Watch-and-Wait policy versus robotic surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer: A cost-effectiveness study (RECCOSTE)

Cost-Effectiveness of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Selective Nonoperative Management for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Analysis of Data From the Organ Preservation for Rectal Adenocarcinoma Trial

PURPOSE

The clinical efficacy of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) followed by selective nonoperative management (NOM) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) was examined in the Organ Preservation for Rectal Adenocarcinoma (OPRA) trial. We investigated the cost and quality-of-life implications of adopting this treatment approach.

METHODS

We analyzed clinical, cost, and quality-of-life outcomes for TNT with selective NOM in comparison with chemoradiotherapy (CRT)-surgery-adjuvant chemotherapy (standard of care [SOC]) using data from OPRA, prospective cohorts, and published studies. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over varying willingness-to-pay thresholds, and sensitivity analyses evaluated cost-effectiveness for different surgical contexts and SOC variants as well as a 10-year time horizon.

RESULTS

SOC was dominated by TNT with selective NOM in the base case analysis. TNT in which CRT was followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CNCT) was the least costly at $89,712 in Medicare proportionate US dollars (MP$), followed by TNT in which induction chemotherapy was followed by CRT (INCT) at MP$90,259 and SOC at MP$98,755. INCT was the preferred strategy, with 4.56 quality-adjusted life years, followed by CNCT at 4.42 and SOC at 4.29. TNT with selective NOM dominated SOC in all sensitivity analyses except when SOC omitted adjuvant chemotherapy without an impact on disease-free survival. CNCT was more cost effective than SOC when the proportion of patients entering NOM after TNT was ≥22% or ≥43%, for SOC with and without adjuvant therapy, both well below the rates seen in OPRA.

CONCLUSION

TNT with selective NOM is cost effective. The cost-effectiveness of CNCT with NOM relative to SOC is dependent on CNCT being made available to a sufficiently large proportion of patients with LARC. Additional analyses are needed to validate these findings from a societal perspective and in the context of other emerging treatment paradigms for LARC.

Economic Evaluation of 'Watch and Wait' Following Neoadjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Owing to multimodal treatment and complex surgery, locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) exerts a large healthcare burden. Watch and wait (W&W) may be cost saving by removing the need for surgery and inpatient care. This systematic review seeks to identify the economic impact of W&W, compared with standard care, in patients achieving a complete clinical response (cCR) following neoadjuvant therapy for LARC.

METHODS

The PubMed, OVID Medline, OVID Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched from inception to 26 April 2024. All economic evaluations (EEs) that compared W&W with standard care were included. Reporting and methodological quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), BMJ and Philips checklists. Narrative synthesis was performed. Primary and secondary outcomes were (incremental) cost-effectiveness ratios and the net financial cost.

RESULTS

Of 1548 studies identified, 27 were assessed for full-text eligibility and 12 studies from eight countries (2016-2024) were included. Seven cost-effectiveness analyses (complete EEs) and five cost analyses (partial EEs) utilized model-based (n = 7) or trial-based (n = 5) analytics with significant variations in methodological design and reporting quality. W&W showed consistent cost effectiveness (n = 7) and cost saving (n = 12) compared with surgery from third-party payer and patient perspectives. Critical parameters identified by uncertainty analysis were rates of local and distant recurrence in W&W, salvage surgery, perioperative mortality and utilities assigned to W&W and surgery.

CONCLUSION

Despite heterogenous methodological design and reporting quality, W&W is likely to be cost effective and cost saving compared with standard care following cCR in LARC. Clinical Trials Registration PROSPERO CRD42024513874.

Markov models for clinical decision-making in radiation oncology: A systematic review

The intrinsic stochasticity of patients' response to treatment is a major consideration for clinical decision-making in radiation therapy. Markov models are powerful tools to capture this stochasticity and render effective treatment decisions. This paper provides an overview of the Markov models for clinical decision analysis in radiation oncology. A comprehensive literature search was conducted within MEDLINE using PubMed, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies published from 2000 to 2023 were considered. Selected publications were summarized in two categories: (i) studies that compare two (or more) fixed treatment policies using Monte Carlo simulation and (ii) studies that seek an optimal treatment policy through Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). Relevant to the scope of this study, 61 publications were selected for detailed review. The majority of these publications (n = 56) focused on comparative analysis of two or more fixed treatment policies using Monte Carlo simulation. Classifications based on cancer site, utility measures and the type of sensitivity analysis are presented. Five publications considered MDPs with the aim of computing an optimal treatment policy; a detailed statement of the analysis and results is provided for each work. As an extension of Markov model-based simulation analysis, MDP offers a flexible framework to identify an optimal treatment policy among a possibly large set of treatment policies. However, the applications of MDPs to oncological decision-making have been understudied, and the full capacity of this framework to render complex optimal treatment decisions warrants further consideration.

Patient-Relevant Costs for Organ Preservation versus Radical Resection in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is an evolving treatment schedule for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), allowing for organ preservation in a relevant number of patients in the case of complete response. Patients who undergo this so-called "watch and wait" approach are likely to benefit regarding their quality of life (QoL), especially if definitive ostomy could be avoided. In this work, we performed the first cost-effectiveness analysis from the patient perspective to compare costs for TNT with radical resection after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) in the German health care system. Individual costs for patients insured with a statutory health insurance were calculated with a Markov microsimulation. A subgroup analysis from the prospective "FinTox" trial was used to calibrate the model's parameters. We found that TNT was less expensive (-1540 EUR) and simultaneously resulted in a better QoL (+0.64 QALYs) during treatment and 5-year follow-up. The average cost for patients under TNT was 4711 EUR per year, which was equivalent to 3.2% of the net household income. CRT followed by resection resulted in higher overall costs for ostomy care, medication and greater loss of earnings. Overall, TNT appeared to be more efficacious and cost-effective from a patient's point of view in the German health care system.

Light and shadow of watch-and-wait strategy in rectal cancer: oncological result, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The watch-and-wait (WW) strategy is a potential option for patients with rectal cancer who obtain a complete clinic response after neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study is to analyze the long-term oncological outcomes and perform a cost-effectiveness analysis in patients undergoing this strategy for rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The data of patients treated with the WW strategy were prospectively collected from January 2015 to January 2020. A control group was created, matched 1:1 from a pool of 480 patients undergoing total mesorectal excision. An independent company carried out the financial analysis. Clinical and oncological outcomes were analyzed in both groups. Outcome parameters included surgical and follow-up costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Forty patients were included in the WW group, with 40 patients in the surgical group. During a median follow-up period of 36 months, metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar in the two groups. In the WW group, nine (22%) local regrowths were detected in the first 2 years. The permanent stoma rate was slightly higher after salvage surgery in the WW group compared to the surgical group (48.5% vs 20%, p < 0.01). The cost-effectiveness analysis was slightly better for the WW group, especially for low rectal cancer compared to medium-high rectal cancer (ICER =  - 108,642.1 vs ICER =  - 42,423).

CONCLUSIONS

The WW strategy in locally advanced rectal cancer offers similar oncological outcomes with respect to the surgical group and excellent results in quality of life and cost outcomes, especially for low rectal cancer. Nonetheless, the complex surgical field during salvage surgery can lead to a high permanent stoma rate; therefore, the careful selection of patients is mandatory.

The "Watch and Wait" Method After Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer Requiring Abdominoperineal Resection

The present study examined the therapeutic effects of preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NACRT) and predictive factors for complete clinical remission, compared the prognosis and costs of abdominoperineal resection (APR) and the "watch and wait" method (WW), and evaluated the usefulness of WW. In our department, patients with stage II-III lower rectal cancer requiring APR receive NACRT. NACRT was performed as a preoperative treatment (52 Gy + S-1: 80-120 mg/day × 25 days). Eight weeks after the completion of NACRT, rectal examination, endoscopic, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging findings were evaluated to assess its therapeutic effects. APR was indicated for patients in whom endoscopic findings suggested a residual tumor in which a deep ulcer or marginal swelling remained or lymph node metastasis. However, WW was selected for patients who refused APR after informed consent was obtained. In the APR and WW groups, 5- and 20-year treatment costs after CRT were calculated using the Medical Fee Points of Japan in 2020. No significant differences were observed in 3-year disease-free survival rates for either parameter between the two groups. Regarding expenses, treatment costs were lower in the WW group than in the APR group. Organ preservation using active surveillance with CRT for rectal cancer requiring APR is feasible with the achievement of endoluminal complete remission.