TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of surgical intervention and stereotactic body radiation therapy for stage i lung cancer in high-risk patients
T2 - A decision analysis
AU - Puri, Varun
AU - Crabtree, Traves D.
AU - Kymes, Steven
AU - Gregory, Martin
AU - Bell, Jennifer
AU - Bradley, Jeffrey D.
AU - Robinson, Clifford
AU - Patterson, G. Alexander
AU - Kreisel, Daniel
AU - Krupnick, Alexander S.
AU - Meyers, Bryan F.
PY - 2012/2
Y1 - 2012/2
N2 - Objective: We sought to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of surgical intervention and stereotactic body radiation therapy in high risk patients with clinical stage I lung cancer (non-small cell lung cancer). Methods: We compared patients chosen for surgical intervention or SBRT for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Propensity score matching was used to adjust estimated treatment hazard ratios for the confounding effects of age, comorbidity index, and clinical stage. We assumed that Medicare-allowable charges were $15,034 for surgical intervention and $13,964 for stereotactic body radiation therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated as the cost per life year gained over the patient's remaining lifetime by using a decision model. Results: Fifty-seven patients in each arm were selected by means of propensity score matching. Median survival with surgical intervention was 4.1 years, and 4-year survival was 51.4%. With stereotactic body radiation therapy, median survival was 2.9 years, and 4-year survival was 30.1%. Cause-specific survival was identical between the 2 groups, and the difference in overall survival was not statistically significant. For decision modeling, stereotactic body radiation therapy was estimated to have a mean expected survival of 2.94 years at a cost of $14,153 and mean expected survival with surgical intervention was 3.39 years at a cost of $17,629, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7753. Conclusions: In our analysis stereotactic body radiation therapy appears to be less costly than surgical intervention in high-risk patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer. However, surgical intervention appears to meet the standards for cost-effectiveness because of a longer expected overall survival. Should this advantage not be confirmed in other studies, the cost-effectiveness decision would be likely to change. Prospective randomized studies are necessary to strengthen confidence in these results.
AB - Objective: We sought to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of surgical intervention and stereotactic body radiation therapy in high risk patients with clinical stage I lung cancer (non-small cell lung cancer). Methods: We compared patients chosen for surgical intervention or SBRT for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Propensity score matching was used to adjust estimated treatment hazard ratios for the confounding effects of age, comorbidity index, and clinical stage. We assumed that Medicare-allowable charges were $15,034 for surgical intervention and $13,964 for stereotactic body radiation therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated as the cost per life year gained over the patient's remaining lifetime by using a decision model. Results: Fifty-seven patients in each arm were selected by means of propensity score matching. Median survival with surgical intervention was 4.1 years, and 4-year survival was 51.4%. With stereotactic body radiation therapy, median survival was 2.9 years, and 4-year survival was 30.1%. Cause-specific survival was identical between the 2 groups, and the difference in overall survival was not statistically significant. For decision modeling, stereotactic body radiation therapy was estimated to have a mean expected survival of 2.94 years at a cost of $14,153 and mean expected survival with surgical intervention was 3.39 years at a cost of $17,629, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7753. Conclusions: In our analysis stereotactic body radiation therapy appears to be less costly than surgical intervention in high-risk patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer. However, surgical intervention appears to meet the standards for cost-effectiveness because of a longer expected overall survival. Should this advantage not be confirmed in other studies, the cost-effectiveness decision would be likely to change. Prospective randomized studies are necessary to strengthen confidence in these results.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855848597&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.10.078
DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.10.078
M3 - Article
C2 - 22169443
AN - SCOPUS:84855848597
SN - 0022-5223
VL - 143
SP - 428
EP - 436
JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
IS - 2
ER -