Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Cost-Effectiveness of Sentinel Node Biopsy in Patients with Intermediate Thickness Primary Cutaneous Melanoma

  • Melanomas
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of wide excision (WEX) + sentinel node biopsy (SNB) compared with WEX only in patients with primary melanomas ≥1 mm in thickness.

Methods

A Markov model was populated with probabilities of disease progression and survival from the published literature. Costs were obtained from diagnostic-related group weightings and health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Results

Base case analyses suggested that, over a 20–year timeframe, the mean total cost per patient receiving WEX only was AU $23,182 with 10.45 life years (LY) and 9.90 QALYs. The mean cost per patient for WEX + SNB was AU $24,045 with 10.77 LY and 10.34 QALYs. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for WEX + SNB was AU $2,770 per LY and AU $1,983 per QALY.

Conclusion

WEX + SNB appears to offer an improvement in health outcomes (in both LYs and QALYs) with only a slight increase in cost.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surgery 1992;127:392–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (2008) Practice guidelines in oncology. Melanoma. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc., USA, pp 1–37

  3. Garbe C, Hauschildb A, Volkenandtc M, et al. Evidence and interdisciplinary consense-based German guidelines: diagnosis and surveillance of melanoma. Melanoma Res 2007;17:393–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Roberts DLL, Anstey AV, Barlow RJ, et al. UK guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma. Br J Dermatol 2002;146:7–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Australian Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma. In: NHMRC, editor.: Australian Cancer Network; 1999

  6. Gershenwald JE, Thompson W, Mansfield PF, et al. Multi-institutional melanoma lymphatic mapping experience: the prognostic value of sentinel lymph node status in 612 stage I or II melanoma patients. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:976–83.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Statius Muller MG, van Leeuwen PA, de Lange-De Klerk ES, et al. The sentinel lymph node status is an important factor for predicting clinical outcome in patients with stage I or II cutaneous melanoma. Cancer 2001;91:2401–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Estourgie SH, Nieweg OE, Valdes Olmos RA, et al. Review and evaluation of sentinel node procedures in 250 melanoma patients with a median follow-up of 6 years. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:681–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gutzmer R, Al Ghazal M, Geerlings H, et al. Sentinel node biopsy in melanoma delays recurrence but does not change melanoma-related survival: a retrospective analysis of 673 patients. Br J Dermatol 2005;153:1137–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Rutkowski P, Nowecki ZI, Nasierowska-Guttmejer A, et al. Lymph node status and survival in cutaneous malignant melanoma-sentinel lymph node biopsy impact. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003;29:611–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Morton DL, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Sentinel-node biopsy or nodal observation in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1307–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Morton DL, Thompson JF, Essner R, et al. Validation of the accuracy of intraoperative lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for early-stage melanoma: a multicenter trial. Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial Group. Ann Surg 1999;230:453–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pu LL, Cruse CW, Wells KE, et al. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with melanoma of the lower extremity. Plastic Reconstr Surg 1999;104:964–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Morton DL, Cochran AJ, Thompson JF, et al. Sentinel node biopsy for early-stage melanoma accuracy and morbidity in MSLT-I, an international multicentre trial. Ann Surg 2005; 242(3):302–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bostick P, Essner R, Sarantou T, et al. Intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early-stage melanoma of the head and neck. Am J Surg 1997; 174:536–9

    Google Scholar 

  16. Losina E, Walensky RP, Geller A, et al. Visual Screening for malignant melanoma—a cost effectiveness analysis. Arch Dermatol 2007;143:21–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Freedberg KA, Geller AC, Miller DR, et al. Screening for malignant melanoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999;41:738–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hillner B, Kirkwood JM, Atkins M, et al. Economic analysis of adjuvant interferon alfa-2b in high-risk melanoma based on projections from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1684. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:2351–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lafuma A, Dreno B, Delaunay M, et al. Economic analysis of adjuvant therapy with interferon alpha-2a in stage II malignant melanoma. Eur J Cancer 2001;37:369–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wilson LS, Reyes CM, Lu C, et al. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of sentinel lymph node mapping and adjuvant interferon treatmetn for stage II melanoma. Melanoma Res 2002;12:607–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Brobeil A, Cruse CW, Messina JL, et al. Cost analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy as an alternative to elective lymph node dissection in patients with malignant melanoma. Surg Oncol Clin North Am 1999;8:435–45.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Agnese DM, Abdessalam SF, Burak WE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sentinel node biopsy in thin melanomas. Surgery 2003;134:542–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Briggs A, Sculpher M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;13:397–409.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee (version 4.1). In: Ageing DOHA, editor: Commonwealth of Australia; 2006

  25. Sabel MS, Griffith KA, Arora A, et al. Inguinal node dissection for melanoma in the era of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Surgery 2007;141:728–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lindner P, Doubrovsky A, Cam P. Prognostic factors after isolated limb infusion with cytotoxic agents for melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:127–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Balch CM, Buzaid AC, Soong S-J, et al. Final version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3635–48.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Australian Government. Life tables, Australia, 2003 to 2005. In: Statistics ABo, editor: Australian Government; 2006.

  29. Australian Government. Australian Refined Diagnostic Related Groups (AR-DRG). In: Ageing DoHa, editor: Commonwealth of Australia; 2006

  30. Australian Government. Medicare Benefits Schedule. In: Ageing DoHa, editor: Commonwealth of Australia; 2007

  31. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006

  32. Kilbridge KL, Weeks JC, Sober AJ, et al. Patient preferences for adjuvant interferon alfa-2b treatment. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:812–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mooney MM, Mettlin C, Michalek AM, et al. Life-long screening of patients with intermediate-thickness cutaneous melanoma for asymptomatic pulmonary recurrences. Cancer 1997;80:1052–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Chen SC, Bendeck SE, Hadley JC, et al. Can melanoma patients predict the quality of life impact of an alternate melanoma stage? 26th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making; Atlanta, GA, USA; 2004

  35. Hutton J, Brown R, Borowitz M. A new decision model for cost-utility comparisons of chemotherapy in recurrent metastatic breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 1996;9:8–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jani AB, Basu A, Heimann R, et al. Sentinel lymph node versus axillary lymph node dissection for early-stage breast carcinoma a comparison using a utility-adjusted number needed to treat analysis. Cancer 2003;97:359–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Torrance GW, et al. Utilities and QALYs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989;5:559–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. van den Hout WB, van der Linden YM, Steenland E, et al. Single- versus multiple-fraction radiotherapy in patients with painful bone metastases: cost–utility analysis based on a randomized trial. JNCI 2003; 95:222–9

    Google Scholar 

  39. de Vries M, Vonkeman WG, van Ginkel RJ, et al. Morbidity after axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31:778–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. de Vries M, Vonkeman WG, van Ginkel RJ, et al. Morbidity after inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy and completion lymph node dissection in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006;32:785–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Roaten JB, Pearlman N, Gonzalez R, et al. Identifying risk factors for complications following sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma. Arch Surg 2005;140:85–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Morton DL, Cochran AJ, Thompson JF. The rationale for sentinel-node biopsy in primary melanoma. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2008; 5(9):510–1

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ranieri JM, Wagner JD, Wenck S, et al. The prognostic importance of sentinel lymph node biopsy in thin melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:927–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hersko DD, Robb DW, Lowy AM, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in thin melanoma patients. J Surg Oncol 2006;93:279–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Morton DL, Thompson JF, Essner R, et al. Validation of the accuracy of intraoperative lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for early-stage melanoma: a multicenter trial. Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial Group. Ann Surg 1999;230:453–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Cochran AJ, Roberts A, Wen DR, et al. Update on lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy in the management of patients with melanocytic tumours. Pathology 2004;36:478–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Salkheld G, Solomon M. An economic perspective on evidence-based patient choice in surgery. Aust NZ J Surg 2003;73:427–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006

  49. Kruper LL, Spitz FR, Czerniecki BJ, et al. Predicting sentinel node status in AJCC stage I/II primary cutaneous melanoma. Cancer 2006;107(10):2436–45

    Google Scholar 

  50. Caracò C, Celentano E, Lastoria S, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy does not change melanoma-specific survival among patients with Breslow thickness greater than four millimeters. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11:198S–202S.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sassen S, Shaw HM, Colman MH, et al. The complex relationships between sentinel node positivity, patient age, and primary tumor desmoplasia: analysis of 2303 melanoma patients treated at a single center. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:630–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Paek SC, Griffith KA, Johnson TM, et al. The impact of factors beyond Breslow depth on predicting sentinel lymph node positivity in melanoma. Cancer 2006;109:100–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rousseau DL Jr, Ross MI, Johnson MM, et al. Revised American Joint Committee on Cancer staging criteria accurately predict sentinel lymph node positivity in clinically node negative melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:569–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sydney Melanoma Unit, Discipline of Surgery, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    R. L. Morton MScMed (Clin Epi) & J. F. Thompson MD

  2. School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building A27, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    R. L. Morton MScMed (Clin Epi) & K. Howard PhD

Authors
  1. R. L. Morton MScMed (Clin Epi)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Howard PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. F. Thompson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. L. Morton MScMed (Clin Epi).

Additional information

Contribution of authors.

R. L. Morton conceived and designed the study, undertook the economic modelling, analysed and interpreted the results and wrote the manuscript.

K. Howard contributed to the design and structure of the study, undertook the economic modelling, analysed and interpreted the results and revised the manuscript.

J. F. Thompson contributed to the conception of the study, the design and structure of the model, advised on the presentation of results, and revised the manuscript.

Findings from this report were presented at the 6th International Sentinel Node Society meeting in Sydney, February 2008.

Appendix 1: Search Strategy

Appendix 1: Search Strategy

Medline database, performed 21/6/07

1

Exp melanoma/

2

exp cost effect$/

3

CUA.tw

4

cost utility analysis.tw

5

time trade.tw

6

standard gamble.tw

7

TTO.tw

8

SG.tw

9

QALY.tw

10

HUI.tw

11

sf6$.tw

12

or/2–11

13

sentinel node.tw

14

lymph node.tw

15

or/13–14

16

1 and 12 and 15

EMBASE database “all years”, performed 21/6/07

1

cost effectiveness analysis

2

health utilities

3

QALY

4

or/1–3

5

Melanoma

6

sentinel node biopsy

7

or/5–6

8

4 and 7

PsychInfo database 1967–2007, performed 21/6/07

1

cancer.mp

2

cost effect$.tw

3

CUA.tw

4

cost utility analysis.tw

5

QALY.tw

6

time trade.tw

7

standard gamble.tw

8

TTO.tw

9

SG.tw

10

eq5d.tw

11

HUI.tw

12

sf6$.tw

13

or/2–11

14

Melano$.tw

15

1 and 13 and 14

CINAHL database, performed 21/6/07

1

exp melanoma/

2

cost effect$.tw

3

CUA.tw

4

cost utility analysis.tw

5

QALY.tw

6

time trade.tw

7

standard gamble.tw

8

TTO.tw

9

SG.tw

10

eq5d.tw

11

HUI.tw

12

sf6$.tw

13

or/2–12

14

1 and 13

International Pharmaceutical Abstracts 1980–June 2007, performed 21/6/07

1

exp melanoma/

2

cost effect$.tw

3

CUA.tw

4

cost utility analysis.tw

5

QALY.tw

6

time trade.tw

7

standard gamble.tw

8

TTO.tw

9

SG.tw

10

eq5d.tw

11

HUI.tw

12

sf6$.tw

13

or/2–12

14

1 and 13

  1. CEA Registry: Centre for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health. Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies. Tufts – New England Medical Centre. URL: http://www.tufts-nems.org/cearegistry/data/default.aspUH accessed on 19th June 2007.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morton, R.L., Howard, K. & Thompson, J.F. The Cost-Effectiveness of Sentinel Node Biopsy in Patients with Intermediate Thickness Primary Cutaneous Melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 16, 929–940 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-0164-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-0164-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation