Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2022 Dec;26(48):1–162. doi: 10.3310/THBQ1793

Impact of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus open lobectomy for lung cancer on recovery assessed using self-reported physical function: VIOLET RCT.

Eric Lim, Rosie A Harris, Holly E McKeon, Timothy Jp Batchelor, Joel Dunning, Michael Shackcloth, Vladimir Anikin, Babu Naidu, Elizabeth Belcher, Mahmoud Loubani, Vipin Zamvar, Lucy Dabner, Timothy Brush, Elizabeth A Stokes, Sarah Wordsworth, Sangeetha Paramasivan, Alba Realpe, Daisy Elliott, Jane Blazeby, Chris A Rogers
PMCID: PMC9791462  PMID: 36524582

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Surgery remains the main method of managing early-stage disease. Minimal-access video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery results in less tissue trauma than open surgery; however, it is not known if it improves patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy with open surgery for the treatment of lung cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicentre, superiority, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinding of participants (until hospital discharge) and outcome assessors conducted in nine NHS hospitals. Adults referred for lung resection for known or suspected lung cancer, with disease suitable for both surgeries, were eligible. Participants were followed up for 1 year.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy or open surgery. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery used one to four keyhole incisions without rib spreading. Open surgery used a single incision with rib spreading, with or without rib resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported physical function (using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30) at 5 weeks. Secondary outcomes included upstaging to pathologic node stage 2 disease, time from surgery to hospital discharge, pain in the first 2 days, prolonged pain requiring analgesia at > 5 weeks, adverse health events, uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall and disease-free survival, quality of life (Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, Quality of Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 and EQ-5D) at 2 and 5 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

A total of 503 patients were randomised between July 2015 and February 2019 (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 256). One participant withdrew before surgery. The mean age of patients was 69 years; 249 (49.5%) patients were men and 242 (48.1%) did not have a confirmed diagnosis. Lobectomy was performed in 453 of 502 (90.2%) participants and complete resection was achieved in 429 of 439 (97.7%) participants. Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 physical function was better in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group at 5 weeks (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 255; mean difference 4.65, 95% confidence interval 1.69 to 7.61; p = 0.0089). Upstaging from clinical node stage 0 to pathologic node stage 1 and from clinical node stage 0 or 1 to pathologic node stage 2 was similar (p ≥ 0.50). Pain scores were similar on day 1, but lower in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group on day 2 (mean difference -0.54, 95% confidence interval -0.99 to -0.09; p = 0.018). Analgesic consumption was 10% lower (95% CI -20% to 1%) and the median hospital stay was less (4 vs. 5 days, hazard ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.09, 1.65; p = 0.006) in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. Prolonged pain was also less (relative risk 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.94; p = 0.003). Time to uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall survival and progression-free survival were similar (p ≥ 0.28). Fewer participants in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group experienced complications before and after discharge from hospital (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.84; p < 0.001 and relative risk 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.00; p = 0.053, respectively). Quality of life to 1 year was better across several domains in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. The probability that video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year is 1.

LIMITATIONS

Ethnic minorities were under-represented compared with the UK population (< 5%), but the cohort reflected the lung cancer population.

CONCLUSIONS

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy was associated with less pain, fewer complications and better quality of life without any compromise to oncologic outcome. Use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is highly likely to be cost-effective for the NHS.

FUTURE WORK

Evaluation of the efficacy of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery with robotic assistance, which is being offered in many hospitals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN13472721.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is a common cause of cancer death worldwide. If the disease is caught early, the part of the lung containing the tumour can be removed in an operation called a lobectomy. The operation can be carried out through a large cut so that the surgeon has a full view of the lung, which is called open surgery, or using several small cuts and a camera, which is called video-assisted thoracoscopic (keyhole) surgery. It is thought that, as keyhole surgery is less invasive, patients recover quicker. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no high-quality research studies that are applicable to UK practice to support this. This study was conducted so that it could be determined, based on high-quality evidence, which operation provides the best treatment and recovery for patients.

WHO PARTICIPATED?

Five hundred and three adults referred for lobectomy for known or suspected lung cancer from nine hospitals in the UK.

WHAT WAS INVOLVED?

Participants were randomly allocated to either receive keyhole or open surgery. Participants were followed up for 12 months. We collected information on further treatment, hospital visits, safety information and disease progression over this period. Participants were also asked to complete questionnaires about their health and recovery.

WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?

For patients with early-stage lung cancer who underwent a lobectomy, keyhole surgery led to less pain, less time in hospital and better quality of life than open surgery, without having a detrimental effect on cancer progression or survival. Keyhole surgery was found to be cost-effective and to provide excellent value for money for the NHS.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Lim E, Batchelor T, Shackcloth M, Dunning J, McGonigle N, Brush T, et al. Study protocol for VIdeo assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus conventional Open LobEcTomy for lung cancer, a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot (the VIOLET study). BMJ Open 2019;9:e029507. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029507 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Francisci S, Minicozzi P, Pierannunzio D, Ardanaz E, Eberle A, Grimsrud TK, et al. Survival patterns in lung and pleural cancer in Europe 1999–2007: results from the EUROCARE-5 study. Eur J Cancer 2015;51:2242–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.033 doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.033. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. The SCTS Thoracic Surgery Audit Group, Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland. The Thoracic Surgery Registry Brief Report Audit Years 2011–12 to 2013–14. URL: https://scts.org/_userfiles/pages/files/thoracic/3_year_data_summary_20151.pdf (accessed 26 January 2022).
  4. Yan TD, Black D, Bannon PG, McCaughan BC. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized trials on safety and efficacy of video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2553–62. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.18.2733 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.2733. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Cao C, Manganas C, Ang SC, Yan TD. A meta-analysis of unmatched and matched patients comparing video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy and conventional open lobectomy. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2012;1:16–23. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2225-319X.2012.04.18 doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2225-319X.2012.04.18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. Kirby TJ, Mack MJ, Landreneau RJ, Rice TW. Lobectomy – video-assisted thoracic surgery versus muscle-sparing thoracotomy. A randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1995;109:997–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(95)70326-8 doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(95)70326-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Sugi K, Kaneda Y, Esato K. Video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy achieves a satisfactory long-term prognosis in patients with clinical stage IA lung cancer. World J Surg 2000;24:27–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002689910006 doi: 10.1007/s002689910006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Sugiura H, Morikawa T, Kaji M, Sasamura Y, Kondo S, Katoh H. Long-term benefits for the quality of life after video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy in patients with lung cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 1999;9:403–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129689-199912000-00007 doi: 10.1097/00129689-199912000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Bendixen M, Jørgensen OD, Kronborg C, Andersen C, Licht PB. Postoperative pain and quality of life after lobectomy via video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery or anterolateral thoracotomy for early stage lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:836–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00173-X doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00173-X. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Long H, Tan Q, Luo Q, Wang Z, Jiang G, Situ D, et al. Thoracoscopic surgery versus thoracotomy for lung cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2018;105:386–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.08.045 doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.08.045. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Bendixen M, Kronborg C, Jørgensen OD, Andersen C, Licht PB. Cost-utility analysis of minimally invasive surgery for lung cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2019;56:754–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezz064 doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezz064. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Pagès PB, Abou Hanna H, Bertaux AC, Serge Aho LS, Magdaleinat P, Baste JM, et al. Medicoeconomic analysis of lobectomy using thoracoscopy versus thoracotomy for lung cancer: a study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Lungsco01). BMJ Open 2017;7:e012963. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012963 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012963. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, Eighth Edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780471420194.tnmc26.pub3 doi: 10.1002/9780471420194.tnmc26.pub3. [DOI]
  14. Sobin L, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind C. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, Seventh Edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780471420194.tnmc26.pub2 doi: 10.1002/9780471420194.tnmc26.pub2. [DOI]
  15. Swanson SJ, Herndon JE, D’Amico TA, Demmy TL, McKenna RJ, Green MR, Sugarbaker DJ. Video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy: report on CALGB 39802 – a prospective, multi-institution feasibility study. J Clin Oncol 2007;31:4993–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.6649. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Maringwa JT, Quinten C, King M, Ringash J, Osoba D, Coens C, et al. Minimal important differences for interpreting health-related quality of life scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 in lung cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials. Support Care Cancer 2011;19:1753–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-1016-5 doi: 10.1007/s00520-010-1016-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Bang H, Ni L, Davis CE. Assessment of blinding in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 2004;25:143–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2003.10.016 doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2003.10.016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Edwards SL, Roberts C, McKean ME, Cockburn JS, Jeffrey RR, Kerr KM. Preoperative histological classification of primary lung cancer: accuracy of diagnosis and use of the non-small cell category. J Clin Pathol 2000;53:537–40. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.53.7.537 doi: 10.1136/jcp.53.7.537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. Donovan JL, Rooshenas L, Jepson M, Elliott D, Wade J, Avery K, et al. Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: the development and implementation of the Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Trials 2016;17:283. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1391-4 doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1391-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  20. Rooshenas L, Paramasivan S, Jepson M, Donovan JL. Intensive triangulation of qualitative research and quantitative data to improve recruitment to randomized trials: the QuinteT approach. Qual Health Res 2019;29:672–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732319828693 doi: 10.1177/1049732319828693. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Donovan JL, Lane JA, Peters TJ, Brindle L, Salter E, Gillatt D, et al. Development of a complex intervention improved randomization and informed consent in a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.010. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, Peters T, et al. Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ 2002;325:766–70. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766 doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. Beard D, Rees P, Cook J, Rombach I, Cooper C, Merritt N, et al. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial. Lancet 2017;391:329–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32457-1 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32457-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. Elliott D, Husbands S, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, Donovan JL. Understanding and improving recruitment to randomised controlled trials: qualitative research approaches. Eur Urol 2017;72:789–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.036 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.036. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Paramasivan S, Rogers CA, Welbourn R, Byrne JP, Salter N, Mahon D, et al. Enabling recruitment success in bariatric surgical trials: pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study. Int J Obes 2017;41:1654–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2017.153 doi: 10.1038/ijo.2017.153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Donovan JL, de Salis I, Toerien M, Paramasivan S, Hamdy FC, Blazeby JM. The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:912–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  27. Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials 2014;15:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-5 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  28. Mills N, Blazeby JM, Hamdy FC, Neal DE, Campbell B, Wilson C, et al. Training recruiters to randomized trials to facilitate recruitment and informed consent by exploring patients’ treatment preferences. Trials 2014;15:323. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-323 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  29. Mills N, Gaunt D, Blazeby JM, Elliott D, Husbands S, Holding P, et al. Training health professionals to recruit into challenging randomized controlled trials improved confidence: the development of the QuinteT randomized controlled trial recruitment training intervention. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;95:34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.015 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. Rooshenas L, Elliott D, Wade J, Jepson M, Paramasivan S, Strong S, et al. Conveying equipoise during recruitment for clinical trials: qualitative synthesis of clinicians’ practices across six randomised controlled trials. PLOS Med 2016;13:e1002147. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002147 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. Jepson M, Elliott D, Conefrey C, Wade J, Rooshenas L, Wilson C, et al. An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;99:75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.018 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  32. Wilson C, Rooshenas L, Paramasivan S, Elliott D, Jepson M, Strong S, et al. Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework. Trials 2018;19:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2413-6 doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2413-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. Mills N, Donovan JL, Wade J, Hamdy FC, Neal DE, Lane JA. Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1127–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.017 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  34. Glaser B, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 1967. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 doi: 10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014. [DOI]
  35. Wade J, Donovan JL, Athene Lane J, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it: opening the ‘black box’ of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:2018–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023 doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c869. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Method 1995;57:289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x. [DOI]
  38. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013. [PubMed]
  39. EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Social Value Judgments: Principles for the Development of NICE Guidance. 2nd edn. London: NICE; 2008. [PubMed]
  42. NHS Improvement. National Schedule of Reference Costs 2018–19. 2019. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/national-cost-collection/ (accessed 28 January 2021).
  43. NHS Improvement. National Schedule of Reference Costs 2017–18. 2018. URL: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20200501111106/https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/ (accessed 26 January 2022).
  44. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2019. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2019.
  45. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2020. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2020.
  46. GOV.UK. Drugs and Pharmaceutical Electronic Market Information Tool (eMIT). URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/drugs-and-pharmaceutical-electronic-market-information-emit (accessed 29 November 2020).
  47. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2020.
  48. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  50. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Position Statement on Use of the EQ-5D-5L Value Set for England (Updated October 2019). 2019. URL: www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/technology-appraisal-guidance/eq-5d-5l (accessed 28 January 2021).
  51. Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, White IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:1157–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3 doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  52. Briggs A, Clark T, Wolstenholme J, Clarke P. Missing . . . presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ 2003;12:377–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.766 doi: 10.1002/hec.766. [DOI] [PubMed]
  53. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067 doi: 10.1002/sim.4067. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Non-Response in Surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1987. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696 doi: 10.1002/9780470316696. [DOI]
  55. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.944 doi: 10.1002/hec.944. [DOI] [PubMed]
  56. Lim E, Batchelor T, Dunning J, Shackcloth M, Anikin V, Naidu B, et al. Video-assisted thoracoscopic or open lobectomy in early-stage lung cancer. NJEM Evid 2022;1. https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2100016 doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2100016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  57. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Lung Cancer: Diagnosis and Management NICE Guideline [NG122]. 2019. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng122/chapter/Recommendations (accessed 15 February 2021). [PubMed]
  58. Rooshenas L, Scott LJ, Blazeby JM, Rogers CA, Tilling KM, Husbands S, et al. The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention supported five randomized trials to recruit to target: a mixed-methods evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;106:108–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.10.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  59. Gov.UK. Population of England and Wales. 2020. URL: www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/population-of-england-and-wales/latest (accessed 17 February 2021).
  60. Jack RH, Davies EA, Møller H. Lung cancer incidence and survival in different ethnic groups in South East England. Br J Cancer 2011;105:1049–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.282 doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  61. ISD Scotland. Theatre Services. R142X_2019 Average Theatre Running Costs, and Usage by Specialty, by Board. 2019. URL: www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Finance/Costs/Detailed-Tables/Theatres.asp (accessed 3 August 2020).
  62. Gray AJ, Goodacre S, Newby DE, Masson MA, Sampson F, Dixon S, et al. A multicentre randomised controlled trial of the use of continuous positive airway pressure and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in the early treatment of patients presenting to the emergency department with severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: the 3CPO trial. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(33). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta13330 doi: 10.3310/hta13330. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Nutrition Support in Adults: Oral Nutrition Support, Enteral Tube Feeding and Parenteral Nutrition. Costing Report. Implementing NICE Guidance in England. Clinical Guideline No. 32. London: NICE; 2006.
  64. NHS Blood and Transplant. NHS Blood and Transplant Price List 2018–2019. 2018. URL: https://hospital.blood.co.uk/components/portfolio-and-prices/ (accessed 26 January 2022).
  65. Krishnamoorthy B, Mehta V, Critchley W, Callan P, Shaw S, Venkateswaran R. Financial implications of using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation following heart transplantation. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2021;32:625–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivaa307 doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivaa307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  66. Dretzke J, Blissett D, Dave C, Mukherjee R, Price M, Bayliss S, et al. The cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2015;19(81). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19810 doi: 10.3310/hta19810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  67. Georghiou T, Bardsley M. Exploring the Cost of Care at the End of Life. 2014. URL: www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/files/2017-01/end-of-life-care-web-final.pdf (accessed 3 April 2020).
  68. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2017.
  69. Pope C, Turnbull J, Jones J, Prichard J, Rowsell A, Halford S. Has the NHS 111 urgent care telephone service been a success? Case study and secondary data analysis in England. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014815. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014815 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014815. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  70. Snee MP, McParland L, Collinson F, Lowe CM, Striha A, Baldwin DR, et al. The SABRTooth feasibility trial protocol: a study to determine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a phase III randomised controlled trial comparing stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with surgery in patients with peripheral stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) considered to be at higher risk of complications from surgical resection. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2016;2:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-016-0046-2 doi: 10.1186/s40814-016-0046-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

RESOURCES