Cost-effectiveness analysis of ovarian function preservation with GnRH agonist during chemotherapy in premenopausal women with early breast cancer

Is it economically worthwhile to use GnRH agonist (GnRHa) to prevent menopausal symptoms (MS) and protect fertility in premenopausal women with breast cancer (BC) during chemotherapy from the US perspective?It is cost-effective to administer GnRHa during chemotherapy in order to forefend MS in premenopausal patients with BC when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold is $50 000.00 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and to preserve fertility in young patients with BC who undergo oocyte cryopreservation (OC), or no OC, when the WTP thresholds per live birth are $71 333.33 and $61 920.00, respectively.Chemotherapy often results in premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) in premenopausal survivors of BC, causing MS and infertility. Administering GnRHa during chemotherapy has been recommended for ovarian function preservation by international guidelines.Two decision-analytic models were developed, respectively, for preventing MS and protecting fertility over a 5-year period, which compared the cost-effectiveness of two strategies: adding GnRHa during chemotherapy (GnRHa plus Chemo) or chemotherapy alone (Chemo).The participants were early premenopausal women with BC aged 18-49 years who were undergoing chemotherapy. Two decision tree models were constructed: one for MS prevention and one for fertility protection from the US perspective. All data were obtained from published literature and official websites. The models' primary outcomes included QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The robustness of the models was tested by sensitivity analyses.In the MS model, GnRHa plus Chemo resulted in an ICER of $17 900.85 per QALY compared with Chemo, which was greater than the WTP threshold of $50 000.00 per QALY; therefore, GnRHa plus Chemo was a cost-effective strategy for premenopausal women with BC in the USA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) results showed an 81.76% probability of cost-effectiveness in the strategy. In the fertility model, adding GnRHa for patients undergoing OC and those who were unable to undergo OC resulted in ICERs of $67 933.50 and $60 209.00 per live birth in the USA, respectively. PSA indicated that GnRHa plus Chemo was more likely to be cost-effective over Chemo when the WTP for an additional live birth exceed $71 333.33 in Context I (adding GnRHa to preserve fertility in young patients with BC after OC) and $61 920.00 in Context II (adding GnRHa to preserve fertility in young patients with BC who cannot accept OC).The indirect costs, such as disease-related mental impairment and non-medical costs (e.g. transportation cost) were not included. All data were derived from previously published literature and databases, which might yield some differences from the real world. In addition, the POI-induced MS with a lower prevalence and the specific strategy of chemotherapy were not considered in the MS model, and the 5-year time horizon for having a child might not be suitable for all patients in the fertility model.When considering the economic burden of cancer survivors, the results of this study provide an evidence-based reference for clinical decision-making, showing that it is worthwhile to employ GnRHa during chemotherapy to prevent MS and preserve fertility.This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province [2021J02038]; and the Startup Fund for Scientific Research, Fujian Medical University [2021QH1059]. All authors declare no conflict of interest.N/A.