Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopy for the management of early-stage cervical cancer: a model-based economic evaluation in China.

Chunlan Chen, Min Zhang, Junying Tang, Kexue Pu
Author Information
  1. Chunlan Chen: School of Medical Informatics, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China. ORCID
  2. Min Zhang: School of Medical Informatics, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
  3. Junying Tang: Department of Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
  4. Kexue Pu: School of Medical Informatics, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China pukexue@cqmu.edu.cn.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in early-stage cervical cancer (ECC).
DESIGN: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.
SETTING: Based on long-term survival data, a three-state Markov model was constructed using TreeAge Pro 2022 to simulate the possible recurrence of ECC. Data on clinical efficacy and costs were derived from published literature and local databases.
PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer (FIGO 2009 stagesOUTCOME MEASURES: The study endpoints were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs (in Chinese renminbi (RMB) adjusted to 2023-year values using the Consumer Price Index) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A willingness-to-pay threshold of 268 074 RMB per QALY was used to assess cost-effectiveness.
RESULTS: Robotic group gained more 4.84 QALYs than the laparoscopic group, but total costs for robotic strategy are substantially higher, with the incremental costs of 1 031 108 RMB. The ICER of robotic strategy is 213 054 RMB per QALY. Outcomes were robust in most one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic strategy is on the efficient frontier but incurs substantial initial cost. Our findings indicated that this strategy is a cost-effective treatment option for ECC patients if assessed over a time horizon of patients' lifetime. This study underscores the need for long-term clinical trials in early-stage cervical cancer patients with follow-up data that capture financial and quality-of-life end points.

Keywords

References

  1. BMC Womens Health. 2018 May 1;18(1):61 [PMID: 29716555]
  2. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Jun;43(6):994-1002 [PMID: 27546015]
  3. Asian J Surg. 2022 Jan;45(1):320-325 [PMID: 34148755]
  4. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 May;123(5):1031-1037 [PMID: 24785856]
  5. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 Feb;28(2):226-232 [PMID: 29303929]
  6. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jan;98(4):e14171 [PMID: 30681582]
  7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Nov;213(5):665.e1-7 [PMID: 26188114]
  8. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;45:7-18 [PMID: 28526229]
  9. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Mar 01;11(3):299-307 [PMID: 32729284]
  10. World J Clin Cases. 2019 Oct 26;7(20):3185-3193 [PMID: 31667168]
  11. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 Nov;27(9):1990-1999 [PMID: 28858908]
  12. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016 Mar;95(3):299-308 [PMID: 26575851]
  13. J Surg Oncol. 2015 Aug;112(2):155-63 [PMID: 26171771]
  14. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2006;27(5):531-3 [PMID: 17139995]
  15. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Dec;171(2):348-52 [PMID: 24135382]
  16. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov;215(5):650.e1-650.e8 [PMID: 27343568]
  17. Int J Med Robot. 2022 Feb;18(1):e2343 [PMID: 34655461]
  18. Gynecol Oncol. 2016 May;141(2):218-224 [PMID: 26896826]
  19. BMJ Open. 2021 May 13;11(5):e045888 [PMID: 33986058]
  20. PLoS One. 2018 Mar 19;13(3):e0193033 [PMID: 29554090]
  21. Cancer Manag Res. 2021 Apr 21;13:3485-3492 [PMID: 33911898]
  22. Int J Med Robot. 2016 Mar;12(1):145-54 [PMID: 25823530]
  23. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023 Jan;160(1):28-37 [PMID: 35373333]
  24. World J Surg Oncol. 2023 Jul 4;21(1):197 [PMID: 37403056]
  25. Cancer. 2021 Nov 01;127(21):4030-4039 [PMID: 34368955]
  26. BJOG. 2014 Nov;121(12):1546-53 [PMID: 24810140]
  27. J Robot Surg. 2017 Jun;11(2):115-121 [PMID: 27460843]
  28. Int J Med Robot. 2016 Mar;12(1):137-44 [PMID: 25823472]
  29. J Robot Surg. 2017 Dec;11(4):433-439 [PMID: 28144809]
  30. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Jul;25(6):1102-8 [PMID: 26098092]
  31. Health Econ Rev. 2019 Jun 18;9(1):18 [PMID: 31214891]
  32. ESC Heart Fail. 2020 Dec;7(6):3582-3592 [PMID: 33107212]
  33. Value Health. 2008 Dec;11(7):1131-43 [PMID: 18489495]
  34. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Nov;139(2):300-5 [PMID: 26363212]
  35. J Cancer Res Ther. 2015 Nov;11 Suppl:C258-64 [PMID: 26612449]
  36. Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Aug;158(2):382-389 [PMID: 32467054]

MeSH Term

Humans
Female
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Laparoscopy
Robotic Surgical Procedures
China
Hysterectomy
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Markov Chains
Neoplasm Staging
Middle Aged
Models, Economic
Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0cost-effectivenessroboticearly-stagecervicalcostsRMBstrategystudycancerECCassessradicalhysterectomyRRHlaparoscopicLRHlong-termdatausingclinicalmanagementQALYstotalincrementalICERperQALYRoboticgroupsensitivitypatientssurgeryChinaOBJECTIVES:aimvsDESIGN:Model-basedanalysisSETTING:Basedsurvivalthree-stateMarkovmodelconstructedTreeAgePro2022simulatepossiblerecurrenceDataefficacyderivedpublishedliteraturelocaldatabasesPARTICIPANTS:hypotheticalcohort1000individualsdiagnosedFIGO2009stagesunderwentOUTCOMEMEASURES:endpointsquality-adjustedlifeyearsChineserenminbiadjusted2023-yearvaluesConsumerPriceIndexratiowillingness-to-paythreshold268074usedRESULTS:gained484substantiallyhigher1031108213054Outcomesrobustone-wayprobabilisticanalysesCONCLUSIONS:efficientfrontierincurssubstantialinitialcostfindingsindicatedcost-effectivetreatmentoptionassessedtimehorizonpatients'lifetimeunderscoresneedtrialsfollow-upcapturefinancialquality-of-lifeendpointsCost-effectivenesscomparedconventionallaparoscopycancer:model-basedeconomicevaluationGynaecologicaloncologyHealtheconomicsMinimallyinvasive

Similar Articles

Cited By