Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node dissection in the setting of preoperative endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia and an endometrial stripe ≥20 mm: a cost-effectiveness analysis 
  1. Sarah Bell1,
  2. Kenneth Smith2,
  3. Haeyon Kim3,
  4. Taylor Orellana4,
  5. Lakshmi Harinath5,
  6. Shannon Rush1,
  7. Alexander Olawaiye1 and
  8. Jamie Lesnock1
    1. 1Gynecologic Oncology, Magee Womens Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    2. 2General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    3. 3Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    4. 4Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
    5. 5Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    1. Correspondence to Dr Sarah Bell, Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; bellsg{at}upmc.edu

    Abstract

    Objectives Routine lymph node assessment in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia is institution and surgeon-dependent without clear guidelines. We sought to determine if routine sentinel lymph node (SLN) dissection at the time of laparoscopic hysterectomy for patients with a preoperative diagnosis of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia and a preoperative ultrasound with endometrial stripe ≥20 mm is cost-effective.

    Methods A decision model was created to perform two cost-effectiveness analyses: (1) hysterectomy with frozen section versus hysterectomy with SLN dissection in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia and an endometrial stripe of 20 mm or greater, and (2) the same options in all patients with a preoperative diagnosis of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. Costs obtained from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and event probabilities and quality of life utility values were obtained through literature review.

    Results In the case of preoperative endometrial stripe ≥20 mm, hysterectomy with SLN dissection cost $2469 more than hysterectomy with frozen section and gained 0.010 quality adjusted life years, or $44,997/quality-adjusted life years gained. In one-way sensitivity analyses, SLN dissection remained the favored strategy at a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life years unless chronic lower extremity lymphedema after full lymphadenectomy had a likelihood <13.1% (base case value 18.1%); otherwise, SLN dissection was favored with individual variation of all other parameters over plausible ranges. When considering all patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, hysterectomy with frozen section was favored, with results most sensitive to variation of lymphedema risk after full lymphadenectomy.

    Conclusion Hysterectomy with SLN dissection in patients with a preoperative endometrial stripe ≥20mm on ultrasound is cost-effective when compared with hysterectomy with frozen section.

    • Endometrial Hyperplasia
    • Sentinel Lymph Node

    Data availability statement

    No data are available.

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    No data are available.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • X @sarahgracebell

    • Contributors SB made a substantial contribution to conception and hypothesis generation for this project and was responsible for data acquisition, data analysis, table and figure preparation, and manuscript writing. SB is the guarantor of the manuscript. KS and HK contributed to the conception and hypothesis generation, study design, and critical evaluation of manuscript writing, tables, and figures. TO contributed to the conception and hypothesis generation and manuscript review. LH contributed to literature review and manuscript review. SR contributed to critical evaluation of tables, figures, and manuscript. AO contributed to hypothesis generation and critical evaluation of the manuscript. JL was responsible for conception of the project, study design, and critical evaluation of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.