The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Radiofrequency Ablation Compared to Hepatic Resection for Resectable Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Thailand.
1/5 보강
PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 2/4)
유사 논문P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
환자: preserved liver function, hepatic resection (HR) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are considered curative options
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
추출되지 않음
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
[CONCLUSION] RFA should be considered a primary treatment for HCC ≤3 cm in Thailand, with policy changes to support device reimbursement. For HCCs sized 3.1-5 cm, HR remains the preferred treatment due to better survival outcomes and cost-effectiveness unless surgery is not feasible.
[BACKGROUND] Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer death in Thailand.
APA
Pinjaroen N, Kulpeng W, et al. (2025). The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Radiofrequency Ablation Compared to Hepatic Resection for Resectable Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Thailand.. Clinical therapeutics, 47(8), 602-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2025.05.014
MLA
Pinjaroen N, et al.. "The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Radiofrequency Ablation Compared to Hepatic Resection for Resectable Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Thailand.." Clinical therapeutics, vol. 47, no. 8, 2025, pp. 602-609.
PMID
40544073 ↗
Abstract 한글 요약
[BACKGROUND] Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer death in Thailand. For early-stage HCC patients with preserved liver function, hepatic resection (HR) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are considered curative options. RFA is suitable for small tumors, ideally ≤3 cm and up to ≤5 cm. and can be performed in patients who are unfit for surgery. However, the cost of ablative devices like the RFA electrode is not covered by the National Health Security Office (NHSO), limiting access for many patients. Thus, this study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of RFA compared to HR for single resectable HCC in Thailand.
[METHODOLOGY] A cost-utility analysis using a Markov model was conducted from a societal perspective, simulating a cohort of 40-year-old patients with compensated cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A or B) and resectable HCC. Two patient subgroups were compared: those with single HCC sized 3.1-5 cm and those with single HCC ≤3 cm. Costs and outcomes were assessed over a lifetime horizon and measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with a 3% annual discount rate applied. Data sources included systematic reviews, national databases, and local hospitals.
[RESULTS] For tumors ≤3 cm, RFA proved more cost-effective than HR, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of THB 11,015 (USD 350) per QALY gained, significantly below the Thai threshold of THB 160,000 (USD 5,079) per QALY gained. RFA provided 7.55 QALYs versus 5.92 QALYs for HR, with an additional lifetime cost of THB 24,922 (USD 791)per patient. The discount rate and cost of follow-up significantly impacted the ICER. For tumors 3.1-5 cm, HR was more effective (1.25 QALYs) and costly (THB 21,294 or USD 676) than RFA, making HR a favorable option.
[CONCLUSION] RFA should be considered a primary treatment for HCC ≤3 cm in Thailand, with policy changes to support device reimbursement. For HCCs sized 3.1-5 cm, HR remains the preferred treatment due to better survival outcomes and cost-effectiveness unless surgery is not feasible.
[METHODOLOGY] A cost-utility analysis using a Markov model was conducted from a societal perspective, simulating a cohort of 40-year-old patients with compensated cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A or B) and resectable HCC. Two patient subgroups were compared: those with single HCC sized 3.1-5 cm and those with single HCC ≤3 cm. Costs and outcomes were assessed over a lifetime horizon and measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with a 3% annual discount rate applied. Data sources included systematic reviews, national databases, and local hospitals.
[RESULTS] For tumors ≤3 cm, RFA proved more cost-effective than HR, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of THB 11,015 (USD 350) per QALY gained, significantly below the Thai threshold of THB 160,000 (USD 5,079) per QALY gained. RFA provided 7.55 QALYs versus 5.92 QALYs for HR, with an additional lifetime cost of THB 24,922 (USD 791)per patient. The discount rate and cost of follow-up significantly impacted the ICER. For tumors 3.1-5 cm, HR was more effective (1.25 QALYs) and costly (THB 21,294 or USD 676) than RFA, making HR a favorable option.
[CONCLUSION] RFA should be considered a primary treatment for HCC ≤3 cm in Thailand, with policy changes to support device reimbursement. For HCCs sized 3.1-5 cm, HR remains the preferred treatment due to better survival outcomes and cost-effectiveness unless surgery is not feasible.
🏷️ 키워드 / MeSH 📖 같은 키워드 OA만
- Humans
- Carcinoma
- Hepatocellular
- Liver Neoplasms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Thailand
- Quality-Adjusted Life Years
- Hepatectomy
- Radiofrequency Ablation
- Markov Chains
- Adult
- Male
- Female
- Catheter Ablation
- Middle Aged
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
- Cost-effective analysis
- Hepatic resection
- Hepatocellular carcinoma
- Radiofrequency ablation
같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (1)
🏷️ 같은 키워드 · 무료전문 — 이 논문 MeSH/keyword 기반
- A Phase I Study of Hydroxychloroquine and Suba-Itraconazole in Men with Biochemical Relapse of Prostate Cancer (HITMAN-PC): Dose Escalation Results.
- Self-management of male urinary symptoms: qualitative findings from a primary care trial.
- Clinical and Liquid Biomarkers of 20-Year Prostate Cancer Risk in Men Aged 45 to 70 Years.
- Diagnostic accuracy of Ga-PSMA PET/CT versus multiparametric MRI for preoperative pelvic invasion in the patients with prostate cancer.
- Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Surgery for Thyroid Cancer.
- Association of patient health education with the postoperative health related quality of life in low- intermediate recurrence risk differentiated thyroid cancer patients.