Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

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

Contents:

Author Info

  • Alex Bird
  • Richard Norman

    ()
    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Stephen Goodall

    ()
    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

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.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/wp2007_6.pdf
File Function: First version, October 2007
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney in its series Working Papers with number 2007/6.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Oct 2007
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2007/6

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Level 4, 645 Harris Street, Ultimo, NSW 2007
Phone: +61 2 9514 9799
Fax: 61 2 9514 4730
Email:
Web page: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: PET; non-small-cell lung cancer; economic evaluation;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2007/6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Liz Chinchen).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.