The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Radiofrequency Ablation Compared to Hepatic Resection for Resectable Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Thailand
Issued Date
2025-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
01492918
eISSN
1879114X
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105008762042
Journal Title
Clinical Therapeutics
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Clinical Therapeutics (2025)
Suggested Citation
Pinjaroen N., Kulpeng W., Tangkijvanich P., Kitiyakara T. The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Radiofrequency Ablation Compared to Hepatic Resection for Resectable Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Thailand. Clinical Therapeutics (2025). doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2025.05.014 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/110949
Title
The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Radiofrequency Ablation Compared to Hepatic Resection for Resectable Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Thailand
Author(s)
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
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.