Cost drivers of locally advanced rectal cancer treatment-An analysis of a leading healthcare insurer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the economic burden of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) treatment from a society perspective through analysis of health insurance-derived data of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage (MA) patients. METHODS: Retrospective cost analysis of patients undergoing rectal resection within a multimodal (neoadjuvant chemoradiation + adjuvant chemotherapy) treatment strategy between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2018, using the claims OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. RESULTS: In total, 1738 (935 commercial and 803 MA) patients were included. Overall treatment costs totaled $230,881,746 (on average $183 653 ± 82 384 per commercially insured and $73 681 ± 32 917 per MA patient). Cost distribution according to category (commercially insured patients) was: 29.92% related to outpatient care (follow-up visits/diagnostics), radiotherapy: 21.83%, index resection: 20.62%, chemotherapy: 17.44%, surgical inpatient: 6.32%, medical inpatient: 3.28%, emergency room: 0.58%. Relative cost distribution of the index resection itself differed marginally between the three approaches and was 21.49% for open, 19.30% for laparoscopic, and 20.93% for robotic surgery. Relative cost distributions of neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and outpatient treatments remained unchanged, independently of the surgical approach. This representation was similar in MA patients. CONCLUSION: Index-surgery related costs were outweighed by costs related to oncological and outpatient workup/follow-up treatments independently of both surgical approach and insurance type.

A comparative cost analysis of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Despite proven clinical benefits in the short term, technical difficulties limit utilization of laparoscopy in rectal cancer surgery (RCS). Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME) overcomes many technical limitations of laparoscopic RCS. However, the costs of this procedure have not been addressed yet. Our goal was to perform a comparative cost analysis of taTME and laparoscopic TME (lapTME). Consecutive patients undergoing curative TME between 1 February 2014 and 31 October 2018 were selected from a prospectively maintained database and stratified, according to the type of procedure, into taTME and lapTME groups. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative parameters, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. The main outcome measure was intraoperative costs of the two procedures. Secondary outcomes were short-term outcome and the utilization of hospital resources to manage the postoperative course. Hundred and fifty-two patients with rectal cancer (66 lapTME, 86 taTME) were included in the study. Surgical supplies required for taTME procedure exceeded the cost of lapTME of 754,54 €. The duration of surgery was not significantly different between the two approaches (266 ± 92.85 vs 271 ± 83.63, p = 0.50). Short-term outcomes were comparable including postoperative complication rate (17 vs 20%, p = 0.68), reintervention rate, and length of stay. There was no difference in hospital resources utilization to manage postoperative course including blood test, diagnostics, consultations, and medications. TaTME has higher intraoperative costs in terms of supplies with respect to lapTME. Short-term outcomes and hospital resources to manage postoperative course are comparable.

Combined robotic approach and enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for optimization of costs in patients undergoing proctectomy.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are beneficial in proctocolectomy, but their impact on robotic low rectal proctectomy is not fully investigated. This study assessed the impact of an ERAS pathway on the outcomes and cost of robotic (RTME) versus laparoscopic (LTME) total mesorectal excision. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients with rectal cancer in a single French tertiary centre for three yearly periods: 2011, LTME; 2015, RTME; and 2018, RTME with ERAS. Patient characteristics, operative and postoperative data, and costs were compared among the groups. RESULTS: A total of 220 consecutive proctectomies were analysed (71 LTME, 58 RTME and 91 RTME with ERAS). A prevalence of lower and locally advanced tumours was observed with RTME. The median duration of surgery increased with the introduction of RTME, but became shorter than that for LTME with greater robotic experience (226, 233 and 180 min for 2011, 2015 and 2018 respectively; P < 0·001). The median duration of hospital stay decreased significantly for RTME with ERAS (11, 10 and 8 days respectively; P = 0·011), as did the overall morbidity rate (39, 38 and 16 per cent; P = 0·002). Pathology results, conversion and defunctioning stoma rates remained stable. RTME alone increased the total cost by €2348 compared with LTME. The introduction of ERAS and improved robotic experience decreased costs by €1960, compared with RTME performed in 2015 without ERAS implementation. In patients with no co-morbidity, costs decreased by €596 for RTME with ERAS versus LTME alone. CONCLUSION: ERAS is associated with cost reductions in patients undergoing robotic proctectomy.

ANTECEDENTES: Las vías clínicas ERAS son beneficiosas en la proctocolectomía, pero su impacto en la proctectomía rectal baja robótica no se ha investigado exhaustivamente. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el impacto de la vía clínica ERAS sobre los resultados y el coste de la proctectomía robótica (resección total del mesorrecto robótica, robotic total mesorectal excision, RTME) versus procedimientos laparoscópicos de resección total del mesorrecto (laparoscopic total mesorectal excision, LTME). MÉTODOS: Revisión retrospectiva de pacientes con cáncer de recto tratados en un único centro terciario francés durante un periodo de tres años: 1) 2011: resección total del mesorrecto laparoscópica (LTME); 2) 2015: TME robótica y 3) 2018: TME robótica plus ERAS. Se compararon las características de los pacientes, los datos operatorios y postoperatorios, y los costes entre subgrupos utilizando análisis estadísticos. RESULTADOS: Se analizaron 220 proctectomías consecutivas que incluían 71 LTME, 58 RTME y 91 RTME plus ERAS. Se observó un predominio de tumores inferiores y localmente avanzados en la RTME. La mediana del tiempo operatorio aumentó con la introducción de RTME, pero llegó a ser inferior que en la LTME con una mayor experiencia robótica (226, 233 y 180 minutos para los periodos 1, 2 y 3, respectivamente; P = 0,0001). La mediana de la estancia hospitalaria disminuyó significativamente con la RTME plus ERAS (11, 10 y 8 días; P = 0,01), así como la morbilidad global (40%, 38% y 16%; P = 0,002). Los resultados de la anatomía patológica, las tasas de conversión y de estomas de protección permanecieron estables. La RTME sola aumentó el coste total en €2.348 comparado con la LTME. La introducción de ERAS y una mejora en la experiencia robótica disminuyeron los costes en €1.960 versus RTME realizada en 2015 sin la implementación de ERAS. En pacientes sin comorbilidades, los costes disminuyeron en €1.196 con RTME plus ERAS versus LTME sola. CONCLUSIÓN: ERAS se asocia con reducciones de coste en la proctectomía robótica.

Cost-Effectiveness and Quality-Adjusted Survival of Watch and Wait After Complete Response to Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. There is interest in deescalating local therapy after a clinical complete response to CRT. We hypothesized that a watch-and-wait (WW) strategy offers comparable cancer-specific survival, superior quality-adjusted survival, and reduced cost compared with upfront TME. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to compare WW, low anterior resection, and abdominoperineal resection for patients achieving a clinical complete response to CRT. Rates of local regrowth, pelvic recurrence, and distant metastasis were derived from series comparing WW with TME after pathologic complete response. Lifetime incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated between strategies, and sensitivity analyses were performed to study model uncertainty. RESULTS: The base case 5-year cancer-specific survival was 93.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 91.5% to 94.9%) on a WW program compared with 95.9% (95% CI = 93.6% to 97.4%) after upfront TME. WW was dominant relative to low anterior resection, with cost savings of $28 500 (95% CI = $22 200 to $39 000) and incremental QALY of 0.527 (95% CI = 0.138 to 1.125). WW was also dominant relative to abdominoperineal resection, with a cost savings of $32 100 (95% CI = $21 800 to $49 200) and incremental QALY of 0.601 (95% CI = 0.213 to 1.208). WW remained dominant in sensitivity analysis unless the rate of surgical salvage fell to 73.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Using current multi-institutional recurrence estimates, we observed comparable cancer-specific survival, superior quality-adjusted survival, and decreased costs with WW compared with upfront TME. Upfront TME was preferred when surgical salvage rates were low.

Stage- and age-adjusted cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: It has been argued that laparoscopy should be a standard treatment in rectal cancer due to its greater technical complexity. The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare laparoscopy with open surgery for rectal cancer adjusting for age and clinical stage. METHODS: A real-world prospective cost-effectiveness cohort study was conducted with data on costs and effectiveness at individual patient level. A "genetic matching" algorithm was used to correct for selection bias. After balancing the sample groups, combined multivariate analysis of total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was performed using seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) models. These models were first constructed without interactions and, subsequently, effects of any age-stage interaction were analyzed. RESULTS: The sample included 601 patients (400 by laparoscopy and 201 by open surgery). Crude cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that overall laparoscopy was cheaper and associated with higher QALYs. The SUR models without interactions showed that while laparoscopy remained dominant, the incremental effectiveness decreased to the point that it offered no statistically significant benefits over open surgery. In the subgroup analysis, at advanced stages of the disease, although none of the coefficients were significant, the mean incremental effectiveness (QALYs value) for laparoscopy was positive in younger patients and negative in older patients. Further, for advanced stages, the mean cost of open surgery was lower in both age subgroups but differences did not reach statistical significance. In early stages, laparoscopy cost was significantly lower in the subgroup younger than 70 and higher in the older subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy in surgery for rectal cancer justifies this being the standard surgical procedure in young patients and those at initial stages. The choice of procedure should be discussed with patients who are older and/or in advanced stages of the disease. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02488161.

A Population-Based Study of 90-Day Hospital Cost and Utilization Associated With Robotic Surgery in Colon and Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of robotic surgery in colorectal cancer remains contentious with most data arising from small, single-institution studies. METHODS: Stage I-III colorectal cancer resections from 2008 to 2014 were identified in New York State. Propensity score-adjusted negative binomial models were used to compare cost and utilization between robotic, laparoscopic, and open resections. RESULTS: A total of 12,218 patients were identified. For colectomy, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 3%, and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 13%. For rectal resection, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 7% and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 32%. In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in cost across the surgical approaches, both in overall and stratified analyses. Both laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with decreased 90-d hospital utilization compared with open surgery in intention-to-treat analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections were not associated with a hospital cost benefit after 90 d compared with open but were associated with decreased hospital utilization. Conversion to open resection was common, and efforts should be made to prevent them. Future research should continue to measure how robotic and laparoscopic approaches can add value to the health care system.

Cost analysis in a randomized trial of early closure of a temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer (EASY trial).

BACKGROUND: Hospital costs associated with the treatment of rectal cancer are considerable and the formation of a temporary stoma accounts for additional costs. Results from the EASY trial showed that early closure of a temporary ileostomy was associated with significantly fewer postoperative complications but no difference in health-related quality of life up to 12 months after rectal resection. The aim of the present study was to perform a cost analysis within the framework of the EASY trial. METHODS: Early closure (8-13 days) of a temporary stoma was compared to late closure (> 12 weeks) in the randomized controlled trial EASY (NCT01287637). The study period and follow-up was 12 months after rectal resection. Inclusion of participants was made after index surgery. Exclusion criteria were diabetes mellitus, steroid treatment, signs of postoperative complications or anastomotic leakage. Clinical effectiveness and resource use were derived from the trial and unit costs from Swedish sources. Costs were calculated for the year 2016 and analysed from the perspective of the healthcare sector. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients underwent early closure, and 57 late closure in eight Swedish and Danish hospitals between 2011 and 2014. The difference in mean cost per patient was 4060 US dollar (95% confidence interval 1121; 6999, p value < 0.01) in favour of early closure. A sensitivity analysis, taking protocol-driven examinations into account, resulted in an overall difference in mean cost per patient of $3608, in favour of early closure (95% confidence interval 668; 6549, p value 0.02). The predominant cost factors were reoperations, readmissions and endoscopic examinations. CONCLUSIONS: The significant cost reduction in this study, together with results of safety and efficacy from the randomized controlled trial, supports the routine use of early closure of a temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer in selected patients without signs of anastomotic leakage. CLINICAL TRIAL: Registered at clinicaltrials.gov, clinical trials identifier NCT01287637.

Surveillance Intensity Comparison by Risk for T1NX Locally Excised Rectal Adenocarcinoma: a Cost-Effective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy following local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma based on histopathologic and local staging risk factors. METHODS: A Markov model with 10-year follow-up was developed for cost-effectiveness analysis of high-, medium-, and low-intensity surveillance strategies after local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. Literature review and expert consensus were utilized to populate state/transition probabilities and rewards. Based on this data, 87% of T1NX patients undergoing local excision were low risk. Healthcare utilization costs were based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. The primary outcomes were costs in 2018 US dollars and effectiveness in life-years presented as net monetary benefit and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Net monetary benefit for low-, medium-, and high-intensity surveillance strategies ($393,117.00, $397,978.80, and $397,290.00) shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal. One-way sensitivity analysis shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal when the cohort is 73-94% low risk. High-intensity surveillance is preferred when less than 73% of the cohort is low risk. Low-intensity surveillance is preferred when greater than 94% is low risk. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the base-case shows medium-intensity surveillance is the optimal strategy for 51.5% of the iterations performed. CONCLUSIONS: Medium-intensity surveillance is the most cost-effective surveillance strategy for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma in a clinically representative population model.

The Financial Impact of Fractionation Scheme and Treatment Planning Method for Rectal Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and short-course radiotherapy (SCR) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) were found to have equivalent outcomes in 3 randomized trials. SCR has not been widely adopted in the United States (US). Three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning is standard, whereas intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is controversial. In this study, we assessed the economic impact of fractionation scheme and planning method for payers in the US. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a population-based analysis of the total cost of radiotherapy for LARC in the US annually. The national annual target population was calculated using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Radiotherapy costs were based on billing codes and 2018 pricing by Medicare's Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System. RESULTS: We estimate that 12,945 patients with LARC are treated with radiotherapy annually in the US. The cost of CRT with 3D or IMRT is US $15,882 and $23,745 per patient, respectively. With SCR, the cost with 3D or IMRT is $5,458 and $7,323 per patient, respectively. The use of SCR would lead to 53% to 77% annual savings of $106,168,871 to $232,105,727 compared with CRT. IMRT increases the total cost of treatment by 34% to 50%, and if adopted widely, would lead to an excess cost of $24,152,134 and $101,784,723 annually with SCR and CRT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SCR may have the potential to save approximately US $106 to t232 million annually in the US, likely without impacting outcomes. Lack of evidence showing benefit with costly IMRT should limit its use to clinical trials. It would be reasonable for public and private payers to consider which type of radiation is most suited to reimbursement.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of long-course oxaliplatin and bolus of fluorouracil based preoperative chemoradiotherapy vs. 5x5Gy radiation plus FOLFOX4 for locally advanced resectable rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of preoperative short-course radiotherapy (SCRT, 5 × 5 Gy) plus FOLFOX4 versus long-course oxaliplatin and bolus of fluorouracil based preoperative long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT, 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) in the management of cT4 or advanced cT3 rectal cancer (RC), both of which have been reported to achieve similar clinical effect in the NCT00833131 trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov decision-analytic model compared SCRT plus chemotherapy and LCCRT, by simulating three health states (disease-free survival (DFS), progressive disease (PD) and death). The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Transition probabilities were based on the NCT00833131 trial. The costs were calculated from a Chinese payers' perspective. Strategies were evaluated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $2370.47 (3 × GDP) per QALM gained. Sensitivity analysis was performed to model uncertainty in these parameters. RESULTS: The overall costs for SCRT plus chemotherapy and LCCRT were $78,937 and $38,140 with effectiveness of 29.92 QALMs and 22.99 QALMs, respectively. SCRT plus chemotherapy increased costs and QALM by $40,797.34 and 6.93 compared to LCCRT, resulting in an ICER of $5884.56/QALM gained. In the DFS state, the whole cost for SCRT plus chemotherapy and LCCRT were $11,490.03 and $10,794.06 with an effectiveness of 21.70 QALMs and 19.65 QALMs, respectively. SCRT plus chemotherapy increased cost and QALM by $695.97 and 2.05 compared to LCCRT, resulting in a ICER of $339.50/QALM gained, which below the WTP. The utility associated with the DFS state was the most influential factor on the cost-effectiveness of SCRT plus chemotherapy. When the cost of PD state below $1920, the ICER of SCRT compared with LCCRT below the WTP. CONCLUSION: Compared with LCCRT, SCRT plus chemotherapy is a more cost-effective strategy for locally advanced resectable RC in the DFS state as well as in the all states when the cost of PD state below $1920.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Followed by Radical Resection Versus Conventional Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Definitive surgery with total mesorectal excision is the mainstay of treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. Multimodality therapy improves long-term survival. Current standards advise neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by radical surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Nationally, compliance with adjuvant chemotherapy is only 32%. New research evaluates the effectiveness of total neoadjuvant therapy: complete chemotherapy and chemoradiation before surgery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine the favored treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer by comparing the cost-effectiveness of total neoadjuvant therapy and the current standard of care. DESIGN: Decision analytical modeling using long-term costs and 5-year disease-free survival was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness after total neoadjuvant therapy and the current standard of care. Sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in model parameters. SETTINGS: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services billing data perspective was adopted and outcomes modeled according to local and national databases and literature consensus. PATIENTS: Adult patients with stage II or III rectal cancer were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness in disease-free life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net monetary benefit were determined over a 5-year posttreatment period. The favored strategy was determined based on cost-effectiveness and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness for total neoadjuvant therapy was 40,708 $/life-year, and, for conventional therapy, cost-effectiveness was 44,248 $/life-year. Sensitivity analysis showed that, for an estimated total neoadjuvant therapy completion rate of 90%, total neoadjuvant therapy would remain the dominant strategy for any adjuvant chemotherapy completion rate of less than 93%. LIMITATIONS: The samples used to calculate completion rates are small, and survival probabilities are based on existing literature, local database values, and consensus estimates. The model encompasses a 5-year time period from diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis shows that a strategy of total neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical surgery is favored over the current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. Sensitivity analysis shows that a low rate of adjuvant chemotherapy administration plays a key role in decreasing the cost-effectiveness of the current standard of care. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A942.

Cost-effectiveness of Short-Course Radiation Therapy vs Long-Course Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

Importance: Although both short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy have been practiced in parallel for more than 15 years, no cost-effectiveness analysis comparing these 2 approaches in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer has been published. Objective: To analyze the cost-effectiveness of short-course radiotherapy vs long-course chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a cost-effectiveness model simulating 10-year outcomes for 1 million hypothetical patients aged 65 years with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with either short-course radiotherapy or long-course chemoradiotherapy, followed by surgery and chemotherapy. Utilities and probabilities from the literature and costs from the Healthcare Bluebook and Medicare fee schedules were used to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. It was assumed that long-course chemoradiotherapy would result in higher rates of low anterior resection (LAR). To model preference-sensitive care, a 2-way sensitivity analysis was conducted in which the utilities of the no-evidence-of-disease (NED) states with LAR and abdominoperineal resection (APR) were simultaneously varied. The analysis was repeated for patients with distal rectal tumors. Analysis was conducted from January to October 2018. Exposures: Short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Short-course radiotherapy was the cost-effective strategy compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $133 495 per quality-adjusted life-year). Two-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost-effective approach for a given patient depended on the utilities for the NED-LAR and NED-APR states. Assuming that a greater proportion of patients with locally advanced distal tumors undergoing long-course chemoradiotherapy (39%) would proceed to LAR compared with those treated with short-course radiotherapy (19%), long-course chemoradiotherapy was the cost-effective approach (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $61 123 per quality-adjusted life-year). Conclusions and Relevance: Short-course radiotherapy was the cost-effective strategy compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The cost-effectiveness of short-course radiotherapy vs long-course chemoradiotherapy was sensitive to the utilities of the NED-LAR and NED-APR health states, highlighting the importance of care that is sensitive to patient preference. Long-course chemoradiotherapy was the cost-effective approach for patients with distal tumors.

Cost Effectiveness of Endoscopic Resection vs Transanal Resection of Complex Benign Rectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Complex benign rectal polyps can be managed with transanal surgery or with endoscopic resection (ER). Though the complication rate after ER is lower than transanal surgery, recurrence is higher. Patients lost to follow up after ER might therefore be at increased risk for rectal cancer. We evaluated the costs, benefits, and cost effectiveness of ER compared to 2 surgical techniques for removing complex rectal polyps, using a 50-year time horizon-this allowed us to capture rates of cancer development among patients lost from follow-up surveillance. METHODS: We created a Markov model to simulate the lifetime outcomes and costs of ER, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for the management of a complex benign rectal polyp. We assessed the effect of surveillance by allowing a portion of the patients to be lost to follow up. We calculated the cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or each intervention over a 50-year time horizon. RESULTS: We found that TEM was slightly more effective than TAMIS and ER (TEM, 19.54 QALYs; TAMIS, 19.53 QALYs; and ER, 19.53 QALYs), but ER had a lower lifetime discounted cost (ER cost $7161, TEM cost $10,459, and TAMIS cost $11,253). TEM was not cost effective compared to ER, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $485,333/QALY. TAMIS was dominated by TEM. TEM became cost effective when the mortality from ER exceeded 0.63%, or if the loss to follow up rate exceeded 25.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Using a Markov model, we found that ER, TEM, and TAMIS have similar effectiveness, but ER is less expensive, in management of benign rectal polyps. As the rate of loss to follow up increases, transanal surgery becomes more effective relative to ER.

First, Do No Harm: Rethinking Routine Diversion in Sphincter-Preserving Rectal Cancer Resection.

BACKGROUND: Although diverting stomas have reduced anastomotic leak rates after sphincter-preserving proctectomy in some series, the effectiveness of routine diversion among a broad population of rectal cancer patients remains controversial. We hypothesized that routine temporary diversion is not associated with decreased rates of leak or reintervention in cancer patients at large undergoing sphincter-sparing procedures. STUDY DESIGN: The Florida State Inpatient Database (AHRQ, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project) was queried for patients undergoing sphincter-preserving proctectomy for cancer (2005 to 2014). Matched cohorts defined by diversion status were created using propensity scores based on patient and hospital characteristics. Incidence of anastomotic leak, nonelective reintervention, and readmission were compared, and cumulative 90-day inpatient costs were calculated. RESULTS: Of 8,620 eligible sphincter-sparing proctectomy patients, 1,992 matched pairs were analyzed. Leak rates did not significantly vary between groups (4.5% vs 4.3%; p = 0.76), but diversion was associated with significantly higher odds of nonelective reintervention (2.37; 95% CI 1.90 to 2.96) and readmission (1.55; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.81) compared with undiverted patients. Median costs were higher among those diverted (US$21,325 vs US$15,050; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: No association between diversion and anastomotic leak was found. However, temporary diversion was associated with increased incidence of nonelective reinterventions, readmissions, and higher costs. We therefore challenge the paradigm of routine diversion in rectal cancer operations. Additional study is needed to identify which patients would benefit most from diversion.

Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon's experience.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery by the da Vinci Si appears to benefit rectal cancer surgery in selected patients, but still has some limitations, one of which is its high costs. Preliminary studies have indicated that the use of the new da Vinci Xi provides some added advantages, but their impact on cost is unknown. The aim of the present study is to compare surgical outcomes and costs of rectal cancer resection by the two platforms, in a single surgeon's experience. METHODS: From April 2010 to April 2017, 90 robotic rectal resections were performed, with either the da Vinci Si (Si-RobTME) or the da Vinci Xi (Xi-RobTME). Based on CUSUM analysis, two comparable groups of 40 consecutive Si-RobTME and 40 consecutive Xi-RobTME were obtained from the prospectively collected database and used for the present retrospective comparative study. Data costs were analysed based on the level of experience on the proficiency-gain curve (p-g curve) by the surgeon with each platform. RESULTS: In both groups, two homogeneous phases of the p-g curve were identified: Si1 and Xi1: cases 1-19, Si2 and Xi2: cases 20-40. A significantly higher number of full RAS operations were achieved in the Xi-RobTME group (p < 0.001). A statistically significant reduction in operating time (OT) during Si2 and Xi2 phase was observed (p < 0.001), accompanied by reduced overall variable costs (OVC), personnel costs (PC) and consumable costs (CC) (p < 0.001). All costs were lower in the Xi2 phase compared to Si2 phase: OT 265 versus 290 min (p = 0.052); OVC 7983 versus 10231.9 (p = 0.009); PC 1151.6 versus 1260.2 (p = 0.052), CC 3464.4 versus 3869.7 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our experience confirms a significant reduction of costs with increasing surgeon's experience with both platforms. However, the economic gain was higher with the Xi with shorter OT, reduced PC and CC, in addition to a significantly larger number of cases performed by the fully robotic approach.

Laparoscopic transanal minimally invasive surgery (L-TAMIS) versus robotic TAMIS (R-TAMIS): short-term outcomes and costs of a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) has gained worldwide popularity as a method for the local excision of rectal neoplasms. However, it is technically demanding due to limited working space. Robotic TAMIS offers potential enhanced dexterity and ability while allowing for a more aggressive resection with a stable platform. The objective of this study was to review a single institution experience between laparoscopic (L-TAMIS) and robotic TAMIS (R-TAMIS) for treatment of rectal neoplasms and determine if there are significant differences on outcomes. METHODS: Forty consecutive patients with rectal neoplasms underwent L-TAMIS or R-TAMIS by two colorectal surgeons from January 2012 to April 2017. We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database to analyze demographics, peri-operative data, pathology, post-operative complications, and cost. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between L- and R-TAMIS on patient demographics. R-TAMIS showed a statically significant increase in cost of surgery by $880. Median direct cost of L-TAMIS was $3562 compared to $4440.92 for R-TAMIS (p = 0.04). Wider range of total duration for L-TAMIS is likely due to the variability of body habitus and location of rectal neoplasm, which can significantly limit L-TAMIS compare to R-TAMIS. There was a trend toward decreased blood loss in the R-TAMIS group. Mortality was 0% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: After reviewing our experience, we conclude there is no significant difference between L- and R-TAMIS other than total direct cost. We confirmed that both L- and R-TAMIS are safe and associated with low morbidity. The limitations of this study include its small sample size. In the future, we hope to show promising data on R-TAMIS with increased sample size and experience, which may allow for transanal resection not previously feasible. Studies with long-term follow-up assessing oncological and functional results will be mandatory.

Direct inpatient costs and influencing factors for patients with rectal cancer with low anterior resection: a retrospective observational study at a three-tertiary hospital in Beijing, China.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the direct inpatient cost and analyse influencing factors for patients with rectal cancer with low anterior resection in Beijing, China. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SETTING: The study was conducted at a three-tertiary oncology institution. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 448 patients who underwent low anterior resection and were diagnosed with rectal cancer from January 2015 to December 2016 at Peking University Cancer Hospital were retrospectively identified. Demographic, clinical and cost data were determined. RESULTS: The median inpatient cost wasï¿¥89 064, with a wide range (ï¿¥46 711-ï¿¥191 329) due to considerable differences in consumables. The material cost accounted for 52.19% and was the highest among all the cost components. Colostomy (OR 4.17; 95% CI 1.79 to 9.71), complications of hypertension (OR 5.30; 95% CI 1.94 to 14.42) and combined with other tumours (OR 2.92; 95% CI 1.12 to 7.60) were risk factors for higher cost, while clinical pathway (OR 0.10; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.35), real-time settlement (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68) and combined with cardiovascular disease (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.52) were protective determinants. CONCLUSIONS: This approach is an effective way to relieve the economic burden of patients with cancer by promoting the clinical pathway, optimising the payment scheme and controlling the complication. Further research focused on the full-cost investigation in different stages of rectal cancer based on a longitudinal design is necessary.

Contact X-ray Brachytherapy as an Adjunct to a Watch and Wait Approach is an Affordable Alternative to Standard Surgical Management of Rectal Cancer for Patients with a Partial Clinical Response to Chemoradiotherapy.

AIMS: Emerging evidence suggests that contact X-ray brachytherapy (CXB) may increase the clinical complete response rate and durability when administered after standard chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer. The addition of CXB in partial responders is therefore probably cost-effective. The affordability of widening access to CXB in the UK, however, has not been evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision analytical modelling with Monte Carlo simulation was used to evaluate long-term costs for the management of patients with rectal cancers who were given a CXB boost when a clinical complete response was not initially achieved following chemoradiotherapy in order to facilitate a watch and wait approach. A third-party payer (National Health Service) perspective was adopted, probabilistic sensitivity analysis was carried out and a scenario analysis was performed to investigate the effect of the number of referral centres and number of patients treated with CXB. RESULTS: We estimate that 818 (95% confidence interval 628-1021) patients per year are eligible for CXB as an adjunct to a watch and wait approach in England and Wales. As this management is less costly than surgical management for each individual patient, the more patients treated, the more affordable the technology. Even if as few as 125 patients are treated nationally in 15 centres, the cost of implementing this technology would be less than £4 million. If the average number of patients treated in each centre is 30, this technology would be cost saving within 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of CXB is not prohibitive according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for implementation of new technology and may even be cost saving within 5 years compared with standard surgical management, depending on the uptake of the technology and the number of referral centres.