BACKGROUND: This study compares the health care costs and effectiveness of multiple staging options for patients with esophageal cancer. Techniques studied included computed tomographic (CT) scan, endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA), positron emission tomography (PET), thoracoscopy/laparoscopy, and combinations of these. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was constructed to compare different staging strategies. Costs were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked databases and from other Medicare reimbursement rates. Life expectancies were obtained from the 1973-1996 SEER database and adjusted for quality of life. Cost and effectiveness measures were discounted at 0% and 3% per year. Sensitivity and specificity measures were obtained from the published literature and a parallel prospective clinical trial, and all key variables were subjected to sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Under baseline assumptions, CT + EUS-FNA was the most inexpensive strategy and offered more quality-adjusted life-years, on average, than all other strategies with the exception of PET + EUS-FNA. The latter was slightly more effective but also more expensive. The marginal cost-effectiveness ratio for PET + EUS-FNA was $60,544 per quality-adjusted life-year. These findings were robust and changed very little in all of the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of PET + EUS-FNA should be the recommended staging procedure for patients with esophageal cancer, unless resources are scarce or PET is unavailable. In these instances, CT + EUS-FNA can be considered the preferred strategy.
BACKGROUND: This study compares the health care costs and effectiveness of multiple staging options for patients with esophageal cancer. Techniques studied included computed tomographic (CT) scan, endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA), positron emission tomography (PET), thoracoscopy/laparoscopy, and combinations of these. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was constructed to compare different staging strategies. Costs were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked databases and from other Medicare reimbursement rates. Life expectancies were obtained from the 1973-1996 SEER database and adjusted for quality of life. Cost and effectiveness measures were discounted at 0% and 3% per year. Sensitivity and specificity measures were obtained from the published literature and a parallel prospective clinical trial, and all key variables were subjected to sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Under baseline assumptions, CT + EUS-FNA was the most inexpensive strategy and offered more quality-adjusted life-years, on average, than all other strategies with the exception of PET + EUS-FNA. The latter was slightly more effective but also more expensive. The marginal cost-effectiveness ratio for PET + EUS-FNA was $60,544 per quality-adjusted life-year. These findings were robust and changed very little in all of the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of PET + EUS-FNA should be the recommended staging procedure for patients with esophageal cancer, unless resources are scarce or PET is unavailable. In these instances, CT + EUS-FNA can be considered the preferred strategy.
Authors: Val J Lowe; Fargol Booya; J G Fletcher; Mark Nathan; Eric Jensen; Brian Mullan; Eric Rohren; Maurits J Wiersema; Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros; Joseph A Murray; Mark S Allen; Michael J Levy; Jonathan E Clain Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.488