Cost-effectiveness of palliative emergent surgery versus endoscopic stenting for acute malignant colonic obstruction

Economic evaluation of palliative gastrointestinal surgery for advanced cancer patients with malignant bowel obstruction: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Palliative surgery reduces debilitating symptoms attributable to cancer, and the intent is to improve health-related quality of life. Malignant bowel obstruction is a common indication. Despite positive clinical outcomes, there is a shortage of economic evaluation evidence to support wider adoption of palliative surgery.

AIM

The aim of this review is to summarize the existing economic evaluation literature for palliative gastrointestinal surgery for advanced cancer patients with malignant bowel obstruction.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and systematic literature searches were performed using PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane. English-language studies comparing cost outcomes of palliative gastrointestinal surgery for malignant bowel obstruction between January 2000 and April 2024 were considered. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 were used to assess the quality of reporting, and Risk of Bias in Model-based Economic Evaluations was used to examine potential risk of bias of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of nine papers were included, with five reporting cost outcomes only and four were full economic evaluations. Methods used, and the conditions included were heterogenous. There was a lack of consistency in methods and reporting deficits relative to the CHEERS 2022 guideline. Multiple potential sources of bias were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of economic evaluations is quite poor. Heterogeneity among studies limits the ability to compare and generalise findings. Future research should strive to standardize methodologies, improve reporting practices, and develop more robust, high-quality economic evaluations that can better inform decision-making in palliative gastrointestinal surgery for malignant bowel obstruction.

Economic evaluation of robotic and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Robotic approach in paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair may improve outcomes over laparoscopic approach, though at additional cost. This study aimed to compare cost-effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic PEH repair.

METHODS

A decision tree was created analyzing cost-effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic PEH repair. Costs were obtained from 2021 Medicare data and were accumulated within 60 months after surgery. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Branch-point probabilities and costs of robotic surgery consumables were obtained from published literature. The primary outcome of interest was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A secondary analysis including attributable capital and maintenance costs of robotic surgery was conducted as well.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic repair yielded 3.660 QALYs at $35,843.82. Robotic repair yielded 3.661 QALYs at $36,342.57, with an ICER of $779,488.62/QALY. Robotic repair was favored when rates of open conversion and symptom recurrence were low, or with reduced cost of robotic instruments. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis favored laparoscopic repair in 100% of simulations. When accounting for costs of robotic technology, robotic approach was preferred only in unrealistic clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic repair is likely more cost-effective for most institutions, though results were relatively similar. With experienced surgeons who surpass the initial learning curve, robotic surgery may improve outcomes enough to be cost-effective, but only when excluding capital and maintenance fees.

Oncologic impact of colonic stents for obstructive left-sided colon cancer

Colonic stenting has had a significant positive impact on the management of obstructive left-sided colon cancer (OLCC) in terms of both palliative treatment and bridge-to-surgery (BTS). Notably, many studies have convincingly demonstrated the effectiveness of stenting as a BTS, resulting in improvements in short-term outcomes and quality of life, safety, and efficacy in subsequent curative surgery, and increased cost-effectiveness, whereas the safety of chemotherapy after stenting and the long-term outcomes of stenting as a BTS are controversial. Several studies have suggested an increased risk of perforation in patients receiving bevacizumab chemotherapy after colonic stenting. In addition, several pathological analyses have suggested a negative oncological impact of colonic stenting. In contrast, many recent studies have demonstrated that colonic stenting for OLCC does not negatively impact the safety of chemotherapy or long-term oncological outcomes. The updated version of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines released in 2020 included colonic stenting as a BTS for OLCC as a recommended treatment. It should be noted that the experience of endoscopists is involved in determining technical and clinical success rates and possibly oncological outcomes. This review discusses the positive and negative impacts of colonic stenting on OLCC treatment, particularly in terms of oncology.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of infected necrotizing pancreatitis management in an academic setting

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Traditional management for infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) often utilizes open necrosectomy, which carries high morbidity and complication rates. Thus, minimally invasive strategies have gained favor, specifically step-up approaches utilizing endoscopic or minimally-invasive surgery (MIS); however, the ideal management modality for INP has not been identified.

METHODS

A decision tree model was designed to analyze costs and survival associated with open necrosectomy, endoscopic step-up, and MIS step-up protocols for management of INP after 4 weeks of necrosis development with adequate retroperitoneal access. Costs were based on a third-party payer perspective using Medicare reimbursement rates. The model's effectiveness was represented by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to validate results.

RESULTS

Endoscopic step-up was the dominant economic strategy with 7.92 QALYs for $90,864.09. Surgical step-up resulted in a decrease of 0.09 QALYs and a cost increase of $10,067.89 while open necrosectomy resulted in a decrease of 0.4 QALYs and an increased cost of $18,407.52 over endoscopic step-up. In 100,000 random-sampling simulations, 65.5% of simulations favored endoscopic step-up. MIS step-up was favored when MIS acute mortality rates fell and when MIS drainage success rates rose.

CONCLUSIONS

In our simulated patients with INP, the most cost-effective management strategy is endoscopic step-up. Cost-effectiveness varies with changes in acute mortality and drainage success, which will depend on local expertise.