Esnaola Nestor F, Lazarides Sophia N, Mentzer Steven J, Kuntz Karen M
Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jan 1;20(1):263-73. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.1.263.
To identify the optimal strategy for staging the mediastinum of patients with known non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), stratified by tumor (T) classification.
We used a decision-analytic model to compare the health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of three staging strategies: (1) chest computed tomography alone, (2) selective mediastinoscopy, and (3) routine mediastinoscopy. The overall effectiveness and cost of each strategy was a function of the proportion of patients accurately staged and the risks, benefits, and costs of the diagnostic tests and treatments used. Probability estimates and costs were derived from primary data and the literature. We adopted a societal perspective and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.
Both mediastinoscopy strategies correctly identified more patients with mediastinal involvement (N2/N3 disease) and assigned them to multimodal regimens. Routine mediastinoscopy maximized quality-adjusted life expectancy in all patients, irrespective of T classification, and this result was robust to varying the model estimates over their reported ranges. In T1 patients, selective mediastinoscopy cost $24,500 per QALY gained, compared with $78,800 per QALY gained for routine mediastinoscopy. In T2 and T3 patients, the ICER of routine mediastinoscopy was more favorable ($42,800 and $53,400 per QALY gained, respectively).
Routine mediastinoscopy maximizes quality-adjusted life expectancy in patients with known NSCLC, and its ICER compares favorably with other currently accepted medical technologies. The survival benefit and cost-effectiveness of this strategy are greater in patients with T2 and T3 tumors and are likely to improve with advances in multimodal therapy.
确定已知非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者纵隔分期的最佳策略,并按肿瘤(T)分类进行分层。
我们使用决策分析模型比较三种分期策略的健康结局和成本效益:(1)仅胸部计算机断层扫描,(2)选择性纵隔镜检查,(3)常规纵隔镜检查。每种策略的总体有效性和成本是准确分期患者比例以及所使用诊断测试和治疗的风险、益处和成本的函数。概率估计和成本来自原始数据和文献。我们采用社会视角,计算增量成本效益比(ICER),即每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本。
两种纵隔镜检查策略都能正确识别出更多有纵隔受累(N2/N3期疾病)的患者,并将他们分配到多模式治疗方案中。常规纵隔镜检查使所有患者的质量调整预期寿命最大化,无论T分类如何,并且在模型估计值在其报告范围内变化时,这一结果都是稳健的。在T1期患者中,选择性纵隔镜检查每获得一个QALY的成本为24,500美元,而常规纵隔镜检查每获得一个QALY的成本为78,800美元。在T2和T3期患者中,常规纵隔镜检查的ICER更有利(分别为每获得一个QALY 42,800美元和53,400美元)。
常规纵隔镜检查可使已知NSCLC患者的质量调整预期寿命最大化,其ICER与其他目前被接受的医疗技术相比具有优势。该策略在T2和T3期肿瘤患者中的生存获益和成本效益更大,并且随着多模式治疗的进展可能会进一步提高。