Cost-utility analysis compares patient-led and standard follow-up in rectal cancer survivors, suggesting efficient resource use.
Purpose Rectal cancer survivors are at risk of late adverse effects that impair quality of life. This study evaluates the cost-utility of a patient-led follow-up programme introduced in the Danish FURCA randomised controlled trial (RCT), aimed at improving patient outcomes and optimising healthcare resource use compared to standard hospital-based follow-up. Methods The cost-utility analysis was performed from a societal perspective over a 3-year horizon, incorporating healthcare costs, prescription drug use, productivity losses, all derived from Danish register data, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from RCT-collected EQ-5D-5L data. Incremental cost-effectiveness was assessed using regression models and non-parametric bootstrapping, with subgroup and sensitivity analyses exploring heterogeneity in outcomes. Results A total of 336 patients were randomised to intervention and control groups. Over 3 years, mean healthcare costs were €40,208 for the intervention group and €41,190 for the control group (difference −€980; 95% CI −€7120 to €5159). Mean QALYs were 2.24 and 2.20, respectively (difference 0.028; 95% CI −0.106 to 0.163). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was −€35,048 per QALY gained, indicating dominance. Scatterplots of bootstrapped incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) revealed iterations in all four quadrants, reflecting substantial uncertainty in both costs and effects. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a €30,000 threshold was below 70%. Conclusions Patient-led follow-up resulted in comparable QALYs and costs relative to standard hospital-based follow-up. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a conventional willingness-to-pay threshold reached up to 70%. Implications for cancer survivors Patient-led models may enable tailored delivery of specialist care to patients with greatest need, alongside balanced resource utilisation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Risør et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: