Katarzyna Czarnecka-Kujawa1, Ursula Rochau2, Uwe Siebert3, Eshetu Atenafu4, Gail Darling5, Thomas Kenneth Waddell5, Andrew Pierre5, Marc De Perrot5, Marcelo Cypel5, Shaf Keshavjee5, Kazuhiro Yasufuku5. 1. Division of Thoracic Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: kasia.czarnecka@uhn.ca. 2. Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making, and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research, and Health Technology Assessment, University of Health Sciences, Medical Informatics, and Technology, Tirol, Austria. 3. Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making, and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research, and Health Technology Assessment, University of Health Sciences, Medical Informatics, and Technology, Tirol, Austria; Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria; Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; Center for Health Decision Science, Boston, Mass. 4. Biostatistics Department, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Division of Thoracic Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of various modes of mediastinal staging in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a single-payer health care system. METHODS: We performed a decision analysis to compare the health outcomes and costs of 4 mediastinal staging strategies: no invasive staging, endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), mediastinoscopy, and EBUS-TBNA followed by mediastinoscopy if EBUS-TBNA is negative. We determined incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) for all strategies and performed comprehensive deterministic sensitivity analyses using a willingness to pay threshold of $80,000/quality adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: Under the base-case scenario, the no invasive mediastinal staging strategy was least effective (QALY, 5.80) and least expensive ($11,863), followed by mediastinoscopy, EBUS-TBNA, and EBUS-TBNA followed by mediastinoscopy with 5.86, 5.87, and 5.88 QALYs, respectively. The ICER was ∼$26,000/QALY for EBUS-TBNA staging and ∼$1,400,000/QALY for EBUS-TBNA followed by mediastinoscopy. The mediastinoscopy strategy was dominated. Once pN2 exceeds 2.5%, EBUS-TBNA staging is cost-effective (∼$80,000/QALY). Once the pN2 reaches 57%, EBUS-TBNA followed by mediastinoscopy is cost-effective (ICER ∼$79,000/QALY). Once EBUS-TBNA sensitivity exceeds 25%, EBUS-TBNA staging is cost-effective (ICER ∼$79,000/QALY). Once pN2 exceeds 25%, confirmatory mediastinoscopy should be added, in cases of EBUS-TBNA sensitivity ≤ 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive mediastinal staging in NSCLC is unlikely to be cost-effective in clinical N0 patients if pN2 <2.5%. In patients with probability of mediastinal metastasis between 2.5% and 57% EBUS-TBNA is cost-effective as the only staging modality. Confirmatory mediastinoscopy should be considered in high-risk patients (pN2 > 57%) in case of negative EBUS-TBNA.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of various modes of mediastinal staging in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a single-payer health care system. METHODS: We performed a decision analysis to compare the health outcomes and costs of 4 mediastinal staging strategies: no invasive staging, endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), mediastinoscopy, and EBUS-TBNA followed by mediastinoscopy if EBUS-TBNA is negative. We determined incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) for all strategies and performed comprehensive deterministic sensitivity analyses using a willingness to pay threshold of $80,000/quality adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: Under the base-case scenario, the no invasive mediastinal staging strategy was least effective (QALY, 5.80) and least expensive ($11,863), followed by mediastinoscopy, EBUS-TBNA, and EBUS-TBNA followed by mediastinoscopy with 5.86, 5.87, and 5.88 QALYs, respectively. The ICER was ∼$26,000/QALY for EBUS-TBNA staging and ∼$1,400,000/QALY for EBUS-TBNA followed by mediastinoscopy. The mediastinoscopy strategy was dominated. Once pN2 exceeds 2.5%, EBUS-TBNA staging is cost-effective (∼$80,000/QALY). Once the pN2 reaches 57%, EBUS-TBNA followed by mediastinoscopy is cost-effective (ICER ∼$79,000/QALY). Once EBUS-TBNA sensitivity exceeds 25%, EBUS-TBNA staging is cost-effective (ICER ∼$79,000/QALY). Once pN2 exceeds 25%, confirmatory mediastinoscopy should be added, in cases of EBUS-TBNA sensitivity ≤ 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive mediastinal staging in NSCLC is unlikely to be cost-effective in clinical N0 patients if pN2 <2.5%. In patients with probability of mediastinal metastasis between 2.5% and 57% EBUS-TBNA is cost-effective as the only staging modality. Confirmatory mediastinoscopy should be considered in high-risk patients (pN2 > 57%) in case of negative EBUS-TBNA.
Authors: Lucas W Thornblade; Douglas E Wood; Michael S Mulligan; Alexander S Farivar; Michal Hubka; Kimberly E Costas; Bahirathan Krishnadasan; Farhood Farjah Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Gabriela Martinez-Zayas; Francisco A Almeida; Lonny Yarmus; Daniel Steinfort; Donald R Lazarus; Michael J Simoff; Timothy Saettele; Septimiu Murgu; Tarek Dammad; D Kevin Duong; Lakshmi Mudambi; Joshua J Filner; Sofia Molina; Carlos Aravena; Jeffrey Thiboutot; Asha Bonney; Adriana M Rueda; Labib G Debiane; D Kyle Hogarth; Harmeet Bedi; Mark Deffebach; Ala-Eddin S Sagar; Joseph Cicenia; Diana H Yu; Avi Cohen; Laura Frye; Horiana B Grosu; Thomas Gildea; David Feller-Kopman; Roberto F Casal; Michael Machuzak; Muhammad H Arain; Sonali Sethi; George A Eapen; Louis Lam; Carlos A Jimenez; Manuel Ribeiro; Laila Z Noor; Atul Mehta; Juhee Song; Humberto Choi; Junsheng Ma; Liang Li; David E Ost Journal: Chest Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 10.262
Authors: João Pedro Steinhauser Motta; Ricardo E Steffen; Caroliny Samary Lobato; Vanessa Souza Mendonça; José Roberto Lapa E Silva Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: João Pedro Steinhauser Motta; José Roberto Lapa E Silva; Caroliny Samary Lobato; Vanessa Souza Mendonça; Ricardo E Steffen Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Andrew Pattison; Luke Jeagal; Kazuhiro Yasufuku; Andrew Pierre; Laura Donahoe; Jonathan Yeung; Gail Darling; Marcelo Cypel; Marc De Perrot; Tom Waddell; Shaf Keshavjee; Kasia Czarnecka-Kujawa Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Benjamin D Ferguson; Gregory D Jones; Matthew Skovgard; Daniela Molena; James Huang; Matthew J Bott; Smita Sihag; Bernard J Park; Prasad S Adusumilli; Robert J Downey; James M Isbell; Valerie W Rusch; Manjit S Bains; David R Jones; Gaetano Rocco Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 5.102