included, MF resulted in an ICER of CAD 2,823 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the results were most sensitive to the QoL utility value for ARD. All sensitivity variations remained well below the WTP threshold. Conclusions: MF is a cost-effective intervention for preventing high-grade ARD and should be recommended for patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant RT.