Background: Multiple stakeholders have advocated for minimum volume standards for complex surgical procedures. The Leapfrog Group recommends that patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive surgical resection at hospitals that perform at least 40 lung resections annually. However, the cost-effectiveness of this paradigm is unknown.
Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed on 90-day and 5-year horizons for patients with clinical stage I NSCLC undergoing surgical resection at hospitals stratified by Leapfrog standard. Model inputs were derived from either the literature or a propensity score-matched cohort using the National Cancer Database. For the 5-year horizon, we simulated using a Markov model with 1-year cycle. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to evaluate cost-effectiveness.
Results: For the 90-day horizon, resection at a Leapfrog hospital was more costly ($25 567 vs $25 530) but had greater utility (0.185 vs 0.181 quality-adjusted life-years), resulting in an ICER of 10 506. Similarly, for the 5-year horizon, resection at a Leapfrog hospital was more costly ($26 600 vs $26 495) but more effective (3.216 vs 3.122 quality-adjusted life-years), resulting in an ICER of 1108. When the costs for long-distance travel, lodging, and loss of productivity for caregivers were factored in, the ICER was 20 499 during the 5-year horizon for resection at Leapfrog hospitals. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000, resection at a Leapfrog hospital remained cost-effective.
Conclusions: Receiving surgery for clinical stage I NSCLC at hospitals that meet Leapfrog volume standards is cost-effective. Payers and policymakers should consider supporting patient and caregiver travel to higher volume institutions for lung cancer surgery.
Published by Elsevier Inc.