Catalog and comparison of societal preferences (utilities) for lung cancer health states: results from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study

Cost-effectiveness of volume computed tomography in lung cancer screening: a cohort simulation based on Nelson study outcomes

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening (LCS) with volume-based low-dose computed tomography (CT) versus no screening for an asymptomatic high-risk population in the United Kingdom (UK), utilising the long-term insights provided by the NELSON study, the largest European randomized control trial investigating LCS.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision tree and a state-transition Markov model to simulate the identification, diagnosis, and treatments for a lung cancer high-risk population, from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Eligible participants underwent annual volume CT screening and were compared to a cohort without the option of screening. Screen-detected lung cancers, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were predicted.

RESULTS

Annual volume CT screening of 1.3 million eligible participants resulted in 96,474 more lung cancer cases detected in early stage, and 73,825 fewer cases in late stage, leading to 53,732 premature lung cancer deaths averted and 421,647 QALYs gained, compared to no screening. The ICER was £5,455 per QALY. These estimates were robust in sensitivity analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of long-term survival data for lung cancer patients; deficiency in rigorous micro-costing studies to establish detailed treatment costs inputs for lung cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual LCS with volume-based low-dose CT for a high-risk asymptomatic population is cost-effective in the UK, at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, representing an efficient use of NHS resources with substantially improved outcomes for lung cancer patients, as well as additional societal and economic benefits for society as a whole. These findings advocate evidence-based decisions for the potential implementation of a nationwide LCS in the UK.

Health State Utility Values in Early-Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the predominant histological subtype of lung cancer and is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Quality of life is an important consideration for patients and current treatments can adversely affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this systematic literature review (SLR) were to identify and provide a comprehensive catalogue of published health state utility values (HSUVs) in patients with early-stage NSCLC and to understand the factors impacting on HSUVs in this indication.

METHODS

Electronic searches of Embase, MEDLINE and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews were conducted via the Ovid platform in March 2021 and June 2022 and were supplemented by grey literature searches of conference proceedings, reference lists, health technology assessment bodies, and other relevant sources. Eligibility criteria were based on patients with early-stage (stage I-III) resectable NSCLC receiving treatment in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. No restriction was placed on interventions or comparators, geography, or publication date. English language publications or non-English language publications with an English abstract were of primary interest. A validated checklist was applied to conduct quality assessment of the full publications.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine publications (27 full publications and two conference abstracts) met all eligibility criteria and reported 217 HSUVs and seven disutilities associated with patients with early NSCLC. The data showed that increasing disease stage is associated with decreasing HRQoL. It was also indicated that utility values vary by treatment approach; however, the choice of treatment may be influenced by the patients' disease stage at presentation. Few studies aligned with the requirements of health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, indicating a need for future studies to conform to these preferences, making them suitable for use in economic evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR found that disease stage and treatment approach were two of several factors that can impact patient-reported HRQoL. Additional studies are warranted to confirm these findings and to investigate emerging therapies for early NSCLC. In collecting a catalogue of HSUV data, this SLR has begun to identify the challenges associated with identifying reliable utility value estimates suitable for use in economic evaluations of early NSCLC.

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

In their 2021 lung cancer screening recommendation update, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) evaluated strategies that select people based on their personal lung cancer risk (risk model-based strategies), highlighting the need for further research on the benefits and harms of risk model-based screening.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening strategies versus the USPSTF recommendation and to explore optimal risk thresholds.

DESIGN

Comparative modeling analysis.

DATA SOURCES

National Lung Screening Trial; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; U.S. Smoking History Generator.

TARGET POPULATION

1960 U.S. birth cohort.

TIME HORIZON

45 years.

PERSPECTIVE

U.S. health care sector.

INTERVENTION

Annual low-dose computed tomography in risk model-based strategies that start screening at age 50 or 55 years, stop screening at age 80 years, with 6-year risk thresholds between 0.5% and 2.2% using the PLCOm2012 model.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier connecting strategies with the highest health benefit at a given cost.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Risk model-based screening strategies were more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation and exclusively comprised the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier. Among the strategies on the efficiency frontier, those with a 6-year risk threshold of 1.2% or greater were cost-effective with an ICER less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Specifically, the strategy with a 1.2% risk threshold had an ICER of $94 659 (model range, $72 639 to $156 774), yielding more QALYs for less cost than the USPSTF recommendation, while having a similar level of screening coverage (person ever-screened 21.7% vs. USPSTF's 22.6%).

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

Risk model-based strategies were robustly more cost-effective than the 2021 USPSTF recommendation under varying modeling assumptions.

LIMITATION

Risk models were restricted to age, sex, and smoking-related risk predictors.

CONCLUSION

Risk model-based screening is more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation, thus warranting further consideration.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute (NCI).

Economic impact of using risk models for eligibility selection to the International lung screening Trial

OBJECTIVES

Using risk models as eligibility criteria for lung screening can reduce race and sex-based disparities. We used data from the International Lung Screening Trial(ILST; NCT02871856) to compare the economic impact of using the PLCOm2012 risk model or the US Preventative Services' categorical age-smoking history-based criteria (USPSTF-2013).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of using PLCOm2012 versus USPSTF-2013 was evaluated with a decision analytic model based on the ILST and other screening trials. The primary outcomes were costs in 2020 International Dollars ($), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental net benefit (INB, in $ per QALY). Secondary outcomes were selection characteristics and cancer detection rates (CDR).

RESULTS

Compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria, the PLCOm2012 risk model resulted in $355 of cost savings per 0.2 QALYs gained (INB=$4294 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20 000/QALY (95 %CI: $4205-$4383). Using the risk model was more cost-effective in females at both a 1.5 % and 1.7 % 6-year risk threshold (INB=$6616 and $6112, respectively), compared with males ($5221 and $695). The PLCOm2012 model selected more females, more individuals with fewer years of formal education, and more people with other respiratory illnesses in the ILST. The CDR with the risk model was higher in females compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria (Risk Ratio = 7.67, 95 % CI: 1.87-31.38).

CONCLUSION

The PLCOm2012 model saved costs, increased QALYs and mitigated socioeconomic and sex-based disparities in access to screening.

Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening for Australia, capturing differences in the health economic impact of NELSON and NLST outcomes

BACKGROUND

A national, lung cancer screening programme is under consideration in Australia, and we assessed cost-effectiveness using updated data and assumptions.

METHODS

We estimated the cost-effectiveness of lung screening by applying screening parameters and outcomes from either the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) or the NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) to Australian data on lung cancer risk, mortality, health-system costs, and smoking trends using a deterministic, multi-cohort model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

The ICER for lung screening compared to usual care in the NELSON-based scenario was AU$39,250 (95% CI $18,150-108,300) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY); lower than the NLST-based estimate (ICER = $76,300, 95% CI $41,750-236,500). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, lung screening was cost-effective in 15%/60% of NELSON-like simulations, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,000/$50,000 per QALY, respectively, compared to 0.5%/6.7% for the NLST. ICERs were most sensitive to assumptions regarding the screening-related lung cancer mortality benefit and duration of benefit over time. The cost of screening had a larger impact on ICERs than the cost of treatment, even after quadrupling the 2006-2016 healthcare costs of stage IV lung cancer.

DISCUSSION

Lung screening could be cost-effective in Australia, contingent on translating trial-like lung cancer mortality benefits to the clinic.

Cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants compared to low-molecular-weight-heparins for treatment of cancer associated venous thromboembolism in Spain

AIM

Recent studies have compared the efficacy and safety of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, there is no available cost-effectiveness analysis comparing DOAC and LMWH. The study aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of DOAC (apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) vs. LMWH for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE in Spain from the Spanish healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model with a 12-month time horizon. The states included pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major and non-major bleeding, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, post-thrombotic syndrome, and death. The use of medical resources and drug costs were obtained from the 2021 Spanish Ministry of Health database, and the main references for obtaining the outcomes were derived from Caravaggio, Hokusai VTE Cancer, ADAM VTE, and SELECT-D trials. We performed a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to validate the robustness. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) scores cost per life-year (€/LY) gained and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (€/QALY) gained.

RESULTS

The 12-month cost of DOAC was 1,994€ (apixaban 1,944€, edoxaban 1,968€, rivaroxaban 2,122€) and 2,152€ for LMWH. The amount of QALY for DOAC was 0.54 (apixaban 0.55, rivaroxaban 0.53, and edoxaban 0.52) and 0.53 for LMWH. We observed similar results for LYs. ICER scores in terms both of €/LY and €/QALY show that DOAC is dominant over LMWH and apixaban showed the best profile.

LIMITATIONS

Our research is based on an indirect comparison of a short-term clinical trial.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that DOAC is cost-effective and cost-saving compared to LMWH in treating VTE.

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation for Lung Cancer Screening

IMPORTANCE

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued its 2021 recommendation on lung cancer screening, which lowered the starting age for screening from 55 to 50 years and the minimum cumulative smoking exposure from 30 to 20 pack-years relative to its 2013 recommendation. Although costs are expected to increase because of the expanded screening eligibility criteria, it is unknown whether the new guidelines for lung cancer screening are cost-effective.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening compared with the 2013 recommendation and to explore the cost-effectiveness of 6 alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years and an ending age for screening of 80 years but varied the starting ages for screening (50 or 55 years) and the number of years since smoking cessation (≤15, ≤20, or ≤25).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis using 4 independently developed microsimulation models that shared common inputs to assess the population-level health benefits and costs of the 2021 recommended screening strategy and 6 alternative screening strategies compared with the 2013 recommended screening strategy. The models simulated a 1960 US birth cohort. Simulated individuals entered the study at age 45 years and were followed up until death or age 90 years, corresponding to a study period from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2050.

EXPOSURES

Low-dose computed tomography in lung cancer screening programs with a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of the 2021 vs 2013 USPSTF lung cancer screening recommendations as well as 6 alternative screening strategies vs the 2013 USPSTF screening strategy. Strategies with a mean ICER lower than $100 000 per QALY were deemed cost-effective.

RESULTS

The 2021 USPSTF recommendation was estimated to be cost-effective compared with the 2013 recommendation, with a mean ICER of $72 564 (range across 4 models, $59 493-$85 837) per QALY gained. The 2021 recommendation was not cost-effective compared with 6 alternative strategies that used the 20 pack-year criterion. Strategies associated with the most cost-effectiveness included those that expanded screening eligibility to include a greater number of former smokers who had not smoked for a longer duration (ie, ≤20 years and ≤25 years since smoking cessation vs ≤15 years since smoking cessation). In particular, the strategy that screened former smokers who quit within the past 25 years and began screening at age 55 years was associated with screening coverage closest to that of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation yet yielded greater cost-effectiveness, with a mean ICER of $66 533 (range across 4 models, $55 693-$80 539).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This economic evaluation found that the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening was cost-effective; however, alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years but included individuals who quit smoking within the past 25 years may be more cost-effective and warrant further evaluation.

Health state utility values by cancer stage: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

Cancer diagnoses at later stages are associated with a decrease in health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Health state utility values (HSUVs) reflect preference-based HRQOL and can vary based on cancer type, stage, treatment, and disease progression. Detecting and treating cancer at earlier stages may lead to improved HRQOL, which is important for value assessments. We describe published HSUVs by cancer type and stage.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE^®, EconLit, and gray literature to identify studies published from January 1999 to September 2019 that reported HSUVs by cancer type and stage. Disutility values were calculated from differences in reported HSUVs across cancer stages.

RESULTS

From 13,872 publications, 27 were eligible for evidence synthesis. The most frequent cancer types were breast (n = 9), lung (n = 5), colorectal (n = 4), and cervical cancer (n = 3). Mean HSUVs decreased with increased cancer stage, with consistently lower values seen in stage IV or later-stage cancer across studies (e.g., - 0.74, - 0.44, and - 0.51 for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer, respectively). Disutility values were highest between later-stage (metastatic or stage IV) cancers compared to earlier-stage (localized or stage I-III) cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a summary of HSUVs across different cancer types and stages that can inform economic evaluations. Despite the large variation in HSUVs overall, a consistent decline in HSUVs can be seen in the later stages, including stage IV. These findings indicate substantial impairment on individuals' quality of life and suggest value in early detection and intervention.

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting: A Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend offering cessation interventions to smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, but there is little data comparing specific cessation approaches in this setting. We compared the benefits and costs of different smoking cessation interventions to help screening programs select specific cessation approaches.

METHODS

We conducted a societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using a Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model simulating individuals born in 1960 over their lifetimes. Model inputs were derived from Medicare, national cancer registries, published studies, and micro-costing of cessation interventions. We modeled annual lung cancer screening following 2014 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines plus cessation interventions offered to current smokers at first screen, including pharmacotherapy only or pharmacotherapy with electronic and/or web-based, telephone, individual, or group counseling. Outcomes included lung cancer cases and deaths, life-years saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Compared with screening alone, all cessation interventions decreased cases of and deaths from lung cancer. Compared incrementally, efficient cessation strategies included pharmacotherapy with either web-based cessation ($555 per QALY), telephone counseling ($7562 per QALY), or individual counseling ($35 531 per QALY). Cessation interventions continued to have costs per QALY well below accepted willingness to pay thresholds even with the lowest intervention effects and was more cost-effective in cohorts with higher smoking prevalence.

CONCLUSION

All smoking cessation interventions delivered with lung cancer screening are likely to provide benefits at reasonable costs. Because the differences between approaches were small, the choice of intervention should be guided by practical concerns such as staff training and availability.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography in an Iranian high-risk population

OBJECTIVE

The results of recent studies have shown that using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for screening of lung cancer (LC) improves cancer outcomes. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LDCT in an Iranian high-risk population.

METHODS

A Markov cohort simulation model with four health states was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LDCT from a healthcare system perspective in the people aged 55-74 who smoked 25 or more cigarettes per day for 10-30 years. Cost data were collected, reviewing 324 medical records of patients with LC, and utilities and transition probabilities were extracted from the literature. The Monte Carlo simulation method was applied to run the model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way analysis were also performed.

RESULTS

LC screening in comparison to a no-screening strategy was costly and effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of screening versus no-screening was IRR (Iranian rials) 98,515,014.04 which falls below the Iranian threshold of three times GDP (gross domestic product) per capita. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results of the economic analysis were robust to variations in the key inputs for both.

CONCLUSIONS

Using LDCT for screening of LC patients in a high-risk population is a cost-effective strategy.

Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model

BACKGROUND

A systematic review of economic evaluations for lung cancer identified no economic models of the UK setting based on disease natural history. We first sought to develop a new model of natural history for population screening, then sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of multiple alternative potential programmes.

METHODS

An individual patient model (ENaBL) was constructed in MS Excel® and calibrated against data from the US National Lung Screening Trial. Costs were taken from the UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial and took the perspective of the NHS and PSS. Simulants were current or former smokers aged between 55 and 80 years and so at a higher risk of lung cancer relative to the general population. Subgroups were defined by further restricting age and risk of lung cancer as predicted by patient self-questionnaire. Programme designs were single, triple, annual and biennial arrangements of LDCT screens, thereby examining number and interval length. Forty-eight distinct screening strategies were compared to the current practice of no screening. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness of strategies (additional cost per QALY gained).

RESULTS

LDCT screening is predicted to bring forward the stage distribution at diagnosis and reduce lung cancer mortality, with decreases versus no screening ranging from 4.2 to 7.7% depending on screen frequency. Overall healthcare costs are predicted to increase; treatment cost savings from earlier detection are outweighed by the costs of over-diagnosis. Single-screen programmes for people 55-75 or 60-75 years with ≥ 3% predicted lung cancer risk may be cost-effective at the £30,000 per QALY threshold (respective ICERs of £28,784 and £28,169 per QALY gained). Annual and biennial screening programmes were not predicted to be cost-effective at any cost-effectiveness threshold.

LIMITATIONS

LDCT performance was unaffected by lung cancer type, stage or location and the impact of a national screening programme of smoking behaviour was not included.

CONCLUSION

Lung cancer screening may not be cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per QALY commonly used in the UK but may be cost-effective at the higher threshold of £30,000 per QALY.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Community- and Choice-Based Health State Utility Values for Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Using appropriate health state utility values (HSUVs) is critical for economic evaluation of new lung cancer interventions, such as low-dose computed tomography screening and immunotherapy. Therefore, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of community- and choice-based HSUVs for lung cancer.

METHODS

On 6 March 2017, we conducted a systematic search of the following databases: Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and the School of Health and Related Research Health Utility Database. The search was updated on 17 April 2019. Studies reporting mean or median lung cancer-specific HSUVs including a measure of variance were included and assessed for relevance and validity. Studies with high relevance (i.e. community- and choice-based) were further analysed. Mean HSUVs were pooled using random-effects models for all stages, stages I-II, and stages III-IV. For studies with a control group, we calculated the disutility due to lung cancer. A sensitivity analysis included only the methodologically most comparable studies (i.e. using the EQ-5D instrument and matching tariff). Subgroup analyses were conducted by time to death, histology, sex, age, treatment modality, treatment line, and progression status.

RESULTS

We identified and analysed 27 studies of high relevance. The pooled HSUV was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.75) for all stages, 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.86) for stages I-II, and 0.69 (95% CI 0.65-0.73) for stages III-IV (p = 0.02 vs. stage I-II). Heterogeneity was present in each pooled analysis (p < 0.01; I2 = 92-99%). Disutility due to lung cancer ranged from 0.11 (95% CI 0.05-0.17) to 0.27 (95% CI 0.18-0.36). In the sensitivity analysis with the methodologically most comparable studies, stage-specific HSUVs varied by country. Such studies were only identified for Canada, China, Spain, the UK, the USA, Denmark, Germany, and Thailand. In the subgroup analysis by time to death, HSUVs for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer ranged from 0.83 (95% CI 0.82-0.85) at ≥ 360 days from death to 0.56 (95% CI 0.46-0.66) at < 30 days from death. Among patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, HSUVs were lower for those receiving third- or fourth-line treatment and for those with progressed disease. Results of subgroup analyses by histology, sex, age, and treatment modality were ambiguous.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented evidence supports the use of stage- and country-specific HSUVs. However, such HSUVs are unavailable for most countries. Therefore, our pooled HSUVs may provide the best available stage-specific HSUVs for most countries. For metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, adjusting for the decreased HSUVs in the last year of life may be considered, as may further stratification of HSUVs by treatment line or progression status. If required, HSUVs for other health states may be identified using our comprehensive breakdown of study characteristics.

A Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of an Exercise Program for Lung Cancer Survivors After Curative-Intent Treatment

OBJECTIVE

The cost-effectiveness of exercise interventions in lung cancer survivors is unknown. We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of an exercise intervention in lung cancer survivors.

DESIGN

We used Markov modeling to simulate the impact of the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders exercise intervention compared with usual care for stage I-IIIA lung cancer survivors after curative-intent treatment. We calculated and considered incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of less than US $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year as cost-effective and assessed model uncertainty using sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The base-case model showed that the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders exercise program would increase overall cost by US $4740 and effectiveness by 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years compared with usual care and have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $79,504/quality-adjusted life-year. The model was most sensitive to the cost of the exercise program, probability of increasing exercise, and utility benefit related to exercise. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year, Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders had a 71% probability of being cost-effective compared with 27% for usual care. When we included opportunity costs, Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $179,774/quality-adjusted life-year, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

A simulation of the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders exercise intervention in lung cancer survivors demonstrates cost-effectiveness from an organization but not societal perspective. A similar exercise program for lung cancer survivors may be cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with varying comorbidity burden

Objectives

While previous cost-effectiveness studies on pembrolizumab in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have found these regimens to be cost-effective, their reliance on randomized controlled trial (RCT) data with strict inclusion criteria limits generalizability to patients with comorbidities. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab for patients with various comorbidities.

Materials and methods

In our base case analysis, we studied pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (pembrolizumab combination therapy) versus chemotherapy alone. In a secondary analysis, we considered only patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 50% (PD-L1-high) and evaluated pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab combination therapy, and chemotherapy alone. Microsimulation models were developed for the base case and the PD-L1-high analyses. To estimate outcomes of patients with differing comorbidities, we combined survival data from patients with few or no comorbidities from the RCTs with estimates from the general population obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Comorbidity burden level was divided into three groups based on the Charlson score (equal to 0, 1, or 2+); patients with various other specific comorbidities were also analyzed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results

In the Charlson 0, Charlson 1, and Charlson 2+ patient populations, estimated ICERs for pembrolizumab combination therapy in the base case model were $173,919/QALY, $175,165/QALY, and $181,777/QALY, respectively, compared to chemotherapy.

In the PD-L1-high model, the Charlson 0, Charlson 1, and Charlson 2+ patients had ICERs of $147,406/QALY, $149,026/QALY, and $154,521/QALY with pembrolizumab combination therapy versus chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab monotherapy was weakly dominated for each comorbidity group in the PD-L1-high model.

Conclusion

For patients with stage IV NSCLC and varying comorbidity burden, first-line treatment with pembrolizumab does not represent a cost-effective strategy compared to chemotherapy. Resources should be focused on collecting immunotherapy survival data for more representative NSCLC patient populations.

Cost-effectiveness and Budgetary Consequence Analysis of Durvalumab Consolidation Therapy vs No Consolidation Therapy After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Context of the US Health Care System

Importance

In early 2018, durvalumab became the first immunotherapy to be approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose cancer has not progressed after definitive chemoradiotherapy. However, the cost-effectiveness and potential economic implications of using this high-priced therapy in this indication are unknown to date.

Objective

To explore the cost-effectiveness and potential budgetary consequences of durvalumab consolidation therapy vs no consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC in the context of the US health care system.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A decision analytic microsimulation model was developed in an academic medical setting to compare the following 2 postchemoradiotherapy strategies: all patients receive no consolidation therapy until progression vs all patients receive durvalumab consolidation therapy until progression or for a maximum of 1 year. The potential budgetary consequence was calculated by applying the proportion of patients with NSCLC who were diagnosed in stage III and received chemoradiotherapy to the projected number of annual new cases for 2018 to 2022 to find total eligible patients and then multiplied by the mean difference in annual cost between the strategies over this 5-year period. Simulated conditions were matched to those of the PACIFIC phase 3 randomized clinical trial and reasonable treatment strategies for metastatic NSCLC. All simulated patients begin disease free after having received radical treatment with chemoradiotherapy and are followed up as they progress to metastatic disease first-line treatment, metastatic disease second-line treatment, end-stage progressive disease, and death.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of durvalumab consolidation therapy vs no consolidation therapy, given as aggregate cost of treatment per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Results

Among 2 million simulated patients, durvalumab consolidation therapy was cost-effective compared with no consolidation therapy at a $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year willingness-to-pay threshold, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $67 421 per quality-adjusted life-year, and would contribute an additional $768 million to national cancer spending in year 1. The annual budgetary consequence would then decrease to $241 million in year 5.

Conclusions and Relevance

Durvalumab consolidation therapy represents an indication where expensive immunotherapies can be cost-effective. Treating with immunotherapy earlier in the course of cancer progression can provide significant value, despite having a substantial budgetary consequence.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening in the United States: A Comparative Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

Recommendations vary regarding the maximum age at which to stop lung cancer screening: 80 years according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), 77 years according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and 74 years according to the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of different stopping ages for lung cancer screening.

DESIGN

By using shared inputs for smoking behavior, costs, and quality of life, 4 independently developed microsimulation models evaluated the health and cost outcomes of annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).

DATA SOURCES

The NLST; Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial; SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program; Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study; and U.S. Smoking History Generator.

TARGET POPULATION

Current, former, and never-smokers aged 45 years from the 1960 U.S. birth cohort.

TIME HORIZON

45 years.

PERSPECTIVE

Health care sector.

INTERVENTION

Annual LDCT according to NLST, CMS, and USPSTF criteria.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

The 4 models showed that the NLST, CMS, and USPSTF screening strategies were cost-effective, with ICERs averaging $49 200, $68 600, and $96 700 per QALY, respectively. Increasing the age at which to stop screening resulted in a greater reduction in mortality but also led to higher costs and overdiagnosis rates.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the NLST and CMS strategies had higher probabilities of being cost-effective (98% and 77%, respectively) than the USPSTF strategy (52%).

LIMITATION

Scenarios assumed 100% screening adherence, and models extrapolated beyond clinical trial data.

CONCLUSION

All 3 sets of lung cancer screening criteria represent cost-effective programs. Despite underlying uncertainty, the NLST and CMS screening strategies have high probabilities of being cost-effective.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

CISNET (Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network) Lung Group, National Cancer Institute.

Real-world health utility scores and toxicities to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in epidermal growth factor receptor mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

As the treatment landscape in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFRm) continues to evolve, real-world health utility scores (HUS) become increasingly important for economic analyses.

METHODS

In an observational cohort study, questionnaires were completed in EGFRm NSCLC outpatients, to include demographics, EQ-5D-based HUS and patient-reported toxicity and symptoms. Clinical and radiologic characteristics together with outcomes were extracted from chart review. The impact of health states, treatment type, toxicities, and clinical variables on HUS were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2018, a total of 260 patients completed 994 encounters. Across treatment groups, patients with disease progression had lower HUS compared to controlled disease (0.771 vs 0.803; P = .01). Patients predominantly received gefitinib as the first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (n = 157, mean-HUS = 0.798), whereas osimertinib (n = 62, mean-HUS = 0.806) and chemotherapy (n = 38, mean-HUS = 0.721) were more likely used in subsequent treatment lines. In longitudinal analysis, TKIs retained high HUS (>0.78) compared to chemotherapy (HUS < 0.74). There were no differences between the frequency or severity of toxicity scores in patients receiving gefitinib compared to osimertinib; however, TKI therapy resulted in fewer toxicities than chemotherapy (P < .05), with the exception of worse diarrhea and skin rash (P < .001). Severity in toxicities inversely correlated with HUS (P < .001). Clinico-demographic factors significantly affecting HUS included age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Score (ECOG PS), disease state, treatment group, and metastatic burden.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world EGFRm population, patients treated with gefitinib or osimertinib had similar HUS and toxicities, scores which were superior to chemotherapy. Health utility scores inversely correlated with patient-reported toxicity scores. In the era of targeted therapies, future economic analyses should incorporate real-world HUS.

Dynamic Changes of Health Utility in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Different Treatments: A 7-Year Follow-up

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to estimate the utility values of all subtypes of lung cancer. The trajectories after different kinds of treatments and their major determinants were explored on the basis of real-world data and repeated measurements.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2017, all patients with lung cancer who visited a medical center were invited to fill out the EuroQol Five-Dimension and WHO Quality of Life-Brief questionnaires at each visit. Utility values of quality of life (QoL) after diagnosis and treatments were depicted using a kernel smoothing method. We constructed linear mixed models to predict health utility in each time period and cross-validated them with domain scores of the WHO Quality of Life-Brief.

RESULTS

A total of 1715 patients were enrolled, with 6762 QoL measurements. Utility values were lower in patients with advanced-stage disease and older patients. Patients receiving second-line targeted therapy showed higher utility values at 0 to 3 months, 3 to 6 months, and 6 months and beyond (0.89, 0.90, and 0.88, respectively) than did those undergoing chemotherapy (0.81, 0.85, and 0.80, respectively). After using mixed models to control confounders, including poor performance status and disease progression, patients receiving second-line chemotherapy showed health utility similar to that at quasi-baseline, whereas utility values related to second-line targeted therapy were higher at 3 to 6 months and 6 months and beyond (β = 0.07, p = 0.010 and β = 0.07, p < 0.001, respectively). There was convergent validity between the utility values and scores of the physical and psychological domains.

CONCLUSION

Targeted therapy provided treated patients with a higher health utility value than was provided to those treated with chemotherapy. Development of the longitudinal trajectory may help predict changes in QoL and improve the care of lung cancer survivors.

Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness - an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm.

RESULTS

Clinical effectiveness - 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness - screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60-75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical effectiveness - the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness - a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits.

FUTURE WORK

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial].

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Health-related quality of life and anxiety in the PAN-CAN lung cancer screening cohort

OBJECTIVES

The impact of lung cancer screening with low-dose chest CT (LDCT) on participants' anxiety levels and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important consideration in the implementation of such programmes. We aimed to describe changes in anxiety and HRQoL in a high-risk Canadian cohort undergoing LDCT lung cancer screening.

METHODS

2537 subjects who had 2% or greater lung cancer risk over 6 years using a risk prediction tool were recruited from eight centres across Canada in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (2008-2010). We compared HRQoL and anxiety levels before and after screening of 1237 participants with LDCT (excluding a subset of 1300 participants who also underwent autofluorescence bronchoscopy screening), as well as after investigations performed because of a positive screening examination. The 12-item short-form Physical and Mental Component Scales (SF-12), EQ-5D-3L scores and State Trait Anxiety Inventory-State anxiety were used at each assessment.

RESULTS

Overall, there were no clinically significant differences in HRQoL outcomes between baseline and each of the survey time points following initial screening. No mean change in anxiety in the overall cohort was noted following baseline LDCT, but more participants had clinically significant increase in anxiety versus decrease after baseline screening (increase >minimal clinically important difference (MCID) (n=180) vs decrease >MCID (n=50), p<0.001). This finding persisted but to a lesser degree at the 12 month time point (increase >MCID (n=146) vs decrease >MCID (n=87), p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CT screening for lung cancer has no major overall impact on HRQoL among participants, although a minority of participants (number-needed-to-harm=7 after baseline screening and 18 at 1 year) demonstrated clinically significant increased anxiety levels.

TRIALREGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00751660; Results.

Identifying Patients for Whom Lung Cancer Screening Is Preference-Sensitive: A Microsimulation Study

Background

Many health systems are exploring how to implement low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening programs that are effective and patient-centered.

Objective

To examine factors that influence when LDCT screening is preference-sensitive.

Design

State-transition microsimulation model.

Data Sources

Two large randomized trials, published decision analyses, and the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) cancer registry.

Target Population

U.S.-representative sample of simulated patients meeting current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria for screening eligibility.

Time Horizon

Lifetime.

Perspective

Individual.

Intervention

LDCT screening annually for 3 years.

Outcome Measures

Lifetime quality-adjusted life-year gains and reduction in lung cancer mortality. To examine the effect of preferences on net benefit, disutilities (the "degree of dislike") quantifying the burden of screening and follow-up were varied across a likely range. The effect of varying the rate of false-positive screening results and overdiagnosis associated with screening was also examined.

Results of Base-Case Analysis

Moderate differences in preferences about the downsides of LDCT screening influenced whether screening was appropriate for eligible persons with annual lung cancer risk less than 0.3% or life expectancy less than 10.5 years. For higher-risk eligible persons with longer life expectancy (roughly 50% of the study population), the benefits of LDCT screening overcame even highly negative views about screening and its downsides.

Results of Sensitivity Analysis

Rates of false-positive findings and overdiagnosed lung cancer were not highly influential.

Limitation

The quantitative thresholds that were identified may vary depending on the structure of the microsimulation model.

Conclusion

Identifying circumstances in which LDCT screening is more versus less preference-sensitive may help clinicians personalize their screening discussions, tailoring to both preferences and clinical benefit.

Primary Funding Source

None.

Decision analytic modeling for the economic analysis of proton radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

Background

Although proton radiation treatments are more costly than photon/X-ray therapy, they may lower overall treatment costs through reducing rates of severe toxicities and the costly management of those toxicities. To study this issue, we created a decision-model comparing proton vs. X-ray radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Methods

An influence diagram was created to model for radiation delivery, associated 6-month pneumonitis/esophagitis rates, and overall costs (radiation plus toxicity costs). Pneumonitis (age, chemo type, V20, MLD) and esophagitis (V60) predictors were modeled to impact toxicity rates. We performed toxicity-adjusted, rate-adjusted, risk group-adjusted, and radiosensitivity analyses.

Results

Upfront proton treatment costs exceeded that of photons [$16,730.37 (3DCRT), $23,893.83 (IMRT), $41,061.80 (protons)]. Based upon expected population pneumonitis and esophagitis rates for each modality, protons would be expected to recover $1,065.62 and $1,139.63 of the cost difference compared to 3DCRT or IMRT. For patients treated with IMRT experiencing grade 4 pneumonitis or grade 4 esophagitis, costs exceeded patients treated with protons without this toxicity. 3DCRT patients with grade 4 esophagitis had higher costs than proton patients without this toxicity. For the risk group analysis, high risk patients (age >65, carboplatin/paclitaxel) benefited more from proton therapy. A biomarker may allow patient selection for proton therapy, although the AUC alone is not sufficient to determine if the biomarker is clinically useful.

Conclusions

The comparison between proton and photon/X-ray radiation therapy for NSCLC needs to consider both the up-front cost of treatment and the possible long term cost of complications. In our analysis, current costs favor X-ray therapy. However, relatively small reductions in the cost of proton therapy may result in a shift to the preference for proton therapy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Surveillance for Distant Recurrence in Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma

BACKGROUND

Optimal distant recurrence (DR) surveillance strategies for extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS) are unknown. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different imaging modalities performed at guideline-specified intervals.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model simulating lifetime outcomes for 54-year-old patients after definitive treatment for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II-III extremity STS using four surveillance strategies: watchful waiting (WW), chest X-ray (CXR), chest computed tomography (CCT), and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT). Probabilities, utilities, and costs were extracted from the literature and Medicare claims to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

RESULTS

CCT was the most effective and most costly strategy with CXR the most cost-effective strategy at a societal willing-to-pay (WTP) of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The ICER was $12,113/QALY for CXR versus $104,366/QALY for CCT while PET/CT was never cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated CCT becomes the preferred imaging modality as the lifetime risk of DR increases beyond 33% or as the WTP increases beyond $120,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal DR surveillance imaging for stage II-III extremity STS should be individualized based on patients' risks for DR. These results suggest CXR, or CCT performed at more protracted intervals, may be preferred for lower-risk patients (i.e., DR risk <33%), whereas CCT may be preferred for higher-risk patients (i.e., DR risk >33%). Further study of optimal strategies is needed. In the interim, these findings may help to refine guidelines to reduce resource overutilization during routine surveillance of lower-risk sarcoma patients.

The Cost-Effectiveness of High-Risk Lung Cancer Screening and Drivers of Program Efficiency

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer risk prediction models have the potential to make programs more affordable; however, the economic evidence is limited.

METHODS

Participants in the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) were retrospectively identified with the risk prediction tool developed from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. The high-risk subgroup was assessed for lung cancer incidence and demographic characteristics compared with those in the low-risk subgroup and the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan), which is an observational study that was high-risk-selected in Canada. A comparison of high-risk screening versus standard care was made with a decision-analytic model using data from the NLST with Canadian cost data from screening and treatment in the PanCan study. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess uncertainty and identify drivers of program efficiency.

RESULTS

Use of the risk prediction tool developed from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial with a threshold set at 2% over 6 years would have reduced the number of individuals who needed to be screened in the NLST by 81%. High-risk screening participants in the NLST had more adverse demographic characteristics than their counterparts in the PanCan study. High-risk screening would cost $20,724 (in 2015 Canadian dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year gained and would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 in Canadian dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained with a probability of 0.62. Cost-effectiveness was driven primarily by non-lung cancer outcomes. Higher noncurative drug costs or current costs for immunotherapy and targeted therapies in the United States would render lung cancer screening a cost-saving intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-lung cancer outcomes drive screening efficiency in diverse, tobacco-exposed populations. Use of risk selection can reduce the budget impact, and screening may even offer cost savings if noncurative treatment costs continue to rise.

Real-World EQ5D Health Utility Scores for Patients With Metastatic Lung Cancer by Molecular Alteration and Response to Therapy

INTRODUCTION

Economic analyses of upcoming treatments for lung cancer benefit from real-world health utility scores (HUSs) in an era of targeted therapy.

METHODS

A longitudinal cohort study at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre evaluated 1571 EQ5D-3L-derived HUSs in 475 outpatients with metastatic lung cancer across various disease states. Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (n = 183) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) (n = 38) driver alterations were enriched through targeted enrolment; patients with wild-type non-small-cell lung cancer (WT NSCLC) (n = 224) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) (n = 30) were sampled randomly.

RESULTS

For patients stable on most appropriate treatment, the mean HUSs were 0.81 and 0.82 in patients receiving EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) respectively (with similar HUSs across agents), which were higher than patients with WT NSCLC (0.78; P = .04) and SCLC receiving chemotherapy (0.72; P = .06). In mutation-specific comparisons, disease stability on appropriate therapy resulted in significantly higher mean HUSs (P < .002-.02) than when disease was progressing (mean HUS: EGFR, 0.70; ALK, 0.69; WT NSCLC, 0.66; SCLC, 0.52). When evaluating treatment-related toxicities, significant inverse relationships were observed between HUS and the severity of fatigue and decreased appetite in the EGFR group. There was also a significant inverse relationship between the total number of clinically significant symptoms and HUS, both in patients who were EGFR-mutated and patients with WT NSCLC.

CONCLUSIONS

In a North American setting, HUSs generated from patients with metastatic lung cancer are higher in treated, stable patients carrying driver mutations. This is partially explainable by treatment toxicity and patient symptom differences. Such differences in scores should be considered in economic analyses.

Is the EQ-5D suitable for use in oncology? An overview of the literature and recent developments

The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire is widely used in oncology to generate quality of life weights (utilities). The typical purpose is to inform health economic evaluation studies. The EQ-5D is generally suitable for this purpose; it has shown a reasonable degree of reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness in the majority of the available studies. In situations of doubt, combination with other quality-of-life instruments may be an option. The authors expect that the five-level version of the EQ-5D will gradually replace the three-level version, due to reduced ceiling effects and more appropriate responsiveness. Further research should address the benefits achievable through additional dimensions or patient-based valuation, and the validity of EQ-5D versions for proxy respondents.