Robotic Lobectomy Is Cost-effective and Provides Comparable Health Utility Scores to Video-assisted Lobectomy: Early Results of the RAVAL Trial.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if robotic-assisted lobectomy (RPL-4) is cost-effective and offers improved patient-reported health utility for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer when compared with video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy (VATS-lobectomy). BACKGROUND: Barriers against the adoption of RPL-4 in publicly funded health care include the paucity of high-quality prospective trials and the perceived high cost of robotic surgery. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a blinded, multicentered, randomized controlled trial in Canada, the United States, and France, and were randomized 11 to either RPL-4 or VATS-lobectomy. EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) was administered at baseline and postoperative day 1; weeks 3, 7, 12; and months 6 and 12. Direct and indirect costs were tracked using standard methods. Seemingly Unrelated Regression was applied to estimate the cost effect, adjusting for baseline health utility. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was generated by 10,000 bootstrap samples with multivariate imputation by chained equations. RESULTS: Of 406 patients screened, 186 were randomized, and 164 analyzed after the final eligibility review (RPL-4 n=81; VATS-lobectomy n=83). Twelve-month follow-up was completed by 94.51% (155/164) of participants. The median age was 68 (60-74). There were no significant differences in body mass index, comorbidity, pulmonary function, smoking status, baseline health utility, or tumor characteristics between arms. The mean 12-week health utility score was 0.85 (0.10) for RPL-4 and 0.80 (0.19) for VATS-lobectomy ( P =0.02). Significantly more lymph nodes were sampled [10 (8-13) vs 8 (5-10); P =0.003] in the RPL-4 arm. The incremental cost/quality-adjusted life year of RPL-4 was $14,925.62 (95% CI $6843.69, $23,007.56) at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Early results of the RAVAL trial suggest that RPL-4 is cost-effective and associated with comparable short-term patient-reported health utility scores when compared with VATS-lobectomy.