Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic radiation, sublobar resection, and lobectomy for early non-small cell lung cancers in older adults.

OBJECTIVES Stereotactic ablative radiation (SABR) is a promising alternative to lobectomy or sublobar resection for early lung cancer, but the value of SABR in comparison to surgical therapy remains debated. We examined the cost-effectiveness of SABR relative to surgery using SEER-Medicare data. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients age ≥66 years with localized (<5 cm) non-small cell lung cancers diagnosed from 2003-2009 were selected. Propensity score matching generated cohorts comparing SABR with either sublobar resection or lobectomy. Costs were determined via claims. Median survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were constructed from joint distribution of incremental costs and effects estimated by non-parametric bootstrap. RESULTS In comparing SABR to sublobar resection, 5-year total costs were $55,120 with SABR vs. $77,964 with sublobar resection (P<0.001) and median survival was 3.6 years with SABR vs. 4.1 years with sublobar resection (P=0.95). The ICER for sublobar resection compared to SABR was $45,683/life-year gained, yielding a 46% probability that sublobar resection is cost-effective. In comparing SABR to lobectomy, 5-year total costs were $54,968 with SABR vs. $82,641 with lobectomy (P<0.001) and median survival was 3.8 years with SABR vs. 4.7 years with lobectomy (P=0.81). The ICER for lobectomy compared to SABR was $28,645/life-year gained, yielding a 78% probability that lobectomy is cost-effective. CONCLUSION SABR is less costly than surgery. While lobectomy may be cost-effective compared to SABR, sublobar resection is less likely to be cost-effective. Assessment of the relative value of SABR versus surgical therapy requires further research.