Cost-utility of a prognostic test guiding adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

David D. Stenehjem, Brandon K. Bellows, Kraig M. Yager, Joshua Jones, Rajesh Kaldate, Uwe Siebert, Diana I. Brixner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background. A prognostic testwas 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. Materials and Methods. 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. Results. 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. Oneway 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. Conclusion. The study suggests using a prognostic test to guide ACT decisions in early-stageNSCLC is potentially costeffective compared with using the SoC based on globally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)196-204
Number of pages9
JournalOncologist
Volume21
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 27 2015

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Cost-effectiveness analysis
  • Cost-utility analysis
  • Economic analysis
  • Non-small cell lung cancer
  • Prognostic test

Cite this