부산대학교 도서관

Han-sang Baek,1 Chai-ho Jeong,2 Jeonghoon Ha,1 Ja-Seong Bae,3 Jeong-soo Kim,3 Dong-Jun Lim,1 Chul-Min Kim4 1Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 2Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Uijeongbu, Republic of Korea; 3Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 4Department of Family Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of KoreaCorrespondence: Dong-Jun LimDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of KoreaEmail ldj6026@catholic.ac.krChul-Min KimDepartment of Family Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of KoreaEmail musofm@catholic.ac.krAbstract: Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC) has indolent features and low mortality. Recently, active surveillance (AS) instead of early surgery (ES) has been introduced as one treatment option but economical preference has not been established. The study objective was to systemically review the literature relating to cost-effectiveness of AS compared to ES for PTMC. Keywords were selected through PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) tools. The search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Elsevier databases. Papers that had irrelevant titles were written in foreign languages, or had no original results were excluded. Out of the 62 papers extracted, five relevant to the subject matter of this study were identified. Three papers made their own decision models and proceeded with cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), but the remaining two simply compared costs rather than cost-effectiveness. In terms of cost-effectiveness, three papers preferred AS, one preferred ES, and one preferred neither. The major differences in the CEA might arise from variations in each country’s medical insurance system, the utility score systems, and decision models used. In subgroup analysis, two papers preferred AS to ES for patients at a younger age at diagnosis in terms of cost-effectiveness as well as tumor biological characteristics. Although AS has been generally more cost-effective than ES in previous publications, younger age at diagnosis could be one factor contributing to preference for ES. The CEA of prospective cohorts based on the decision model and utility score for thyroid cancer should be undertaken to confirm the cost-effectiveness of AS.Keywords: cost-effectiveness analysis, papillary thyroid cancer, quality of life, active surveillance, endocrine surgical procedures