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



Table 14: Two way sensitivity analysis of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in CT positive
patients

Chemotherapy Costs

Radiotherapy costs

4000

6000

8000

9784

10000

12000

14000

6000

79436.1

87582.1

95728.1

102994.3

103874.0

112020.0

120166.0

8000

66571.8

74717.7

82863.7

90129.9

91009.7

99155.6

107301.6

10000

53707.4

61853.3

69999.3

77265.5

78145.3

86291.3

94437.2

12000

40843.0

48989.0

57134.9

64401.1

65280.9

73426.9

81572.8

13922

28480.3

36626.3

44772.3

52038.5

52918.2

61064.2

69210.2

14000

27978.6

36124.6

44270.6

51536.8

52416.5

60562.5

68708.5

16000

15114.2

23260.2

31406.2

38672.4

39552.1

47698.1

55844.1

18000

2249.90

10395.8

18541.8

25808.0

26687.8

34833.7

42979.7

20000

-10614.4

-2468.5

5677.4

12943.6

13823.4

21969.4

30115.3

In the CT positive results we see that as the chemotherapy cost increase the ICER starts
to increase, however when the radiotherapy cost increase the ICER start to fall and eventually
PET comes to dominates the CWU strategy. A possible explanation of the difference between
the results of the CT positive and CT negative patients is the different distribution of the
underlying disease. The chemotherapy costs raise in both N2/3 and M1 and so the ICER
increases as chemotherapy costs increase. But, because there are nearly 1.3 more futile
radiotherapies in the CWU strategy compared to only 0.075 in the PET strategy; we see that at
low prices for radiotherapy this means that PET is the far more expensive strategy, but as
radiotherapy costs start to increase then so do the total costs for the CWU strategy reducing the
difference in costs between the two strategies making PET strategy more cost effective.

Testing the NICE distribution

The NICE paper used a different underlying distribution of lung cancer and, although,
their distribution improved on some of the assumptions made in previous model it was felt that
it may have had a rate of metastasis that was too high for N0/1 patients and that overall the
number of N2/3 patients was too low. Therefore, their distribution was not used as the base
case. Although it did have the added benefit in suggesting that the rate of metastasis would not
be the same for both N0/1 and N2/3 patients so it was decided to test the distribution.

Table 15: The NICE distribution

Cost $A

Incremental
Change

QALYS

Incremental
Change

ICER

NICE distribution of lung cancer patients___________________________________________________

CT negative PET

CT negative CWU

1361521.06

1391567.23

30,046

215.64808

215.42801       -0.22 DOMINATED

NICE distribution of lung cancer patients______________________________________________

CT positive PET

598912.2

_______________70.25457_____________

CT positive CWU

671965.1

73053

73.24

________2.98

24484.222

It was found that for CT negative patients the PET strategy dominated the CWU
strategy this was also what was found in the NICE model with sending all patients to

24



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. THE INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK FOR U.S. TOBACCO
3. The role of statin drugs in combating cardiovascular diseases
4. WP RR 17 - Industrial relations in the transport sector in the Netherlands
5. The name is absent
6. Washington Irving and the Knickerbocker Group
7. Improving Business Cycle Forecasts’ Accuracy - What Can We Learn from Past Errors?
8. The name is absent
9. Opciones de política económica en el Perú 2011-2015
10. The name is absent