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

Appendix 3: Summary of the studies found in the literature review

Study

Comparison

Patient
group

Incremental
analysis

Measure of
effectiveness

Method

Effectiveness
(per patient)

Cost (per
patient)

Incremental cost
effectiveness

NICE guidelines
Surgery model
(2005) UK

a) Patients go straight to
thoracotomy

b) Patients have a
mediastinoscopy and then
receive either radical
radiotherapy (N2/N3) or
Thoractomy (N0/1)
c) Patients have a PET
scan and then receive
either active supportive
care (M1+) OR
Thoractomy (M0,N0/N1)
OR Radical radiotherapy
(M0, N2/N3)

Potential
operable
patients
with
normal
sized
lymph
nodes on
CT
considered
for surgery

Cost Utility

Quality adjusted
life year (QALYs)

Decision
Analysis

a) 2.846
QALYS
b) 2.864
QALYS
c) 2.883
QALYS

a) 6317.39

b) 7519.71

c) 6581.87

c) vs a)
£7,199/QALY
gained

b) dominated by
c)

NICE guidelines
Radiotherapy
model (2005)
UK

a) Patients go straight to
radical radiotherapy
b) Patients have a PET
scan and then receive
either ASC (M1) or
thoractomy (N0/1) or
radical radiotherapy (n2/3)

Patients
being
considered
for radical
radiology
(mainly
enlarged
nodes)

Cost Utility

Quality adjusted
life year (QALYs)

Decision
Analysis

b) vs a ) 4.3
QALYs

b) vs a)
40,936

b) vs a)
£9,489/QALY
gained