| Literature DB >> 27883069 |
Wen-Wen Yue1,2,3, Shu-Rong Wang, Xiao-Long Li1,2,3, Hui-Xiong Xu1,2,3, Feng Lu1,2,3, Li-Ping Sun1,2,3, Le-Hang Guo1,2,3, Ya-Ping He1,2,3, Dan Wang1,2,3, Zhi-Qiang Yin2,3,4.
Abstract
This study is to compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and open thyroidectomy (OT) for benign thyroid nodules (BTNs) treatment. HRQoL and utility were assessed for 404 BTN patients immediately before treatments (RFA:OT = 137:267) and at 6-month visit. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from societal perspective in the China context. Resource use (hospitalization, sick leaves) was collected. We used the net monetary benefit approach and computed cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for RFA and OT. Sensitivity analyses of costs of RFA were performed. At 6-month visit, patients treated with RFA had significantly better HRQoL than patients treated with OT on general health (68.5 versus 66.7, P = 0.029), vitality (71.3 versus 67.5, P < 0.001) and mental health (80.9 versus 79.3, P = 0.038). RFA was more effective than OT in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 0.01QALY/patient) but more expensive (US$823/patient). The probability that RFA would be cost effective at a US$50,000/QALY threshold was 15.5% in China, and it would be increased to 88.4% when price of the RFA device was lowered by 30%. RFA exhibited a significant improvement of HRQoL relative to OT, but is unlikely to be cost effective at its current price in short time.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27883069 PMCID: PMC5121639 DOI: 10.1038/srep37838
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Flow chart for the management of thyroid nodules in our hospital.
RFA group, patients treated with radiofrequency ablation; OT group, patients treated with open thyroidectomy.
Unit Cost and Sources.
| Resource | RFA group | Unit Cost (Y) | OT group | Unit Cost (Y) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medical nursing | Second grade nursing cost (per day) | 20 | Special nursing cost (per day) | 60 | Shanghai Pricing Bureau for Public Third-senior Hospital, May, 2016 |
| First grade nursing cost (per day) | 26 | ||||
| Second grade nursing cost (per day) | 20 | ||||
| Hospital Day | 24 hours hospital stay | 40 | 24 hours hospital stay | 40 | |
| <24 hours hospital stay | 20 | <24 hours hospital stay | 20 | ||
| Doctor visit | Radiological visit | 10 | Surgical visit | 10 | |
| Medical treatment procedure | RFA | 2200 | Thyroidectomy | 2093 | |
| Thyroid biopsy | 483 | General anesthesia | 800 | ||
| Local infiltration anesthesia | 8 | Nerve block anesthesia | 150 | ||
| Postanesthesia Nursing | 280 | ||||
| Examination and laboratory test expenses | Electronic laryngoscope | 150 | Electronic laryngoscope | 150 | |
| Ultrasound guidance | 30 | Intraoperative Ultrasound guidance | 40 | ||
| ECG | 20 | ECG | 20 | ||
| Chest X-ray | 70 | Chest X-ray | 70 | ||
| CEUS | 200 | Pathological examination | 200 | ||
| Thyroid function tests | 362 | Thyroid function tests | 362 | ||
| Calcium | 5 | Calcium | 5 | ||
| Coagulation function test (APTT, TT, D-Dimer, PT, plasma fibrinogen) | 125 | Coagulation function test (APTT, TT, D-Dimer, PT, plasma fibrinogen) | 125 | ||
| Anti-HIV | 60 | Anti-HIV | 60 | ||
| Anti-HCV | 100 | Anti-HCV | 100 | ||
| Treponema pallidum specific antibody | 60 | Treponema pallidum specific antibody | 60 | ||
| Hepatitis markers (HBsAg, HBsAb, HBeAg, HBeAb, HBcAb) | 130 | Hepatitis markers (HBsAg, HBsAb, HBeAg, HBeAb, HBcAb) | 130 | ||
| Complete blood count test | 20 | Hepatic and renal functions tests | 93 | ||
| Complete blood count test | 20 | ||||
| Drug | Levothyroxine (50 ng) | 0.31 | Propofol Injcetion (500 mg) | 237 | |
| Lidocaine hydrochloride (5 ml) | 0.4 | Ropivacaine hydrochloride (100 mg) | 31.9 | ||
| Sevoflurance (1 ml) | 8.03 | ||||
| Dexmedetomidine Hydrochloride Injection (200 ug) | 186 | ||||
| Hemocoagulase Injection (1ku) | 41.5 | ||||
| Cisatracurium Besilate for Injection (10 mg) | 101 | ||||
| Remifentanil (1 mg) | 104 | ||||
| Levothyroxine (50 ng) | 0.31 | ||||
| Penehyclidine Hydrochloride (1 mg) | 53.5 | ||||
| Instruments and Materials | PTC puncture needle | 95 | Ultrasonic scalpel | 1400 | |
| RFA instrument | 13600 | Highfrequency electrotome | 150 | ||
| Peripheral nerve stimulator | 240 | ||||
| Steel wire tube | 210 | ||||
| Negative pressure drainage bottle | 278 | ||||
| Medical adhesive (1.5 ml) | 560 | ||||
| SURG TAKE (250 ml) | 490 | ||||
| Disposable tracheal intubation instrument | 70 | ||||
| Indirect costs | Value of GDP Per Capita (per day) | 267 | Value of GDP Per Capita (per day) | 267 | National Bureau of Statistic for Shanghai, China, December, 2014 |
Note: Y1 = US$0.1505; RFA group, patients treated with radiofrequency ablation; OT group, patients treated with open thyroidectomy; ECG: electrocardiogram; CEUS: contrast-enhanced ultrasound; APTT: activated partial thromboplastin time; TT: thrombin time; D-Dimer, PT: thromboplastin time; GDP: Gross Domestic Product.
Figure 2Absolute standardized differences.
Absolute standardized differences comparing the baseline characteristics of patients with benign thyroid nodules treated with radiofrequency ablation or open thyroidectomy before and after propensity score matching.
Baseline characteristics of patients with benign thyroid nodules treated with radiofrequency ablation and open thyroidectomy before and after Propensity Score Matching.
| Characteristics | Before matching | After matching | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RFA n = 137 | OT n = 267 | RFA n = 108 | OT n = 108 | |||
| Age (y) | 48.3 ± 12.9 | 52.4 ± 12.7 | 0.003 | 50.8 ± 11.9 | 49.8 ± 13.6 | 0.532 |
| Sex | <0.001 | 0.775 | ||||
| Male | 38(27.7) | 129(48.3) | 36(33.3) | 39(36.1) | ||
| Female | 99(72.3) | 138(51.7) | 72(66.7) | 69(63.9) | ||
| Ethnic group | 0.862 | 0.701 | ||||
| Han-Chinese | 133(97.1) | 260(97.4) | 105(97.2) | 104(96.3) | ||
| Other | 4(2.9) | 7(2.6) | 3(2.8) | 4(3.7) | ||
| SF-36 dimension scores | ||||||
| PF | 87.8 ± 11.2 | 86.9 ± 13.8 | 0.510 | 87.5 ± 10.8 | 87.1 ± 13.2 | 0.778 |
| RP | 91.8 ± 12.9 | 91.2 ± 10.6 | 0.690 | 91.7 ± 12.8 | 90.3 ± 10.2 | 0.469 |
| BP | 92.2 ± 13.2 | 94.4 ± 10.9 | 0.085 | 92.9 ± 12.8 | 94.1 ± 11.1 | 0.480 |
| GH | 65.8 ± 15.5 | 64.5 ± 16.4 | 0.036 | 65.3 ± 15.6 | 64.9 ± 16.2 | 0.647 |
| VT | 69.2 ± 15.2 | 69.1 ± 17.4 | 0.913 | 69.4 ± 15.3 | 69.1 ± 17.4 | 0.792 |
| SF | 93.2 ± 17.6 | 91.9 ± 17.4 | 0.102 | 92.5 ± 17.8 | 92.5 ± 16.7 | 0.945 |
| RE | 92.7 ± 14.9 | 88.9 ± 18.2 | 0.035 | 91.7 ± 15.8 | 91.0 ± 15.5 | 0.773 |
| MH | 75.7 ± 16.1 | 74.1 ± 16.8 | 0.017 | 75.3 ± 16.3 | 76.0 ± 15.7 | 0.394 |
| Smoke | 0.929 | 1.000 | ||||
| Yes | 37(27) | 71(26.6) | 28(25.9) | 28(25.9) | ||
| No | 100(73) | 196(73.4) | 80(74.1) | 80(74.1) | ||
| Drink | 0.890 | 0.785 | ||||
| Yes | 57(41.6) | 113(42.3) | 48(44.4) | 50(46.3) | ||
| No | 80(58.4) | 154(57.7) | 60(55.6) | 58(53.7) | ||
| Chronic diseases | 0.976 | 0.884 | ||||
| Yes | 47(34.3) | 92(34.5) | 35(32.4) | 34(31.5) | ||
| No | 90(65.7) | 175(65.5) | 73(67.6) | 74(68.5) | ||
| Marital status | 0.197 | 0.984 | ||||
| Unmarried | 12(8.8) | 15(5.6) | 7(6.5) | 8(7.4) | ||
| Married | 118(86.1) | 224(83.9) | 94(87) | 94(87) | ||
| Widowed | 6(4.4) | 26(9.7) | 6(5.6) | 5(4.6) | ||
| Divorced | 1(0.7) | 2(0.7) | 1(0.9) | 1(0.9) | ||
| Other | 0(0) | 0(0) | 0(0) | 0(0) | ||
| Monthly income (Y) | 0.337 | 0.757 | ||||
| <3000 | 23(16.8) | 36(13.5) | 14(13) | 13(12) | ||
| 3000–7999 | 69(50.4) | 152(56.9) | 55(50.9) | 58(53.7) | ||
| >8000 | 34(24.8) | 67(25.1) | 29(26.9) | 31(28.7) | ||
| data privacy | 11(8) | 12(4.5) | 10(9.3) | 6(5.6) | ||
| Education lever | 0.147 | 0.441 | ||||
| Primary education and lower | 9(6.6) | 29(10.9) | 9(8.3) | 9(8.3) | ||
| Secondary/high education | 62(45.3) | 133(49.8) | 56(51.9) | 47(43.5) | ||
| University education and higher | 66(48.2) | 105(39.3) | 43(39.8) | 52(48.1) | ||
| Current job | 0.004 | 0.900 | ||||
| Manual worker | 20(14.6) | 17(6.4) | 11(10.2) | 11(10.2) | ||
| Office worker | 55(40.1) | 85(31.8) | 39(36.1) | 44(40.7) | ||
| Retire | 50(36.5) | 128(47.9) | 46(42.6) | 43(39.8) | ||
| Other | 12(8.8) | 37(13.9) | 12(11.1) | 10(9.3) | ||
| Nodule volume (ml) | 5.7(3.9–9.1) | 5.2(1.4–11.2) | 0.026 | 5.6(3.9–8.7) | 5.3(2.2–10.4) | 0.104 |
Note: RFA group, patients treated with radiofrequency ablation; OT group, patients treated with open thyroidectomy; Except for nodule volume and P values, data are reported as No. (%) or mean ± standard deviations.
aData are with skewed distribution and are reported as median with the inter-quartile range in parentheses and analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test; SF-36, Short Form-36, PF = Physical Functioning, RP = Role-Physical, BP = Bodily Pain, GH = General Health, VT = Vitality, SF = Social Functioning, RE = Role-Emotional, MH = Mental Health.
Figure 3Graph shows the SF-36 dimension scores of the propensity score matched patients treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or open thyroidectomy (OT) at 6 months follow up, together with those for the general population sample13.
*P < 0.05,***P < 0.001.
Descriptive results obtained with the EuroQoL-5D-3L at baseline by methods of radiofrequency ablation and open thyroidectomy.
| Dimension and Level | RFA n = 137 | OT n = 267 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mobility | 0.09 | ||
| No problems (1) | 108(78.8) | 229(85.5) | |
| Some problems (2) | 29(21.2) | 38(14.2) | |
| Confined to bed (3) | 0(0) | 0(0) | |
| Self-care | 0.095 | ||
| No problems (1) | 131(95.6) | 263(98.5) | |
| Some problems (2) | 6 (4.4) | 4(1.5) | |
| Unable to (3) | 0(0) | 0(0) | |
| Usual activities | 0.042 | ||
| No problems (1) | 110(80.3) | 188(70.4) | |
| Some problems (2) | 27(19.7) | 79(29.6) | |
| Extreme (3) | 0(0) | 0(0) | |
| Pain discomfort | 0.054 | ||
| None (1) | 86(62.8) | 193(72.3) | |
| Moderate (2) | 51(37.2) | 74(27.7) | |
| Extreme (3) | 0(0) | 0(0) | |
| Anxiety/depression | 0.004 | ||
| None (1) | 85(62) | 119(44.6) | |
| Moderate (2) | 50(36.5) | 144(53.9) | |
| Extreme (3) | 2(1.5) | 4(1.5) | |
| Patients in perfect health state (all levels = 1) | 40(29.2) | 61(22.8) | |
| Utility score | 0.830 ± 0.093 | 0.826 ± 0.085 |
Note: RFA group, patients treated with radiofrequency ablation; OT group, patients treated with open thyroidectomy. Except for Utility score and P values, data are reported as No. (%).
QALYS and Costs of patients with benign thyroid nodules treated with radiofrequency ablation and open thyroidectomy.
| QALY and Cost | RFA Group | OT Group |
|---|---|---|
| QALYs | 0.425 (0.418 to 0.432) | 0.415 (0.411 to 0.420) |
| Direct cost (Y) | 18209 (18136 to 18275) | 12439 (12370 to 12505) |
| Indirect cost (Y) | 451 (512 to 484) | 746 (681 to 819) |
| Total cost (direct + indirect) (Y) | 18660 (18577 to 19739) | 13185 (13081 to 13281) |
Note: QALY, quality adjusted life year. RFA group, patients treated with radiofrequency ablation; OT group, patients treated with open thyroidectomy; Data are reported as mean (95% CI); The 95% CIs are based on the bootstrap analyses; Costs are expressed in :Y1 = US$0.1505.
Figure 4Acceptability curves of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) compared with open thyroidectomy (OT).
Cost effectiveness acceptability curve using the net–monetary benefit approach (10,000 bootstrap replications) represents the probability (y-axis) that RFA is more cost effective compared with OT at the range of willingness-to-pay thresholds (US$ per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) on the x-axis. The curve is generated by repeating the procedure for various thresholds, with the threshold on x-axis and the probability of RFA to be cost effective on y-axis. Acceptability curves are presented here taking into account direct costs only or total (direct and indirect) costs.