A cost-utility analysis of treatments for malignant liver tumours: a pilot project
Andrew McKay1, Trish Kutnikoff, Mark Taylor
1Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. andrewmc@cancerboard.ab.ca
Background:
Hepatic resection is the standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases when feasible. Techniques such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have been the subject of ongoing research in hopes of achieving a similar survival to that achieved with hepatic resection, but with less morbidity and better quality of life (QOL). The aim was to to generate a hypothesis concerning the cost-utility of various treatments that may be further tested with randomized trials in the future.
Patients And Methods:
This was a prospective, non-randomized pilot study comparing the cost-utility of hepatic resection, RFA, systemic chemotherapy, and symptom control alone for colorectal liver metastases. All patients with newly diagnosed liver malignancies were eligible. QOL was measured serially with the Health Utilities Index. Costs, in 2001 Canadian dollars, were captured from the viewpoint of society in general.
Results:
In all, 40 patients were enrolled in the study: 7 underwent hepatic resection, 7 underwent RFA (sometimes in combination with resection), 20 received systemic chemotherapy, and 6 received symptom control alone. Liver resection appeared to be the most effective approach, with an average benefit of 2.58 QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) compared with 1.95 QALYs for RFA, 1.18 QALYs for chemotherapy, and 0.82 QALYs for symptom control alone, resulting in cost-utility ratios of $7792, $8056, $12,571, and $4788 per QALY, respectively.
Discussion:
The cost-utility of hepatic resection and RFA appeared similar even though patients receiving RFA had more advanced disease. The role of RFA is still being defined; however, if long-term survival proves to be promising, then this study lends support to the conduct of randomized controlled trials in the future.
