Stenehjem David D, Bellows Brandon K, Yager Kraig M, Jones Joshua, Kaldate Rajesh, Siebert Uwe, Brixner Diana I
Department of Pharmacotherapy, Pharmacotherapy Outcomes Research Center, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Hospitals & Clinics, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Department of Pharmacotherapy, Pharmacotherapy Outcomes Research Center, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA SelectHealth, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Oncologist. 2016 Feb;21(2):196-204. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0162. Epub 2015 Nov 27.
A prognostic test was developed to guide adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) decisions in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) adenocarcinomas. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-utility of the prognostic test to the current standard of care (SoC) in patients with early-stage NSCLC.
Lifetime costs (2014 U.S. dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of ACT treatment decisions were examined using a Markov microsimulation model from a U.S. third-party payer perspective. Cancer stage distribution and probability of receiving ACT with the SoC were based on data from an academic cancer center. The probability of receiving ACT with the prognostic test was estimated from a physician survey. Risk classification was based on the 5-year predicted NSCLC-related mortality. Treatment benefit with ACT was based on the prognostic score. Discounting at a 3% annual rate was applied to costs and QALYs. Deterministic one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined parameter uncertainty.
Lifetime costs and effectiveness were $137,403 and 5.45 QALYs with the prognostic test and $127,359 and 5.17 QALYs with the SoC. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the prognostic test versus the SoC was $35,867/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated the model was most sensitive to the utility of patients without recurrence after ACT and the ACT treatment benefit. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated the prognostic test was cost-effective in 65.5% of simulations at a willingness to pay of $50,000/QALY.
The study suggests using a prognostic test to guide ACT decisions in early-stage NSCLC is potentially cost-effective compared with using the SoC based on globally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.
Providing prognostic information to decision makers may help some patients with high-risk early stage non-small cell lung cancer receive appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy while avoiding the associated toxicities and costs in patients with low-risk disease. This study used an economic model to assess the effectiveness and costs associated with using a prognostic test to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions compared with the current standard of care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. When compared with current standard care, the prognostic test was potentially cost effective at commonly accepted thresholds in the U.S. This study can be used to help inform decision makers who are considering using prognostic tests.
已开发出一种预后测试,以指导早期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)腺癌的辅助化疗(ACT)决策。本研究的目的是比较该预后测试与早期NSCLC患者当前护理标准(SoC)的成本效益。
从美国第三方支付方的角度,使用马尔可夫微观模拟模型检查ACT治疗决策的终身成本(2014年美元)和有效性(质量调整生命年[QALYs])。癌症分期分布和接受SoC进行ACT治疗的概率基于一家学术癌症中心的数据。接受预后测试进行ACT治疗的概率通过医生调查估算。风险分类基于5年预测的NSCLC相关死亡率。ACT的治疗益处基于预后评分。成本和QALYs按每年3%的贴现率进行贴现。确定性单向和概率敏感性分析检查参数不确定性。
使用预后测试时,终身成本和有效性分别为137,403美元和5.45 QALYs,使用SoC时分别为127,359美元和5.17 QALYs。预后测试相对于SoC的增量成本效益比为每获得1 QALY 35,867美元。单向敏感性分析表明,该模型对ACT后无复发患者的效用和ACT治疗益处最为敏感。概率敏感性分析表明,在支付意愿为每QALY 50,000美元时,预后测试在65.5%的模拟中具有成本效益。
该研究表明,与基于全球公认支付意愿阈值使用SoC相比,使用预后测试指导早期NSCLC的ACT决策可能具有成本效益。
向决策者提供预后信息可能有助于一些高危早期非小细胞肺癌患者接受适当的辅助化疗,同时避免低风险疾病患者的相关毒性和成本。本研究使用经济模型评估了与使用预后测试指导辅助化疗决策相关的有效性和成本,并与非小细胞肺癌患者的当前护理标准进行了比较。与当前标准护理相比,在美国普遍接受的阈值下,预后测试可能具有成本效益。本研究可用于帮助为考虑使用预后测试的决策者提供信息。