首页> 外文期刊>Health technology assessment: HTA >Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound relative to surgical staging in potentially resectable lung cancer: Results from the ASTER randomised controlled trial
【24h】

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound relative to surgical staging in potentially resectable lung cancer: Results from the ASTER randomised controlled trial

机译:临床疗效和成本效益支气管和内窥镜超声相对的在潜在可切除的手术分期肺癌:ASTER随机的结果对照试验

获取原文
       

摘要

Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of endosonography (followed by surgical staging if endosonography was negative), compared with standard surgical staging alone, in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are otherwise candidates for surgery with curative intent. Design: A prospective, international, open-label, randomised controlled study, with a trialbased economic analysis. Setting: Four centres: Ghent University Hospital, Belgium; Leuven University Hospitals, Belgium; Leiden University Medical Centre, the Netherlands; and Papworth Hospital, UK. Participants: Inclusion criteria: known/suspected NSCLC, with suspected mediastinal lymph node involvement; otherwise eligible for surgery with curative intent; clinically fit for endosonography and surgery; and no evidence of metastatic disease. Exclusion criteria: previous lung cancer treatment; concurrent malignancy; uncorrected coagulopathy; and not suitable for surgical staging. Interventions: Study patients were randomised to either surgical staging alone (n = 118) or endosonography followed by surgical staging if endosonography was negative (n = 123). Endosonography diagnostic strategy used endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration combined with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration, followed by surgical staging if these tests were negative. Patients with no evidence of mediastinal metastases or tumour invasion were referred for surgery with curative intent. If evidence of malignancy was found, patients were referred for chemoradiotherapy. Main outcome measures: The main clinical outcomes were sensitivity (positive diagnostic test/nodal involvement during any diagnostic test or thoracotomy) and negative predictive value (NPV) of each diagnostic strategy for the detection of N2/N3 metastases, unnecessary thoracotomy and complication rates. The primary economic outcome was cost-utility of the endosonography strategy compared with surgical staging alone, up to 6 months after randomisation, from a UK NHS perspective. Results: Clinical and resource-use data were available for all 241 patients, and complete utilities were available for 144. Sensitivity for detecting N2/N3 metastases was 79% [41/52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 66% to 88%] for the surgical arm compared with 94% (62/66; 95% CI 85% to 98%) for the endosonography strategy (p = 0.02). Corresponding NPVs were 86% (66/77; 95% CI 76% to 92%) and 93% (57/61; 95% CI 84% to 97%; p = 0.26). There were 21/118 (18%) unnecessary thoracotomies in the surgical arm compared with 9/123 (7%) in the endosonography arm (p = 0.02). Complications occurred in 7/118 (6%) in the surgical arm and 6/123 (5%) in the endosonography arm (p = 0.78): one pneumothorax related to endosonography and 12 complications related to surgical staging. Patients in the endosonography arm had greater EQ-5D (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions) utility at the end of staging (0.117; 95% CI 0.042 to 0.192; p = 0.003). There were no other significant differences in utility. The main difference in resource use was the number of thoracotomies: 66% patients in the surgical arm compared with 53% in the endosonography arm. Resource use was similar between the groups in all other items. The 6-month cost of the endosonography strategy was £9713 (95% CI £7209 to £13,307) per patient versus £10,459 (£7732 to £13,890) for the surgical arm, mean difference £746 (95% CI -£756 to £2494). The mean difference in quality-adjusted life-year was 0.015 (95% CI -0.023 to 0.052) in favour of endosonography, so this strategy was cheaper and more effective. Conclusions: Endosonography (followed by surgical staging if negative) had higher sensitivity and NPVs, resulted in fewer unnecessary thoracotomies and better quality of life during staging, and was slightly more effective and less expensive than surgical staging alone. Future work could investigate the need for confirmatory mediastinoscopy
机译:目的:评估临床疗效和成本效益的endosonography(外科分期如果endosonography紧随其后是消极的),而标准的手术吗患者仅暂存,非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)否则候选人手术治疗的目的。未来,国际、非盲、随机对照研究中,trialbased经济分析。大学医院,比利时;医院,比利时;中心,荷兰;英国。已知/怀疑NSCLC,疑似纵隔淋巴结的参与;手术治疗的目的;endosonography和手术;转移性疾病。肺癌治疗;未修正的凝血障碍;手术分期。被随机到外科分期孤独(n = 118)或endosonography外科紧随其后分段如果endosonography - (n = 123)。Endosonography诊断策略内镜超声引导下细针愿望结合支气管超声引导下transbronchial针如果这些愿望,其次是手术分期测试是负的。纵隔肿瘤转移或入侵对于手术治疗目的。恶性肿瘤的证据被发现,患者提到对放化疗。措施:主要的临床结果灵敏度(积极的诊断测试/节点在任何诊断测试或参与开胸)和阴性预测值(NPV)每个检测的诊断策略不必要的开胸和N2和N3转移并发症发生率。成本效用的endosonography策略与单独外科分期相比,6个月后随机,从英国国民健康保险制度视角。数据是对所有241名患者,可用完整的工具可供144人。灵敏度检测N2和N3转移79% (41/52);88%)手术手臂这一比例为94%(62/66;策略(p = 0.02)。(凭;84%到97%;不必要的开胸手术的手臂相比之下,在endosonography 9/123 (7%)手臂(p = 0.02)。(6%),手术的胳膊,6/123 (5%)endosonography手臂(p = 0.78):一个气胸有关endosonography和12的并发症与手术分期有关。endosonography手臂EQ-5D(欧洲最后Life-5质量维度)实用工具分期(0.117;0.003)。不同的效用。资源使用的数量开胸:66%患者在手术手臂则为53%endosonography臂。两组之间在所有其他物品。6个月endosonography策略的成本我们££9713(95%原to£13,307)病人和£10459(£7732£13890)手术的手臂,平均差£746 (95% CI -£756£2494)。质量调整生命年为0.015(95%可信区间-0.023到0.052)支持endosonography,所以这种策略是更便宜和更有效的。结论:Endosonography(其次是手术如果消极的)有更高的灵敏度和分期npv,导致更少的不必要的开胸在分段和更好的生活质量,略更有效和更便宜的吗比手术分期。调查确认的必要性纵隔镜检查

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号