Image-guided navigation for locally advanced primary and locally recurrent rectal cancer: evaluation of its early cost-effectiveness.

Melanie Lindenberg, Astrid Kramer, Esther Kok, Valesca Retèl, Geerard Beets, Theo Ruers, Wim van Harten
Author Information
  1. Melanie Lindenberg: Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
  2. Astrid Kramer: Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
  3. Esther Kok: Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  4. Valesca Retèl: Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
  5. Geerard Beets: Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  6. Theo Ruers: Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  7. Wim van Harten: Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. w.v.harten@nki.nl. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A first pilot study showed that an image-guided navigation system could improve resection margin rates in locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) patients. Incremental surgical innovation is often implemented without reimbursement consequences, health economic aspects should however also be taken into account. This study evaluates the early cost-effectiveness of navigated surgery compared to standard surgery in LARC and LRRC.
METHODS: A Markov decision model was constructed to estimate the expected costs and outcomes for navigated and standard surgery. The input parameters were based on pilot data from a prospective (navigation cohort n = 33) and retrospective (control group n = 142) data. Utility values were measured in a comparable group (n = 63) through the EQ5D-5L. Additionally, sensitivity and value of information analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Based on this early evaluation, navigated surgery showed incremental costs of €3141 and €2896 in LARC and LRRC. In LARC, navigated surgery resulted in 2.05 Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) vs 2.02 QALYs for standard surgery. For LRRC, we found 1.73 vs 1.67 QALYs respectively. This showed an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of €136.604 for LARC and €52.510 for LRRC per QALY gained. In scenario analyses, optimal utilization rates of the navigation technology lowered the ICER to €61.817 and €21.334 for LARC and LRRC. The ICERs of both indications were most sensitive to uncertainty surrounding the risk of progression in the first year after surgery, the risk of having a positive surgical margin, and the costs of the navigation system.
CONCLUSION: Adding navigation system use is expected to be cost-effective in LRRC and has the potential to become cost-effective in LARC. To increase the probability of being cost-effective, it is crucial to optimize efficient use of both the hybrid OR and the navigation system and identify subgroups where navigation is expected to show higher effectiveness.

Keywords

References

  1. Colorectal Dis. 2012 Dec;14(12):1457-66 [PMID: 22356246]
  2. Health Econ Rev. 2016 Dec;6(1):36 [PMID: 27541298]
  3. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Feb;14(2):447-54 [PMID: 17139457]
  4. Med Decis Making. 1993 Oct-Dec;13(4):322-38 [PMID: 8246705]
  5. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2016 Feb;28(2):103-115 [PMID: 26683258]
  6. Ann Surg. 2015 Dec;262(6):891-8 [PMID: 26473651]
  7. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Mar 01;11(3):299-307 [PMID: 32729284]
  8. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999 Jun;94(6):1650-7 [PMID: 10364039]
  9. Ann Surg. 2014 Feb;259(2):315-22 [PMID: 23478530]
  10. Value Health. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):373-84 [PMID: 23538190]
  11. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Sep;37(9):1155-1163 [PMID: 31134467]
  12. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Feb;15(2):181-190 [PMID: 28188188]
  13. Med Decis Making. 2005 Sep-Oct;25(5):511-9 [PMID: 16160207]
  14. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Fall;24(4):459-64 [PMID: 18828941]
  15. Br J Surg. 2018 May;105(6):650-657 [PMID: 29529336]
  16. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2015 Sep;89(3):131-7 [PMID: 26366382]
  17. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007 May;33(4):452-8 [PMID: 17071043]
  18. Ann Surg. 2019 Feb;269(2):315-321 [PMID: 28938268]
  19. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018 Jan;44(1):100-107 [PMID: 29224985]
  20. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011 Sep 1;9(5):331-47 [PMID: 21875163]
  21. Stat Med. 2005 Jun 30;24(12):1791-806 [PMID: 15806619]
  22. J Surg Oncol. 2019 Mar;119(4):510-517 [PMID: 30582622]
  23. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jul 1;3(7):e208522 [PMID: 32639566]
  24. N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 2;372(14):1324-32 [PMID: 25830422]
  25. Ann Surg. 2016 Aug;264(2):323-9 [PMID: 26692078]
  26. Clin Transl Oncol. 2019 Oct;21(10):1302-1311 [PMID: 30762206]
  27. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015 Jan;31(5):331-8 [PMID: 26694550]
  28. Support Care Cancer. 2016 Feb;24(2):667-674 [PMID: 26123602]
  29. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 12;8(11):e78709 [PMID: 24265711]
  30. Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv22-iv40 [PMID: 28881920]
  31. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2015;159:A8199 [PMID: 25923493]

MeSH Term

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Humans
Margins of Excision
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
Pilot Projects
Prospective Studies
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Rectal Neoplasms
Retrospective Studies

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0navigationLARCLRRCsurgerysystemlocallyrectalnavigatedshowedadvancedrecurrentcancerearlycost-effectivenessstandardexpectedcostsQALYstechnologycost-effectivefirstpilotstudyratesIncrementalhealthdatagroupanalysesevaluation2vs1ICERriskuseEarlyBACKGROUND:image-guidedimproveresectionmarginpatientssurgicalinnovationoftenimplementedwithoutreimbursementconsequenceseconomicaspectshoweveralsotakenaccountevaluatescomparedMETHODS:Markovdecisionmodelconstructedestimateoutcomesinputparametersbasedprospectivecohortn = 33retrospectivecontroln = 142Utilityvaluesmeasuredcomparablen = 63EQ5D-5LAdditionallysensitivityvalueinformationperformedRESULTS:Basedincremental€3141€2896resulted05Quality-AdjustedLifeYears02found7367respectivelyCost-EffectivenessRatio€136604€52510perQALYgainedscenariooptimalutilizationlowered€61817€21334ICERsindicationssensitiveuncertaintysurroundingprogressionyearpositivesurgical marginCONCLUSION:AddingpotentialbecomeincreaseprobabilitycrucialoptimizeefficienthybridORidentifysubgroupsshowhighereffectivenessImage-guidedprimarycancer:analysisassessmentLocalLocallyNavigationSurgery

Similar Articles

Cited By