Medico-economic impact of thoracoscopy versus thoracotomy in lung cancer: multicentre randomised controlled trial (Lungsco01)

• Published in: BMC health services research Vol. 23; no. 1; pp. 1 - 1004
• Main Authors: Soilly, Anne-Laure, Aho Glélé, Ludwig Serge, Bernard, Alain, Abou Hanna, Halim, Filaire, Marc, Magdaleinat, Pierre, Marty-Ané, Charles, Tronc, François, Grima, Renaud, Baste, Jean-Marc, Thomas, Pascal-Alexandre, Richard De Latour, Bertrand, Pforr, Arnaud, Pagès, Pierre-Benoît
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BioMed Central Ltd 18.09.2023; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Catheters; Comparative analysis; Cost analysis; Cost-utility analysis; Economic aspects; Economic impact; Health aspects; Hospitals; Length of stay; Lung cancer; Lung cancer surgery; Lung cancer, Non-small cell; Mortality; Ostomy; Patients; Production costs; Questionnaires; Ratios; Rehabilitation; Surgical outcomes; Thoracic surgery; Thoracoscopy; Thoracotomy; France
• ISSN: 1472-6963; 1472-6963
• DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09962-y

Abstract Background Lungsco01 is the first study assessing the real benefits and the medico-economic impact of video-thoracoscopy versus open thoracotomy for non-small cell lung cancer in the French context. Methods Two hundred and fifty nine adult patients from 10 French centres were randomised in this prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial, between July 29, 2016, and November 24, 2020. Survival from surgical intervention to day 30 and later was compared with the log-rank test. Total quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were calculated using the EQ-5D-3L®. For medico-economic analyses at 30 days and at 3 months after surgery, resources consumed were valorised (€ 2018) from a hospital perspective. First, since mortality was infrequent and not different between the two arms, cost-minimisation analyses were performed considering only the cost differential. Second, based on complete cases on QALYs, cost-utility analyses were performed taking into account cost and QALY differential. Acceptability curves and the 95% confidence intervals for the incremental ratios were then obtained using the non-parametric bootstrap method (10,000 replications). Sensitivity analyses were performed using multiple imputations with the chained equation method. Results The average cumulative costs of thoracotomy were lower than those of video-thoracoscopy at 30 days (€9,730 (SD = 3,597) vs. €11,290 (SD = 4,729)) and at 3 months (€9,863 (SD = 3,508) vs. €11,912 (SD = 5,159)). In the cost-utility analyses, the incremental cost-utility ratio was €19,162 per additional QALY gained at 30 days (€36,733 at 3 months). The acceptability curve revealed a 64% probability of efficiency at 30 days for video-thoracoscopy, at a widely-accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000 (34% at 3 months). Ratios increased after multiple imputations, implying a higher cost for video-thoracoscopy for an additional QALY gain (ratios: €26,015 at 30 days, €42,779 at 3 months). Conclusions Given our results, the economic efficiency of video-thoracoscopy at 30 days remains fragile at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000/QALY. The economic efficiency is not established beyond that time horizon. The acceptability curves given will allow decision-makers to judge the probability of efficiency of this technology at other willingness-to-pay thresholds. Trial registration NCT02502318.