Cost effectiveness of endosonography versus surgical staging in potentially resectable lung cancer: a health economics analysis of the ASTER trial from a European perspective.
Accepted version
Peer-reviewed
Repository URI
Repository DOI
No Thumbnail Available
Type
Article
Change log
Authors
Rintoul, Robert C
Glover, Matthew J
Jackson, Christopher https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6656-8913
Hughes, Victoria
Tournoy, Kurt G
Abstract
In the ASTER study, mediastinal staging was more accurate for patients randomised to combined endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound, followed by surgical staging if endoscopy was negative, versus surgical staging alone. Here, we report survival, quality of life and cost effectiveness up to 6 months, for the UK, The Netherlands and Belgium, separately. Survival in the two arms of the study was similar. In all three countries, the endosonography strategy had slightly higher quality-adjusted life years over 6 months, and was cheaper. Therefore, based on clinical accuracy and cost effectiveness, we conclude that mediastinal staging should commence with endosonography.
Description
Keywords
Bronchoscopy, Health Economist, Lung Cancer, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Thoracic Surgery, Bayes Theorem, Belgium, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Endosonography, Female, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Lymphatic Metastasis, Male, Neoplasm Staging, Netherlands, Pneumonectomy, Positron-Emission Tomography, Postoperative Complications, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Sensitivity and Specificity, Survival Rate, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, United Kingdom
Journal Title
Thorax
Conference Name
Journal ISSN
0040-6376
1468-3296
1468-3296
Volume Title
69
Publisher
BMJ