Article thumbnail

Economic Evaluation of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), CHERE Working Paper 2007/6

By Alex Bird, Richard Norman and Stephen Goodall

Abstract

Background: There are several perceived benefits from introducing positron emission tomography (PET) scanning into the staging of non small lung cancer (NSCLC). However, its greatest primary benefit is the role it can potential perform in reducing the number of unnecessary diagnostic examinations and futile surgeries. Objectives: To evaluate the economic impact and cost effectiveness of PET scanning in the management of potentially operable NSCLC patients using a cost-utility model. Methods: A literature review was conducted to find relevant studies and appropriate parameters to construct a decision model. Two strategies were compared. The first strategy was a conventional work up (CWU) consisting of an x-ray, a chest computer tomography (CT) scan and brochoscopy; the second strategy consisted of a CWU plus a whole body PET scan. These two strategies were applied to two sub-groups of NSCLC patients; those that had received a positive result on their CT scan and those that got a negative result on their CT scan. The cost-effectiveness of each strategy was dependent on a number of variables that were taken from a literature review. Costs were based on the Australian diagnostic related groups, a cost calculation for a chemotherapy course and values obtained from the literature. The life expectancy and utility scores were also taken from the literature and combined to create an incremental quality adjusted life year (QALY) value for PET for each of the patient groups. Results: The mean costs in CT negative and CT positive patients were lower in the CWU strategy, costing $A 20,427 and $A 23,578 per patient respectively compared to the PET strategy ($A 20,826 and $A 24,083 per patient respectively). The mean QALYs for both the CT positive and CT negative patients were higher in PET with 2.91 and 2.11 respectively compared to the CWU of 2.88 and 2.09. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the CT negative strategy was $A 14,581 and $A 52,039 for the CT positive strategy. Conclusion: The PET strategy in CT negative and CT positive patients appears to be cost effective, however, there is much uncertainty surrounding this base result, particularly in CT positive patients.PET, non-small-cell lung cancer, economic evaluation

OAI identifier:

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2004). Accuracy and cost-effectiveness of [18F]-2-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography scan in potentially resectable non-small cell lung cancer."
  2. (2001). An approach to demonstrating cost-effectiveness of diagnostic imaging modalities in Australia illustrated by positron emission tomography."
  3. (2004). Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of Lung Cancer. Australian Government; National Health and Research Council.
  4. (2005). Cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies introducing FDG-PET into the mediastinal staging of non-small-cell lung cancer from the French healthcare system perspective."
  5. (1998). Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for staging nonsmall cell lung cancer: a decision analysis."
  6. (2000). Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for the management of potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer: priority for a PET-based strategy after nodal-negative CT results."
  7. (2003). Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in staging non-small cell lung cancer: the PLUS study."
  8. (2004). Cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography for non-small cell lung carcinoma in Canada."
  9. (2005). Cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography for the management of potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer in Quebec"
  10. (2006). Decision analytic modelling for the evaluation of health technologies. O.U.P.,
  11. (2001). Decision making in Health and Medicine: Integrating evidence and values,
  12. (2001). Decision tree sensitivity analysis for costeffectiveness of FDG-PET in the staging and management of non-small-cell lung carcinoma."
  13. (2002). Decision-tree sensitivity analysis for costeffectiveness of whole-body FDG PET in the management of patients with non-small-cell lung carcinoma in Japan."
  14. (2002). Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial."
  15. (2002). Health Technology Board Scotland, “Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in cancer management”
  16. (2007). Is 18F FDG PET-CT cost effective in lung cancer?"
  17. (2005). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes; Third edition.
  18. (1999). Nuclear medicine procedures in lung cancer."
  19. (2005). of Health and Clinical Effectiveness, “The Diagnosis and treatment of Lung Cancer; Methods, Evidence and Guidance. National Collaboration Centre of Acute Care.
  20. (2007). PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer stagingpromises and problems."
  21. (2004). Requirements for clinical PET: comparisons within Europe.[see comment]."
  22. (2005). Should mediastinoscopy actually be incorporated into the FDG PET strategy for patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma?"
  23. (2002). Solitary pulmonary nodules: accuracy and costeffectiveness of sodium iodide FDG-PET using Australian data."
  24. (1992). The cost of treating small cell lung cancer."
  25. (2006). Traditional versus up-front [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: a Dutch cooperative randomized study."