Family-based Helicobacter pylori infection control and management strategy and screen-and-treat strategy are highly cost-effective in preventing multiple upper gastrointestinal diseases in Chinese population at national level.

BACKGROUND: The overall benefits of the newly introduced family-based Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection control and management (FBCM) and screen-and-treat strategies in preventing multiple upper gastrointestinal diseases at national level in China have not been explored. We investigate the cost-effectiveness of these strategies in the whole Chinese population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision trees and Markov models of H. pylori infection-related non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD), peptic ulcer disease (PUD), and gastric cancer (GC) were developed to simulate the cost-effectiveness of these strategies in the whole 494 million households in China. The main outcomes include cost-effectiveness, life years (LY), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: When compared with no-screen strategy, both FBCM and screen-and-treat strategies reduced the number of new cases of NUD, PUD, PUD-related deaths, and the prevalence of GC, and cancer-related deaths. The costs saved by these two strategies were $1467 million and $879 million, quality-adjusted life years gained were 227 million and 267 million, and life years gained were 59 million and 69 million, respectively. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that FBCM strategy costs -$6.46/QALY and -$24.75/LY, and screen-and-treat strategy costs -$3.3/QALY and -$12.71/LY when compared with no-screen strategy. Compared to the FBCM strategy, the screen-and-treat strategy reduced the incidence of H. pylori-related diseases, added 40 million QALYs, and saved 10 million LYs, but at the increased cost of $588 million. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that screen-and-treat strategy costs $14.88/QALY and $59.5/LY when compared with FBCM strategy. The robustness of the results was also verified. CONCLUSIONS: Both FBCM and screen-and-treat strategies are highly cost-effective in preventing NUD, PUD, and GC than the no-screen strategy in Chinese families at national level. As FBCM strategy is more practical and efficient, it is expected to play a more important role in preventing familial H. pylori infection and also serves as an excellent reference for other highly infected societies.

Cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy as first-line treatment of PD-L1 positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma from a Chinese perspective.

BACKGROUND: This work was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of front-line tislelizumab plus chemotherapy (TIS+Chemo) in advanced gastric cancer (GC) or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) with positive expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 10-year partitioned survival model was undertaken utilizing clinical data from RATIONALE 305. Costs and utilities were both discounted at an annual rate of 5%. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and calculated as the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set as $18,625/QALY. Only direct medical costs were considered. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost and effectiveness associated with TIS+Chemo vs Chemo was 7,361 and 0.38 QALYs, respectively, leading to an ICER of 19,371/QALY. At the WTP threshold of $18,625/QALY, the TIS+Chemo was not a cost-effective first-line treatment option. The model outcomes were robust. CONCLUSIONS: TIS+Chemo did not provide a cost-effective approach for PD-L1 positive advanced GC/GEJC in China setting. However, TIS+Chemo might be cost-effective in provinces with higher WTP threshold. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: RATIONALE 305, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT03777657.

[Impact and intervention of postoperative complications after gastric cancer surgery from a health economics perspective].

Gastric cancer ranks as the third most prevalent malignant tumor in our nation, imposing a substantial health and economic burden. The occurrence of postoperative complications in gastric cancer not only hinders patient recovery but also significantly increases the medical expenditures of patients, contributing supplementary health economic challenges to both society and healthcare institutions. Conducting health economic analysis on postoperative complications in gastric cancer provides evidence for the formulation of health policies, offers guidance for hospital cost control, and furnishes economic insights for the development of new technologies in the prevention and treatment of complications. This paper, through a thorough review of domestic and international literature, comprehensively examines the impact of complication severity on healthcare expenses, delineates the principal contributors to healthcare costs in patients with postoperative complications, and proposes practical strategies to alleviate the health economic burden resulting from such complications. Furthermore, this study delves into and analyzes the health economic considerations associated with postoperative complications within the framework of the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) billing model.

Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). RESULTS: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer Management: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Across the nation, patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) are managed with modalities including upfront surgery (US) and perioperative chemotherapy (PCT). Preoperative therapies have demonstrated survival benefits over US and thus long-term outcomes are expected to vary between the options. However, as these 2 modalities continue to be regularly employed, we sought to perform a decision analysis comparing the costs and quality-of-life associated with the treatment of patients with LAGC to identify the most cost-effective option. We designed a decision tree model to investigate the survival and costs associated with the most commonly utilized management modalities for LAGC in the United States: US and PCT. The tree described costs and treatment strategies over a 6-month time horizon. Costs were derived from 2022 Medicare reimbursement rates using the third-party payer perspective for physicians and hospitals. Effectiveness was represented using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were utilized to test the robustness of our findings. PCT was the most cost-effective treatment modality for patients with LAGC over US with a cost of $40,792.16 yielding 3.11 QALYs. US has a cost of $55,575.57 while yielding 3.15 QALYs; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $369,585.25. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses favored PCT in all variations of variables across their standard deviations. Across 100,000 Monte Carlo simulations, 100% of trials favored PCT. In our model simulating patients with LAGC, the most cost-effective treatment strategy was PCT. While US demonstrated improved QALYs over PCT, the associated cost was too great to justify its use.

Spending Estimates for Gastric Cancer in Central Brazil

Abstract Stomach cancer is the second leading cause of death by cancer worldwide and is even more pronounced in South America. In Brazil, it is estimated that an increase in the number of cases due to this cancer occurred in the biennium 2018-2019. In this study, we investigated the expenditures of the State Health Department of Goiás on hospitalizations and treatment of gastric cancer for the Unified Health System (SUS) from 2008-2016. This is a cross-sectional, descriptive, and analytical study based on secondary data from the Unified Health System computing department (DATASUS) and the System of Management of the Table of Procedures, Medications, Orthosis, Prosthesis, and Special Materials of SUS through CONECTA-SUS related to International Classification of Diseases-10/C16 (ICD-10/C16) procedures for gastric neoplasms. A total of I$ 5,697,958.20 was spent on gastric tumor in the last nine years in Goiás, I$ 4,492,916.67 (0.3%) on hospitalizations, and I$ 1,997,120.91 on treatment. This study presents a current and relevant estimate of the costs of gastric cancer patients in Goiás. Moreover, we provide information on the extent of the cancer issue to public health. Our analysis offers components for service management and studies that reduce resource allocation in more rational ways

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Europe: Results of 1000 Neoplastic Lesions From the German Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables the curative resection of early malignant lesions and is associated with reduced recurrence risk. Due to the lack of comprehensive ESD data in the West, the German ESD registry was set up to evaluate relevant outcomes of ESD. METHODS: The German ESD registry is a prospective uncontrolled multicenter study. During a 35-month period, 20 centers included 1000 ESDs of neoplastic lesions. The results were evaluated in terms of en bloc, R0, curative resection rates, and recurrence rate after a 3-month and 12-month follow-up. Additionally, participating centers were grouped into low-volume (≤20 ESDs/y), middle-volume (20-50/y), and high-volume centers (>50/y). A multivariate analysis investigating risk factors for noncurative resection was performed. RESULTS: Overall, en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates of 92.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.94), 78.8% (95% CI, 0.76-0.81), and 72.3% (95% CI, 0.69-0.75) were achieved, respectively. The overall complication rate was 8.3% (95% CI, 0.067-0.102), whereas the recurrence rate after 12 months was 2.1%. High-volume centers had significantly higher en bloc, R0, curative resection rates, and recurrence rates and lower complication rates than middle- or low-volume centers. The lesion size, hybrid ESD, age, stage T1b carcinoma, and treatment outside high-volume centers were identified as risk factors for noncurative ESD. CONCLUSION: In Germany, ESD achieves excellent en bloc resection rates but only modest curative resection rates. ESD requires a high level of expertise, and results vary significantly depending on the center's yearly case volume.

Initiation of Somatostatin analogues for neuroendocrine tumor patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are heterogeneous neoplasms. Although some have a relatively benign and indolent natural history, others can be aggressive and ultimately fatal. Somatostatin analogues (SSAs) improve both quality of life and survival for these patients once they develop metastatic disease. However, these drugs are costly and their cost-effectiveness is not known. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed and analyzed to compare two treatment strategies for patients with Stage IV GEP-NETs. The first strategy had all patients start SSA immediately while the second strategy waited, reserving SSA initiation until the patient showed signs of progression. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore model parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Our model of patients age 60 with metastatic GEP-NETs suggests empiric initiation of SSA led to an increase 0.62 unadjusted life-years and incremental increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.44. The incremental costs were $388,966 per QALY and not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000. Death was attributed to GEP-NETs for 94.1% of patients in the SSA arm vs. 94.9% of patients in the DELAY SSA arm. Sensitivity analysis found that the model was most sensitive to costs of SSAs. Using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the SSA strategy was only cost-effective 1.4% of the time at a WTP threshold of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our modeling study finds it is not cost-effective to initiate SSAs at time of presentation for patients with metastatic GEP-NETs. Further clinical studies are needed to identify the optimal timing to initiate these drugs.

Cost-effectiveness of prevention and early detection of gastric cancer in Western countries.

Gastric cancer (GC) is a significant global health problem, with Helicobacter pylori infection estimated to be responsible for 89% of non-cardiac GC cases, or 78% of all GC cases. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has called for Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat strategies in countries with high rates of GC. However, for countries with low rates of GC, such as most Western countries, the balance between benefits, harms and costs of screening is less clear-cut. GC is a disease with a well-characterized precancerous process, providing the basis for primary and secondary prevention efforts. However, rigorous data assessing the impact of such interventions in Western countries are lacking. In the absence of clinical trials, modelling offers a unique approach to evaluate the potential impact of various screening and surveillance interventions. In this paper, we provide an overview of modelling studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of GC screening and surveillance in Western countries.

International cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating endoscopic screening for gastric cancer for populations with low and high risk.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer remains one of the 3 most common causes of cancer death worldwide. Understanding the health and economic factors that affect screening cost-effectiveness in different countries will help address when and where it makes most sense to screen for gastric cancer. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model to compare screening and surveillance strategies for gastric cancer in Brazil, France, Japan, Nigeria, and the United States. Primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We then performed a sensitivity analysis to determine how each variable affected the overall model. RESULTS: In all countries, the most cost-effective strategies, measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio relative to no screening, were screening every 10 years, surveillance of high- and low-risk patients every 5 and 10 years, respectively, and screening every 5 years. Only Japan had at least one cost-effective screening strategy. The most important variables across different screening strategies and countries were starting age of screening, cost of endoscopy, and baseline probability of local gastric cancer at time of diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that screening for gastric cancer is cost-effective in countries with higher incidence and lower costs of screening, but screening may still be a viable option in high-risk populations within low incidence countries.

Lutetium oxodotreotide (177Lu-Dotatate) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic progressive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) represent a heterogenous group of tumors. Findings from the phase III NETTER-1 trial showed that treatment of unresectable/metastatic progressive gastrointestinal (GI) NETs with 177Lu-Dotatate resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with best supportive care (BSC) with high dose octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR) 60 mg. A health economic analysis was performed using input data from clinical studies and data derived from an indirect comparison to determine the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-Dotatate in the treatment of GI-NETs and pancreatic NETs (P-NETs) in Scotland. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the payer perspective using a three-state partitioned survival model. In the base case 177Lu-Dotatate was compared with BSC in gastrointestinal (GI)-NETs using clinical data from the NETTER-1 trial. A secondary analysis comparing 177Lu-Dotatate with BSC, everolimus or sunitinib in patients with P-NETs was also performed using hazard ratios inferred from indirect comparisons. The base case analysis was performed over a 20-year time horizon with an annual discount rate of 3.5% for both costs and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: For unresectable/metastatic progressive GI-NETs treatment with 177Lu-Dotatate led to a gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.33 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with BSC due to extended PFS and OS. Mean total lifetime costs were GBP 35,701 higher with 177Lu-Dotatate, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 26,830 per QALY gained. In analyses in patients with P-NETs 177Lu-Dotatate was associated with ICERs below GBP 30,000 per QALY gained in comparisons with BSC, sunitinib and everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses demonstrated that, in Scotland, from the payer perspective, 177Lu-Dotatate at the set acquisition cost is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with unresectable or metastatic progressive GI-NETs or P-NETs.

Opportunistic upper endoscopy during colonoscopy as a screening strategy for countries with intermediate gastric cancer risk.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Screening upper endoscopy can detect esophagogastric (OG) cancers early with improved outcomes. Recent cost-utility studies suggest that opportunistic upper endoscopy at the same setting of colonoscopy might be a useful strategy for screening of OG cancers, and it may be more acceptable to the patients due to cost-saving and convenience. We aim to study the diagnostic performance of this screening strategy in a country with intermediate gastric cancer risk. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using a prospective endoscopy database from 2015 to 2017 was performed. Patients included were individuals age > 40 who underwent opportunistic upper endoscopy at the same setting of colonoscopy without any OG symptoms. Neoplastic OG lesions are defined as cancer and high-grade dysplasia. Pre-neoplastic lesions include Barrett's esophagus (BE), intestinal metaplasia (IM), and atrophic gastritis (AG). RESULTS: The study population involved 1414 patients. Neoplastic OG lesions were detected in five patients (0.35%). Pre-neoplastic lesions were identified in 174 (12.3%) patients. IM was found in 146 (10.3%) patients with 21 (1.4%) having extensive IM. The number needed to scope to detect a neoplastic OG lesion is 282.8 with an estimated cost of USD$141 400 per lesion detected. On multivariate regression, age ≥ 60 (RR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.29-2.63) and first-degree relatives with gastric cancer (RR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.06-2.55) were independent risk factors for neoplastic or pre-neoplastic OG lesion. CONCLUSION: For countries with intermediate gastric cancer risk, opportunistic upper endoscopy may be an alternative screening strategy in a selected patient population. Prospective trials are warranted to validate its performance.

Healthcare utilization and total costs of care among patients with advanced metastatic gastric and esophageal cancer.

Aim: Study first-line (1L) treatment patterns and economic outcomes among patients with advanced metastatic gastric cancer (GC) and esophageal cancer (EC). Materials & methods: Newly diagnosed patients with systemic GC and EC treatments were identified between 1 January 2011 and 31 July 2017; costs were presented as per patient per month (PPPM) basis. Results: Study included 392 GC and 436 EC patients. Most frequently used 1L regimens were: 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + oxaliplatin (22.5%) and epirubicin + cisplatin + 5-FU (ECF)/ECF modifications (21.9%) in patients with GC; and carboplatin + paclitaxel (29.6%) and 5-FU + oxaliplatin (11.5%) in EC patients. Mean all-cause costs were US$16,242 PPPM for GC, and $18,384 PPPM for EC during 1L treatment. Conclusion: GC and EC were resource intensive and costly. High costs and short treatment durations underscored a gap in care in 1L treatment.

A decision analysis comparing three strategies for peritoneal lavage cytology testing in staging of gastric cancer in China.

BACKGROUND: Positive peritoneal cytology (PCY) indicates metastasis (M1) in gastric cancer (GC) patients; both the American and Chinese guidelines recommend laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) for cytology. However, relatively high costs impair the widespread use of LPL in some resource-limited regions in China, and the cost-effectiveness of PCY testing remains unclear. Therefore, we performed a decision analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PCY testing by comparing the guideline-recommended intraoperative LPL, a newly proposed preoperative percutaneous peritoneal lavage (PPL), and a third strategy of exploratory laparotomy with no cytology testing (ELNC) among GC patients. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic Markov model of the aforementioned three strategies for a hypothetical cohort of GC patients with curative intent after initial imaging, from the perspective of Chinese society. We estimated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as primary outcomes; we also conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the model's robustness. RESULTS: We found that ELNC was dominated (i.e., more expensive and less effective) by PPL and LPL. LPL was the most cost-effective method with an ICER of US$17,200/QALY compared to PPL, which was below the Chinese willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$29,313 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, PPL was more likely to be cost-effective with a lower WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Cytology testing through either LPL or PPL was less expensive and more effective than ELNC among GC patients. Moreover, LPL was the most cost-effective modality at the current WTP threshold, while PPL could potentially be cost-effective in lower-income areas.

[Analysis on the relationship between smoking status and the onset age of onset and the direct medical expenditure expenses of gastric cancer patients].

Objective: To investigate the relationship between smoking status and the onset age of stomach cancer patients and estimate the patients' direct medical cost burden of stomach cancer due to smoking in Anhui province. Methods: The information about the primary stomach cancer patients and their direct treatment expenditures in 10 cancer-registered areas in Anhui were collected in 2017. The association between smoking status and the age of onset of stomach cancer patients was analyzed by univariate regression and multivariate logistic regression models. The median and smoking-attributed risk method was used to describe the direct treatment expenditure of stomach cancer patients in Anhui due to smoking. Results: A total of 736 patients with stomach cancer were analyzed in this study. Univariate regression analysis showed that rural household registration (t=2.091, P=0.037), smoking (t=-2.357, P=0.001 9) and alcohol consumption (t=-2.036, P=0.042) were related to the age of onset of stomach cancer. After adjusting for gender, alcohol consumption, body mass index and household registration type, the risk of early stomach cancer in people who quitted smoking cessation was lower than that in smokers (OR=0.36, 95%CI: 0.17-0.75). The total direct medical cost burden of 736 newly diagnosed stomach cancer patients was 6.939 6 million RMB. The direct medical expenditure in stomach cancer patients who had smoking behavior was higher than that in stomach cancer patients who quitted smoking and never smoked. Conclusions: Smoking is one of the risk factors for the earlier onset of stomach cancer in Anhui. It is necessary to strengthen tobacco control to reduce the economic burden of patients with stomach cancer.

Effect and cost-effectiveness of national gastric cancer screening in Japan: a microsimulation modeling study.

BACKGROUND: A national endoscopic screening program for gastric cancer was rolled out in Japan in 2015. We used a microsimulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of current screening guidelines and alternative screening strategies in Japan. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model that simulated a virtual population corresponding to the Japanese population in risk factor profile and life expectancy. We evaluated 15 endoscopic screening scenarios with various starting ages, stopping ages, and screening intervals. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Cost-effective screening strategies were determined using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were done to explore model uncertainty. RESULTS: Using the threshold of $50,000 per QALY, a triennial screening program for individuals aged 50 to 75 years was the cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $45,665. Compared with no endoscopic screening, this strategy is predicted to prevent 63% of gastric cancer mortality and confer 27.2 QALYs gained per 1000 individuals over a lifetime period. Current screening guidelines were not on the cost-effectiveness efficient frontier. The results were robust on one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This modeling study suggests that the endoscopic screening program in Japan would be cost-effective when implemented between age 50 and 75 years, with the screening repeated every 3 years. These findings underscore the need for further evaluation of the current gastric cancer screening recommendations.

The CARDIA-trial protocol: a multinational, prospective, randomized, clinical trial comparing transthoracic esophagectomy with transhiatal extended gastrectomy in adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) type II.

BACKGROUND: Adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) Siewert type II can be resected by transthoracic esophagectomy or transhiatal extended gastrectomy. Both allow for a complete tumor resection, yet there is an ongoing controversy about which surgical approach is superior with regards to quality of life, oncological outcomes and survival. While some studies suggest a better oncological outcome after transthoracic esophagectomy, others favor transhiatal extended gastrectomy for a better postoperative quality of life. To date, only retrospective studies are available, showing ambiguous results. METHODS: This study is a multinational, multicenter, randomized, clinical superiority trial. Patients (n = 262) with a GEJ type II tumor resectable by both transthoracic esophagectomy and transhiatal extended gastrectomy will be enrolled in the trial. Type II tumors are defined as tumors with their midpoint between ≤1 cm proximal and ≤ 2 cm distal of the top of gastric folds on preoperative endoscopy. Patients will be included in one of the participating European sites and are randomized to either transthoracic esophagectomy or transhiatal extended gastrectomy. The trial is powered to show superiority for esophagectomy with regards to the primary efficacy endpoint overall survival. Key secondary endpoints are complete resection (R0), number and localization of tumor infiltrated lymph nodes at dissection, post-operative complications, disease-free survival, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Postoperative survival and quality of life will be followed-up for 24 months after discharge. Further survival follow-up will be conducted as quarterly phone calls up to 60 months. DISCUSSION: To date, as level 1 evidence is lacking, there is no consensus on which surgery is superior and both surgeries are used to treat GEJ type II carcinoma worldwide. The CARDIA trial is the first randomized trial to compare transthoracic esophagectomy versus transhiatal extended gastrectomy in patients with GEJ type II tumors. Several quality control measures were implemented in the protocol to ensure data reliability and increase the trial's significance. It is hypothesized that esophagectomy allows for a higher rate of radical resections and a more complete mediastinal lymph node dissection, resulting in a longer overall survival, while still providing an acceptable quality of life and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on August 2nd 2019 at the German Clinical Trials Register under the trial-ID DRKS00016923 .

Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LSG) for cancer is associated with good perioperative outcomes and superior quality of life compared with the open approach, albeit at higher cost. An economic evaluation was conducted to compare the two approaches. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis between LSG and open subtotal gastrectomy (OSG) for gastric cancer was performed using a decision-tree cohort model with a healthcare system perspective and a 12-month time horizon. Model inputs were informed by a meta-analysis of relevant literature, with costs represented in 2016 Canadian dollars (CAD) and outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A secondary analysis was conducted using inputs extracted solely from European and North American studies. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case model, costs of LSG were $935 (€565) greater than those of OSG, with an incremental gain of 0·050 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $18 846 (€11 398) per additional QALY gained from LSG. In the DSA, results were most sensitive to changes in postoperative utility, operating theatre and equipment costs, as well as duration of surgery and hospital stay. PSA showed that the likelihood of LSG being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000 (€30 240) per QALY and $100 000 (€60 480) per QALY was 64 and 68 per cent respectively. Secondary analysis using European and North American clinical inputs resulted in LSG being dominant (cheaper and more effective) over OSG, largely due to reduced length of stay after LSG. CONCLUSION: In this decision analysis model, LSG was cost-effective compared with OSG for gastric cancer.

ANTECEDENTES: Pese a su mayor coste, la gastrectomía subtotal laparoscópica se asocia con buenos resultados perioperatorios y una mejor calidad de vida en comparación con la cirugía abierta en el tratamiento del cáncer. Se realizó una evaluación económica comparando los dos abordajes. MÉTODOS: Se efectuó un análisis de coste-efectividad de la gastrectomía subtotal laparoscópica (laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy, LSG) o de la gastrectomía subtotal abierta (open subtotal gastrectomy, OSG) en el cáncer gástrico utilizando un modelo de cohortes con árbol de decisión desde la perspectiva del sistema de salud y con un horizonte temporal de 12 meses. Los gastos del modelo fueron evaluados tras un metaanálisis de literatura relevante y expresados en dólares canadienses (Canadian dollars, CAD) del 2016. Los resultados se midieron en años de vida ajustados por su calidad (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs). Se realizó un análisis secundario utilizando los datos extraídos únicamente de estudios europeos y norteamericanos. Además, se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad determinístico y probabilístico (deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, DSA y PSA). RESULTADOS: En el modelo del caso base, los costes de la LSG fueron de 934,78$ (565€) más que en la OSG, con una ganancia incremental de 0,050 QALYs, que supuso una relación coste-efectividad incremental (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER) de 18.846,12$ (11.398€) por QALY adicional en la LSG. En el DSA, los resultados fueron más sensibles a cambios en el postoperatorio, quirófano y coste de los equipos, así como en la duración de la intervención y la hospitalización. El PSA demostró que la probabilidad de que la LSG fuera rentable en términos de disposición de pago (willingness-to-pay, WTP) para dos umbrales, de 50.000$ (30.240€) y 100.000$ (60.480€) por QALY fue del 64% y del 68%, respectivamente. En el análisis secundario utilizando los datos europeos y norteamericanos se demostró que la LSG era claramente dominante (más barata y más efectiva) que la OSG, en gran parte debido a la reducción de la estancia hospitalaria de la LSG. CONCLUSIÓN: En este modelo de análisis de decisión, la LSG fue coste-efectiva en comparación con la OSG para el cáncer gástrico.