Literature DB >> 30838382

Cost-utility analysis of minimally invasive surgery for lung cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

Morten Bendixen1, Christian Kronborg2, Ole Dan Jørgensen1, Claus Andersen3, Peter Bjørn Licht1,4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) was first introduced in the early 1990s. For decades, numerous non-randomized studies demonstrated advantages of VATS over thoracotomy with lower morbidity and shorter hospital stay, but only recently did a randomized trial document that VATS results in lower pain scores and better quality of life. Opposing arguments for VATS have always been increased costs and concerns about oncological adequacy. In this paper, we aim to investigate the cost-effectiveness of VATS.
METHODS: The study was designed as a cost-utility analysis of the first 12 months following surgery and was performed together with a clinical randomized controlled trial of VATS versus thoracotomy for lobectomy of stage 1 lung cancer during a 6-year period (2008-2014). All health-related expenses were retrieved from a national database (Statistics Denmark) including hospital readmissions, outpatient clinic visits, prescription medication costs, consultations with general practitioners, specialists, physiotherapists, psychologists and chiropractors.
RESULTS: One hundred and three VATS patients and 103 thoracotomy patients were randomized. Mean costs per patient operated by VATS were 103 108 Danish Kroner (Dkr) (€13 818) and 134 945 Dkr (€18 085) by thoracotomy, making the costs for VATS 31 837 Dkr (€4267) lower than thoracotomy (P < 0.001). The difference in quality-adjusted life years gained over 52 weeks of follow-up was 0.021 (P = 0.048, 95% confidence interval -0.04 to -0.00015) in favour of VATS. The median duration of the surgical procedure was shorter after thoracotomy (79 vs 100 min; P < 0.001). The mean length of hospitalization was shorter following VATS (4.8 vs 6.7 days; P = 0.027). The use of other resources was not significantly different between groups. The costs of resources were lower in the VATS group. This difference was primarily due to reduced costs of readmissions (VATS 29 247 Dkr vs thoracotomy 51 734 Dkr; P < 0.001) and costs of outpatient visits (VATS 51 412 Dkr vs thoracotomy 61 575 Dkr; P = 0.012).
CONCLUSIONS: VATS is a cost-effective alternative to thoracotomy following lobectomy for stage 1 lung cancer. Economical outcomes as measured by quality-adjusted life years were significantly better and overall costs were lower for VATS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01278888.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost–utility analysis; Lung cancer; Surgery; Thoracotomy; Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30838382     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezz064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  9 in total

1.  Defining the learning curve of robotic thoracic surgery: what does it take?

Authors:  Alexandra D Power; Desmond M D'Souza; Susan D Moffatt-Bruce; Robert E Merritt; Peter J Kneuertz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Comparative Effectiveness of Surgical Approaches for Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Adwaiy Manerikar; Melissa Querrey; Emily Cerier; Samuel Kim; David D Odell; Lorenzo L Pesce; Ankit Bharat
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 2.417

3.  Study protocol for VIdeo assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus conventional Open LobEcTomy for lung cancer, a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot (the VIOLET study).

Authors:  Eric Lim; Tim Batchelor; Michael Shackcloth; Joel Dunning; Niall McGonigle; Tim Brush; Lucy Dabner; Rosie Harris; Holly E Mckeon; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Daisy Elliott; Elizabeth A Stokes; Sarah Wordsworth; Jane Blazeby; Chris A Rogers
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-10-14       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Is video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy associated with higher overall costs compared with open surgery? Results of best evidence topic analysis.

Authors:  Alfonso Fiorelli; Stefano Forte; Francesco Paolo Caronia; Francesco Ferrigno; Mario Santini; René Horsleben Petersen; Wentao Fang
Journal:  Thorac Cancer       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 3.500

5.  External validation of five predictive models for postoperative cardiopulmonary morbidity in a Chinese population receiving lung resection.

Authors:  Guanghua Huang; Lei Liu; Luyi Wang; Zhile Wang; Zhaojian Wang; Shanqing Li
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  [Analysis on the Incidence and Economic Burden of Patients with Lung Cancer].

Authors:  Guo Tian; Li Bian; Xiaoli Xu; Shumei Li
Journal:  Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi       Date:  2022-03-20

7.  Video-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy with combined chest wall resection: A case report.

Authors:  Yoichi Ohtaki; Toshiki Yajima; Kai Obayashi; Seshiru Nakazawa; Hayato Ikota; Ken Shirabe
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2022-10-10       Impact factor: 1.522

8.  Factors influencing harmonized health data collection, sharing and linkage in Denmark and Switzerland: A systematic review.

Authors:  Lester Darryl Geneviève; Andrea Martani; Maria Christina Mallet; Tenzin Wangmo; Bernice Simone Elger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Community- and Choice-Based Health State Utility Values for Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Erik F Blom; Kevin Ten Haaf; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 4.981

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.