Cost-effectiveness evaluation of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus open thoracotomy and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for operable non-small cell lung cancer

[Display omitted] •RATS harvested an incremental 0.28 QALYs at an additional cost of $3104.82, making for an ICER of $10967.41 per QALY over OT.•Robotic approach was associated with less cost-effective than VATS, making for an ICER of $80324.98 per QALY versus VATS.•The CE probabilities of RATS for 24 of 31 provinces in China were > 0.60 at corresponding WTP thresholds. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) over open thoracotomy (OT) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for operable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of Chinese healthcare payer. The Markov decision model was developed to assess the 5-year costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of RATS versus OT and VATS for operable NSCLC patients. The propensity-matched cohorts were generated from our clinical center to determine the surgical costs and complication rates. An individual patient data meta-analysis was conducted to estimate model probabilities of progression and survival risks. Other model inputs were abstracted from available studies. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RATS contributed to an incremental 0.28 QALYs at an additional cost of $3,104.82, making for an ICER of $10,967.41 per QALY versus OT. Robotic approach harvested an incremental 0.05 QALYs at an additional cost of $4006.86, making for an ICER of $80324.98 per QALY over VATS. RATS shown a same cost-effectiveness probability (0.50) versus OT and VATS at a willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $12,000 per QALY and $75,800 per QALY, respectively. The probabilities of cost-effectiveness for RATS were 0.64 and 0.21 at a presupposed WTP threshold of $ 30,000 per QALY versus OT and VATS, respectively. RATS was evaluated to be cost-effective versus OT for patients with operable NSCLC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare payer. To the contrary, robotic approach was associated with less cost-effective than VATS.