PURPOSE:Positron emission tomography (PET)/CT has become a widely used technology for preoperative staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have established its efficacy over conventional staging, but no studies have assessed its cost-effectiveness. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of PET/CT as an adjunct to conventional workup for preoperative staging of NSCLC. METHODS: The study was conducted alongside an RCT in which 189 patients were allocated to conventional staging (n = 91) orconventional staging + PET/CT (n = 98) and followed for 1 year after which the numbers of futile thoracotomies in each group were monitored. A full health care sector perspective was adapted for costing resource use. The outcome parameter was defined as the number needed to treat (NNT)-here number of PET/CT scans needed-to avoid one futile thoracotomy. All monetary estimates were inflated to 2010 <euro>. RESULTS: The incremental cost of the PET/CT-based regimen was estimated at 3,927 <euro> [95% confidence interval (CI) -3,331; 10,586] and the NNT at 4.92 (95% CI 3.00; 13.62). These resulted in an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 19,314 <euro>, which would be cost-effective at a probability of 0.90 given a willingness to pay of 50,000 <euro> per avoided futile thoracotomy. When costs of comorbidity-related hospital services were excluded, the PET/CT regimen appeared dominant. CONCLUSION: Applying a full health care sector perspective, the cost-effectiveness of PET/CT for staging NSCLC seems to depend on the willingness to pay in order to avoid a futile thoracotomy. However, given that four outliers in terms of extreme comorbidity were all randomized to the PET/CT arm, there is uncertainty about the conclusion. When hospital costs of comorbidity were excluded, the PET/CT regimen was found to be both more accurate and cost saving.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET)/CT has become a widely used technology for preoperative staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have established its efficacy over conventional staging, but no studies have assessed its cost-effectiveness. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of PET/CT as an adjunct to conventional workup for preoperative staging of NSCLC. METHODS: The study was conducted alongside an RCT in which 189 patients were allocated to conventional staging (n = 91) or conventional staging + PET/CT (n = 98) and followed for 1 year after which the numbers of futile thoracotomies in each group were monitored. A full health care sector perspective was adapted for costing resource use. The outcome parameter was defined as the number needed to treat (NNT)-here number of PET/CT scans needed-to avoid one futile thoracotomy. All monetary estimates were inflated to 2010 <euro>. RESULTS: The incremental cost of the PET/CT-based regimen was estimated at 3,927 <euro> [95% confidence interval (CI) -3,331; 10,586] and the NNT at 4.92 (95% CI 3.00; 13.62). These resulted in an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 19,314 <euro>, which would be cost-effective at a probability of 0.90 given a willingness to pay of 50,000 <euro> per avoided futile thoracotomy. When costs of comorbidity-related hospital services were excluded, the PET/CT regimen appeared dominant. CONCLUSION: Applying a full health care sector perspective, the cost-effectiveness of PET/CT for staging NSCLC seems to depend on the willingness to pay in order to avoid a futile thoracotomy. However, given that four outliers in terms of extreme comorbidity were all randomized to the PET/CT arm, there is uncertainty about the conclusion. When hospital costs of comorbidity were excluded, the PET/CT regimen was found to be both more accurate and cost saving.
Authors: Anke M Hövels; Roel A M Heesakkers; Eddy M M Adang; Jelle O Barentsz; Gerrit J Jager; Johan L Severens Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Paul Verboom; Harm van Tinteren; Otto S Hoekstra; Egbert F Smit; Jan H A M van den Bergh; Ad J M Schreurs; Roland A L M Stallaert; Piet C M van Velthoven; Emile F I Comans; Fred W Diepenhorst; Johan C van Mourik; Pieter E Postmus; Maarten Boers; Els W M Grijseels; Gerrit J J Teule; Carin A Uyl-de Groot Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-05-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andreas K Buck; Gisela Halter; Holger Schirrmeister; Jörg Kotzerke; Imke Wurziger; Gerhard Glatting; Torsten Mattfeldt; Bernd Neumaier; Sven N Reske; Martin Hetzel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Donna E Maziak; Gail E Darling; Richard I Inculet; Karen Y Gulenchyn; Albert A Driedger; Yee C Ung; John D Miller; Chu-Shu Gu; Kathryn J Cline; William K Evans; Mark N Levine Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Michael MacManus; Sarah Everitt; Tanja Schimek-Jasch; X Allen Li; Ursula Nestle; Feng-Ming Spring Kong Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2017-12
Authors: Barbara Malene Fischer; Barry A Siegel; Wolfgang A Weber; Konrade von Bremen; Thomas Beyer; Antonis Kalemis Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Carl von Gall; Piotr Maniawski; Fred Verzijlbergen; Ignasi Carrio; Thomas Beyer; Antonis Kalemis Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 9.236