Division of Thoracic Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making, and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research, and Health Technology Assessment, University of Health Sciences, Medical Informatics, and Technology, Tirol, Austria.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017 Jun;153(6):1567-1578. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.12.048. Epub 2017 Feb 9.
To assess the cost-effectiveness of various modes of mediastinal staging in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a single-payer health care system.
We performed a decision analysis to compare the health outcomes and costs of 4 mediastinal staging strategies: no invasive staging, endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), mediastinoscopy, and EBUS-TBNA followed by mediastinoscopy if EBUS-TBNA is negative. We determined incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) for all strategies and performed comprehensive deterministic sensitivity analyses using a willingness to pay threshold of $80,000/quality adjusted life year (QALY).
Under the base-case scenario, the no invasive mediastinal staging strategy was least effective (QALY, 5.80) and least expensive ($11,863), followed by mediastinoscopy, EBUS-TBNA, and EBUS-TBNA followed by mediastinoscopy with 5.86, 5.87, and 5.88 QALYs, respectively. The ICER was ∼$26,000/QALY for EBUS-TBNA staging and ∼$1,400,000/QALY for EBUS-TBNA followed by mediastinoscopy. The mediastinoscopy strategy was dominated. Once pN2 exceeds 2.5%, EBUS-TBNA staging is cost-effective (∼$80,000/QALY). Once the pN2 reaches 57%, EBUS-TBNA followed by mediastinoscopy is cost-effective (ICER ∼$79,000/QALY). Once EBUS-TBNA sensitivity exceeds 25%, EBUS-TBNA staging is cost-effective (ICER ∼$79,000/QALY). Once pN2 exceeds 25%, confirmatory mediastinoscopy should be added, in cases of EBUS-TBNA sensitivity ≤ 60%.
Invasive mediastinal staging in NSCLC is unlikely to be cost-effective in clinical N0 patients if pN2 <2.5%. In patients with probability of mediastinal metastasis between 2.5% and 57% EBUS-TBNA is cost-effective as the only staging modality. Confirmatory mediastinoscopy should be considered in high-risk patients (pN2 > 57%) in case of negative EBUS-TBNA.
在单一支付者医疗保健系统中,评估非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)纵隔分期的各种模式的成本效益。
我们进行了决策分析,以比较 4 种纵隔分期策略的健康结果和成本:无侵袭性分期、支气管内超声引导经支气管针吸活检(EBUS-TBNA)、纵隔镜检查以及如果 EBUS-TBNA 为阴性则进行 EBUS-TBNA 后纵隔镜检查。我们为所有策略确定了增量成本效益比(ICER),并使用愿意支付的 80,000 美元/QALY 的阈值进行了全面的确定性敏感性分析。
在基本情况下,无侵袭性纵隔分期策略效果最差(QALY 为 5.80),成本最低($11,863),其次是纵隔镜检查、EBUS-TBNA 和 EBUS-TBNA 后纵隔镜检查,分别为 5.86、5.87 和 5.88 QALY。EBUS-TBNA 分期的 ICER 约为$26,000/QALY,EBUS-TBNA 后纵隔镜检查的 ICER 约为$1,400,000/QALY。纵隔镜检查策略处于主导地位。一旦 pN2 超过 2.5%,EBUS-TBNA 分期具有成本效益(约$80,000/QALY)。一旦 pN2 达到 57%,EBUS-TBNA 后纵隔镜检查具有成本效益(ICER 约为$79,000/QALY)。一旦 EBUS-TBNA 敏感性超过 25%,EBUS-TBNA 分期具有成本效益(ICER 约为$79,000/QALY)。一旦 pN2 超过 25%,在 EBUS-TBNA 敏感性≤60%的情况下,应添加确认性纵隔镜检查。
如果 pN2<2.5%,在临床 N0 患者中,侵袭性纵隔分期不太可能具有成本效益。对于纵隔转移概率在 2.5%和 57%之间的患者,EBUS-TBNA 作为唯一的分期方式具有成本效益。如果 EBUS-TBNA 为阴性,应考虑在高危患者(pN2>57%)中进行确认性纵隔镜检查。