Table 3.
Sensitivity Analyses of Selected Parameters for T1b Patients
| Parameter for T1b | Unadjusted life years change | QALYs change | ICERs change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | — | ||
| 60 | — | — | Esophagectomy cost-effective |
| 65 | — | — | Esophagectomy cost-effective |
| 70 | — | — | Esophagectomy cost-effective |
| 80 | — | — | — |
| 85 | — | — | — |
| CCI | |||
| 1 | — | — | — |
| 2 | — | ET preferred | — |
| Sex | |||
| Female | — | — | — |
| Utility of post-esophagectomy state | |||
| 0.8 | — | ET preferred | — |
| 1 | — | — | Esophagectomy cost-effective |
| Utility of post-ET state | |||
| 0.88 | — | — | Esophagectomy cost-effective |
| 1 | — | — | — |
| Cost of esophagectomy, $ | |||
| 27,000 | — | — | Esophagectomy cost-effective |
| 28,000 | — | — | — |
| Age (y) and CCI | |||
| 60, 0 | — | — | Esophagectomy cost-effective |
| 60, 1 | — | — | Esophagectomy cost-effective |
| 60, 2 | — | — | — |
| 65, 0 | — | — | Esophagectomy cost-effective |
| 65, 1 | — | — | — |
| 65, 2 | — | — | — |
| 70, 0 | — | — | Esophagectomy cost-effective |
| 70, 1 | — | — | — |
| 70, 2 | — | ET preferred | — |
| 80, 0 | — | — | — |
| 80, 1 | — | ET preferred | — |
| 80, 2 | ET preferred | ET preferred | — |
| 85, 0 | — | — | — |
| 85, 1 | — | ET preferred | — |
| 85, 2 | ET preferred | ET preferred | — |
| Utilities of post-esophagectomy and post-ET states | |||
| 0.8, 0.88 | — | — | — |
| 1, 0.88 | — | — | Esophagectomy cost-effective |
| 0.8, 1.0 | — | ET preferred | — |
| 1.0, 1.0 | — | — | Esophagectomy cost-effective |
CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; ET, endoscopic therapy; ICER, incremental cost-effective ratio; QALY, quality-adjusted life year.