Systematic review of economic evaluations on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) compared to other radiotherapy techniques or surgical procedures for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract

Abstract Background Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is recommended as first-choice treatment to inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is not widely adopted in developing countries, and its cost-effectiveness is unclear. We aimed to perform a systematic review of full economic evaluations (EE) that compared SABR with other radiotherapy or surgical procedures to assess the results and methodological approach. Methods The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021241640). We included full EE studies with early-stage NSCLC in which one group was submitted to SABR. Studies that were partial EE, included advanced NSCLC or other neoplasm were excluded. We performed the last search on June 2021 in Medline, EMBASE and other databases. The reporting quality were assessed by CHEERS checklist. The main characteristics of each study were tabulated, and the results were presented by a narrative synthesis. Results We included nine studies. Three compared radiotherapy techniques, in which SABR was found to be dominant or cost-effective. Six compared SABR with surgery, and in this group, there was not a unanimous decision. All included only direct healthcare costs but varied about categories included. The parameters used in the model-based studies were highly heterogeneous using mixed data from various sources. The items properly reported varied from 29 to 67%. Conclusions The studies were all from developed countries and lacked in reporting quality. We recommend that developing countries produce their own studies. More strict alignment to reporting guidelines and use of robust evidence as model parameters are also advised.

Keywords

• Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)
• Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR)
• Cost-Effectiveness Analysis