Background: We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies for patients with pulmonary metastases from soft tissue sarcoma.
Methods: We constructed a decision tree to model the outcomes of 4 treatment strategies for patients with pulmonary metastases from soft tissue sarcoma: pulmonary resection, systemic chemotherapy, pulmonary resection and systemic chemotherapy, and no treatment. Data from 1124 patients with pulmonary metastases from soft tissue sarcoma were used to estimate disease-specific survival for pulmonary resection and no treatment. Outcomes of systemic chemotherapy and pulmonary resection and of systemic chemotherapy were estimated by assuming a 12-month improvement in disease-specific survival with chemotherapy; this was done on the basis of the widely held but unproven assumption that chemotherapy provides a survival benefit in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. Direct costs were examined for a series of patients who underwent protocol-based pulmonary resection or doxorubicin/ifosfamide-based chemotherapy.
Results: The mean cost of pulmonary resection was 20,339 dollars per patient; the mean cost of 6 cycles of chemotherapy was 99,033 dollars. Compared with no treatment and assuming a 12-month survival advantage with chemotherapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 14,357 dollars per life-year gained for pulmonary resection, 104,210 dollars per life-year gained for systemic chemotherapy, and 51,159 dollars per life-year gained for pulmonary resection and systemic chemotherapy. Compared with pulmonary resection, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pulmonary resection and systemic chemotherapy was 108,036 dollars per life-year gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that certain patient and tumor features, as well as the assumed benefit of chemotherapy, affected cost-effectiveness.
Conclusions: For patients with pulmonary metastases from soft tissue sarcoma who were surgical candidates, pulmonary resection was the most cost-effective treatment strategy evaluated. Even with favorable assumptions regarding its clinical benefit, systemic chemotherapy alone, compared with no treatment, was not a cost-effective treatment strategy for these patients.