Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
What is the optimal management of potentially resectable stage III-N2 NSCLC? Results of a fixed-effects network meta-analysis and economic modelling.
Evison, Matthew; Maconachie, Ross; Mercer, Toby; Daly, Caitlin H; Welton, Nicky J; Aslam, Shahzeena; West, Doug; Navani, Neal.
Affiliation
  • Evison M; Lung Cancer and Thoracic Surgery Directorate, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
  • Maconachie R; NICE Centre for Guidelines, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK.
  • Mercer T; NICE Centre for Guidelines, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK.
  • Daly CH; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Welton NJ; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Aslam S; Bedford and Addenbrooke's Cambridge University NHS Hospital Trusts, Cambridge, UK.
  • West D; Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
  • Navani N; Department of Respiratory Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
ERJ Open Res ; 9(2)2023 Mar.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37020838
ABSTRACT

Introduction:

There is a critical need to understand the optimal treatment regimen in patients with potentially resectable stage III-N2 nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods:

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials was carried out using a literature search including the CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE, HTA, EMBASE and MEDLINE bibliographic databases. Selected trials were used to perform a Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analysis and economic modelling of treatment regimens relevant to current-day treatment options chemotherapy plus surgery (CS), chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (CR) and chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS).

Findings:

Six trials were prioritised for evidence synthesis. The fixed-effects network meta-analyses demonstrated an improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) for CRS versus CS and CRS versus CR of 0.34 years (95% CI 0.02-0.65) and 0.32 years (95% CI 0.05-0.58) respectively, over a 5-year period. No evidence of effect was observed in overall survival although point estimates favoured CRS. The probabilities that CRS had a greater mean survival time and greater probability of being alive than the reference treatment of CR at 5 years were 89% and 86% respectively. Survival outcomes for CR and CS were essentially equivalent. The economic model calculated that CRS and CS had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £19 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and £78 000/QALY compared to CR. The probability that CRS generated more QALYs than CR and CS was 94%.

Interpretation:

CRS provides an extended time in a disease-free state leading to improved cost-effectiveness over CR and CS in potentially resectable stage III-N2 NSCLC.

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Clinical_trials / Health_economic_evaluation / Health_technology_assessment / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Aspects: Patient_preference Language: En Journal: ERJ Open Res Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United kingdom

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Clinical_trials / Health_economic_evaluation / Health_technology_assessment / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Aspects: Patient_preference Language: En Journal: ERJ Open Res Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United kingdom