Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing conventional versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for surgically ineligible stage I non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION

In 25% to 35% of patients with early stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), surgery is not feasible, and external-beam radiation becomes their standard treatment. Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) is the traditional radiation treatment standard; however, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is increasingly being adopted as an alternate radiation treatment. Our objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing SBRT with CFRT for stage I NSCLC in a public payer system.

METHODS

Consecutive patients were reviewed using 2010 Canadian dollars for direct medical costs from a public payer perspective. A subset of direct radiation treatment delivery costs, excluding physician billings and hospitalization, was also included. Health outcomes as life-years gained (LYGs) were computed using time-to-event methods. Sensitivity analyses identified critical factors influencing costs and benefits.

RESULTS

From January 2002 to June 2010, 168 patients (CFRT, n = 50; SBRT, n = 118) were included; median follow-up was 24 months. Mean overall survival was 2.83 years (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.1) for CFRT and 3.86 years (95% CI, 3.2 to not reached) for SBRT (P = .06). Mean costs for CFRT were $6,886 overall and $5,989 for radiation treatment delivery only versus $8,042 and $6,962, respectively, for SBRT. Incremental costs (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) per LYG for SBRT versus CFRT were $1,120 for the public payer and $942 for radiation treatment alone. Varying survival and labor costs individually (± 20%) created the largest changes in the ICER, and simultaneous adjustment (± 5% to ± 30%) confirmed cost effectiveness of SBRT.

CONCLUSION

Using a threshold of $50,000 per LYG, SBRT seems cost effective. Results require confirmation with randomized data.