A Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of an Exercise Program for Lung Cancer Survivors Following Curative-Intent Treatment
RationaleThe Institute of Medicine emphasizes care in the post-treatment phase of the cancer survivorship continuum. Physical exercise has been shown to be effective in improving physical function and quality of life in cancer survivors; however, its cost-effectiveness in lung cancer survivors is not well established. ObjectiveWe performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of an exercise intervention in lung cancer survivors following curative-intent treatment. MethodsWe constructed a Markov model to simulate the impact of the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) exercise intervention compared to usual care for stage I-IIIA lung cancer survivors. Costs and utility benefit of exercise were extracted from the LIFE study. Baseline utilities, transition probabilities, and survival were modeled. We calculated and considered incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) <$100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) as cost-effective, and assessed model uncertainty using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. ResultsOur base-case model found that the LIFE exercise program would increase overall cost by $4,740 and effectiveness by 0.06 QALYs compared to usual care, and have an ICER of $79,504/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the cost of the exercise program, probability of increasing exercise, and utility benefit related to exercise. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, the LIFE exercise program had a 71% probability of being cost-effective compared to 27% for usual care. When we included opportunity costs, the LIFE exercise program had an ICER of $179,774/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. ConclusionsA simulation of the LIFE exercise program in lung cancer survivors following curative-intent treatment demonstrates cost-effectiveness from an organization but not societal perspective. Strategies to effectively increase exercise remotely may be more cost-effective than in-facility strategies for these patients.