International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2024
Cost-Utility Analysis of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Surgery for Patients With Stage I Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Japan.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Igarashi Ataru, Onishi Hiroshi, Shioyama Yoshiyuki, Matsumoto Yasuo, Takayama Kenji, Matsuo Yukinori, Yamashita Hideomi, Miyakawa Akifumi, Matsushita Haruo, Aoki Masahiko, Nihei Keiji, Kimura Tomoki, Koba Ritsuko, Lee David W, Ito Kaoru
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with operable stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is less invasive than surgery. However, differences in lifetime costs and patient outcomes remain unclear. In this study, a cost-utility analysis of SBRT compared with surgery for Japanese patients with operable stage I NSCLC was conducted.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: A partitioned survival model was constructed using each treatment arm's overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data. The data for the SBRT arm were extracted from the Japanese multicenter cohort study, which enrolled 678 medically operable patients with stage I NSCLC, and patient registry data were used for the surgery arm. The 5-year OS rate was 78.2% for SBRT and 74.8% for surgery from both studies. The 5-year PFS rate was 57.0% for SBRT and 63.4% for surgery. The quality of life values of PFS and progressive disease were obtained from domestic and overseas literature (PFS: 0.74, progressive disease: 0.65). The time horizon was set to 10 years. The expected costs and quality-adjusted life years for each treatment group were calculated. All costs are expressed in Japanese yen converted to US dollars (USD).
RESULTS: SBRT was the dominant strategy, reducing treatment costs by 4,443.8 USD and increasing quality-adjusted life years by 0.131 compared with surgery. According to probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of SBRT being dominant and cost-effective was 50.6% and 72.4%, respectively. Under the budget impact analysis, the total savings for the patients with stage I NSCLC in Japan was 6,252,870.0 USD (n = 1,407).
CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is a more cost-effective option than surgery in patients with medically operable stage I NSCLC in Japan. Large-scale epidemiologic studies that reflect the latest clinical realities, such as OS/PFS, will be needed to validate this study's robustness.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: A partitioned survival model was constructed using each treatment arm's overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data. The data for the SBRT arm were extracted from the Japanese multicenter cohort study, which enrolled 678 medically operable patients with stage I NSCLC, and patient registry data were used for the surgery arm. The 5-year OS rate was 78.2% for SBRT and 74.8% for surgery from both studies. The 5-year PFS rate was 57.0% for SBRT and 63.4% for surgery. The quality of life values of PFS and progressive disease were obtained from domestic and overseas literature (PFS: 0.74, progressive disease: 0.65). The time horizon was set to 10 years. The expected costs and quality-adjusted life years for each treatment group were calculated. All costs are expressed in Japanese yen converted to US dollars (USD).
RESULTS: SBRT was the dominant strategy, reducing treatment costs by 4,443.8 USD and increasing quality-adjusted life years by 0.131 compared with surgery. According to probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of SBRT being dominant and cost-effective was 50.6% and 72.4%, respectively. Under the budget impact analysis, the total savings for the patients with stage I NSCLC in Japan was 6,252,870.0 USD (n = 1,407).
CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is a more cost-effective option than surgery in patients with medically operable stage I NSCLC in Japan. Large-scale epidemiologic studies that reflect the latest clinical realities, such as OS/PFS, will be needed to validate this study's robustness.