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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of outcome and cost among open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer: A propensity score matched analysis of nationwide inpatient sample data.

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies evaluating outcomes of different approaches for rectal cancer are scarce. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database between 2008 and 2012. We compared the outcomes and costs among rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, or open surgeries using propensity scores for adjusted and matched analysis. RESULTS: We identified 194 957 rectal cancer patients. Over the 5-year period, the annual admission number decreased by 13.9%, the in-hospital mortality rate decreased by 32.2%, while the total hospitalization cost increased by 13.6%. Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery had significantly lower length of stay (LOS) (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.57-0.84), comparable wound complications (OR 1.08, 95%CI 0.70-1.65) and higher cost (OR 1.42, 95%CI 1.13-1.79), while open surgery had significantly longer LOS (OR 1.38, 95%CI 1.19-1.59), more wound complications (OR 1.49, 95%CI 1.08-1.79), and comparable cost (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.79-1.07). There were no difference in in-hospital mortality among three approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery was associated with better outcomes than open surgery. Robotic surgery was associated with higher cost, but no advantage over laparoscopic surgery in terms of mortality and complications. Studies on cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery may be warranted.

Avoiding Radical Surgery in Elderly Patients With Rectal Cancer Is Cost-Effective.

BACKGROUND: Radical surgery is associated with significant perioperative mortality in elderly and comorbid populations. Emerging data suggest for patients with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy that a watch-and-wait approach may provide equivalent survival and oncological outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of watch and wait and radical surgery for patients with rectal cancer after a clinical complete response following chemoradiotherapy. DESIGN: Decision analytical modeling and a Markov simulation were used to model long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and cost-effectiveness after watch and wait and radical surgery. Sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in model parameters. SETTINGS: A third-party payer perspective was adopted. PATIENTS: Patients included in the study were a 60-year-old male cohort with no comorbidities, 80-year-old male cohorts with no comorbidities, and 80-year-old male cohorts with significant comorbidities. INTERVENTIONS: Radical surgery and watch-and-wait approaches were studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio over the entire lifetime of the hypothetical patient cohorts were measured. RESULTS: Watch and wait was more effective (60-year-old male cohort with no comorbidities = 0.63 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, 2.48-3.65 quality-adjusted life-years); 80-year-old male cohort with no comorbidities = 0.56 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, 0.52-1.59 quality-adjusted life-years); 80-year-old male cohort with significant comorbidities = 0.72 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, 0.34-1.76 quality-adjusted life-years)) and less costly (60-year-old male cohort with no comorbidities = $11,332.35 (95% CI, $668.50-$23,970.20); 80-year-old male cohort with no comorbidities = $8783.93 (95% CI, $2504.26-$21,900.66); 80-year-old male cohort with significant comorbidities = $10,206.01 (95% CI, $2762.014-$24,135.31)) independent of patient cohort age and comorbidity. Consequently, watch and wait was more cost-effective with a high degree of certainty (range, 69.6%-89.2%) at a threshold of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: Long-term outcomes were derived from modeled cohorts. Analysis was performed for a United Kingdom third-party payer perspective, limiting generalizability to other healthcare contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Watch and wait is likely to be cost-effective compared with radical surgery. These findings strongly support the discussion of organ-preserving strategies with suitable patients.

Health economic aspects of evaluation with diffusion weighted MR and MR colonography compared to standard evaluation with colonoscopy and CT before rectal cancer surgery.

Background Colorectal cancer is a frequent type of cancer, and with the risk of synchronous disease, the need for a complete staging leads to an extensive and costly preoperative diagnostic evaluation. Previously we described a total preoperative evaluation using magnetic resonance (MR) colonography and diffusion-weighted MR of the liver. Purpose To compare the economic aspects of this modality with the standard evaluation in an analysis of the different cost drivers. Material and Methods Based on the results from previous studies, two calculations were performed, a theoretical cost calculation and a practical cost calculation. The cost drivers utilized are an average cost based on the cost of all procedures and diagnostic modalities performed in hospitalized patients (DRG) and outpatients (DAGS [Danish outpatient grouping system]) in Denmark. Results The total cost for a full colorectal evaluation and computed tomography (CT) scan of the thorax/abdomen was less for the new modality group in all theoretical models proposed; €225 using model A, €322 using model B, and €383 using model C. Using results from previous studies, the actual difference and the potential difference in cost between the two preoperative diagnostic modalities per patient were €312 and €712, respectively. Conclusion This cost analysis shows the cost effectiveness of the new modality as the future standard preoperative diagnostic work-up by reducing total cost and by having a higher sensitivity and completion rate.

Self-reported depression and perceived financial burden among long-term rectal cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVES: Types of surgery for rectal cancer (RC), including permanent ostomy (PO) or temporary ostomy followed by anastomosis (TO) or initial anastomosis (AN), can affect psychological and financial well-being during active treatment. However, these relationships have not been well studied among long-term survivors (≥5 years post-diagnosis). METHODS: A mailed survey with 576 long-term RC survivors who were members of Kaiser Permanente was conducted in 2010-2011. Prevalence of current depression was ascertained using a score of ≤45.6 on the Short Form-12 version 2 mental component summary. Perceived financial burden was assessed using a Likert scale ranging from 0 (none) to 10 (severe). Regression analyses were used to measure associations after adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of depression was 24% among RC survivors with the highest prevalence among those with a history of PO (31%). The adjusted odds of depression among TO and AN survivors were lower than that among PO survivors, 0.42 (CI95% 0.20-0.89) and 0.59 (CI95% 0.37-0.93), respectively. Twenty-two percent perceived moderate-to-high current financial burden (≥4 points). PO survivors also reported higher mean financial burden than AN survivors (2.6 vs. 1.6, respectively; p = 0.002), but perceived burden comparably to TO survivors (2.3). Self-reported depression was associated with higher perceived financial burden (p < 0.001); surgical procedure history did not modify this relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Depression was reported frequently among these long-term RC survivors, particularly among PO survivors. Depression was associated with greater perception of financial burden. Screening for depression and assessing financial well-being might improve care among long-term RC survivors.Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer in a single surgeon's experience: a cost analysis covering the initial 50 robotic cases with the da Vinci Si.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare surgical parameters and the costs of robotic surgery with those of laparoscopic approach in rectal cancer based on a single surgeon's early robotic experience. METHODS: Data from 25 laparoscopic (LapTME) and the first 50 robotic (RobTME) rectal resections performed at our institution by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon (>100 procedures) between 2009 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed and compared. Patient demographic, procedure, and outcome data were gathered. Costs of the two procedures were collected, differentiated into fixed and variable costs, and analyzed against the robotic learning curve according to the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method. RESULTS: Based on CUSUM analysis, RobTME group was divided into three phases (Rob1: 1-19; Rob2: 20-40; Rob3: 41-50). Overall median operative time (OT) was significantly lower in LapTME than in RobTME (270 vs 312.5 min, p = 0.006). A statistically significant change in OT by phase of robotic experience was detected in the RobTME group (p = 0.010). Overall mean costs associated with LapTME procedures were significantly lower than with RobTME (p < 0.001). Statistically significant reductions in variable and overall costs were found between robotic phases (p < 0.009 for both). With fixed costs excluded, the difference between laparoscopic and Rob3 was no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a significant optimization of robotic rectal surgery's costs with experience. Efforts to reduce the dominant fixed cost are recommended to maintain the sustainability of the system and benefit from the technical advantages offered by the robot.

[Comparison of the Cost-Effectiveness of the SOX and COX Regimens in Patients with Unresectable Advanced and Recurrent Colorectal Cancer Using a Clinical Decision Analysis Approach].

Phase III clinical trials have comfirmed that the S-1 plus oxaliplatin(SOX)is inferior to the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (COX)regimen in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.On the basis of these findings, we compared, using a clinical decision analysis-based approach, the cost-effectiveness of the SOX and COX regimens.Herein, we simulated the expected effects and costs of the SOX and COX regimens using the markov model.Clinical data were obtained from Hong's 2012 report.The cost data comprised the costs for pharmacist labor, material, inspection, and treatment for adverse event, as well as the total cost of care at the advanced stage.The result showed that the expected cost of the SOX and COX regimen was 1,538,330 yen, and 1,429,596 yen, respectively, with an expected survival rate of 29.18 months, and 28.63 months, respectively.The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the SOX regimen was 197,698 yen/month; thus, the SOX regimen was found to be more cost-effective that the COX regimen.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic surgery at a single institution. BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is regarded as a new modality to surpass the technical limitations of conventional surgery. Short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer were acceptable in previous reports. However, evidence of long-term feasibility and oncologic safety is required. METHODS: Between April 2006 and August 2011, 217 patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer with stage I-III disease were enrolled prospectively (robot, n = 133; laparoscopy, n = 84). Median follow-up period was 58 months (range, 4-80 months). Perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes, morbidities, 5-year survival rates, prognostic factors, and cost were evaluated. RESULTS: Perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes demonstrated no significant differences except for the conversion rate and length of hospital stay. The 5-year overall survival rate was 92.8% in robotic, and 93.5% in laparoscopic surgical procedures (P = 0.829). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 81.9% and 78.7%, respectively (P = 0.547). Local recurrence was similar: 2.3% and 1.2% (P = 0.649). According to the univariate analysis, this type of surgical approach was not a prognostic factor for long-term survival. The patient's mean payment for robotic surgery was approximately 2.34 times higher than laparoscopic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found in the 5-year overall, disease-free survival and local recurrence rates between robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures. We concluded that robotic surgery for rectal cancer failed to offer any oncologic or clinical benefits as compared with laparoscopy despite an increased cost.

Risk of disability pension in patients following rectal cancer treatment and surgery.

BACKGROUND: Aspects of survivorship, such as long-term ability to work, are increasingly relevant owing to the improved survival of patients with rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to assess risk and determinants of disability pension (DP) in this patient group. METHODS: Using Swedish national clinical and population-based registers, patients with stage I-III rectal cancer aged 18-61 years in 1995-2009 were identified at diagnosis and matched with population comparators. Prospectively registered records of DP during follow-up were retrieved up to 2013. Non-proportional and proportional hazards models were used to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) for DP annually and overall. Potential variations in risk by demographic and clinical factors were calculated, with relapse as a time-varying exposure. RESULTS: A total of 2815 patients were identified and compared with 13 465 population comparators. During a median follow-up of 6·0 (range 0-10) years, 23·3 per cent of the relapse-free patients and 10·3 per cent of the population comparators received DP (IRR 2·40, 95 per cent c.i. 2·17 to 2·65). An increased annual risk of DP was evident almost every year until the tenth year of follow-up. Abdominoperineal resection was associated with an increased DP risk compared with anterior resection (IRR 1·44, 1·19 to 1·75). Surgical complications (IRR 1·33, 1·10 to 1·62) and reoperation (IRR 1·42, 1·09 to 1·84), but not radiotherapy or chemotherapy, were associated with risk of DP. CONCLUSION: Relapse-free patients with rectal cancer of working age are at risk of disability pension.

Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Abdominoperineal Resections in Patients With Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are limited available data comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for rectal cancer surgery. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate outcomes of different surgical approaches to abdominoperineal resection in patients with rectal cancer. DESIGN: The nationwide inpatient sample database was used to examine the clinical data of patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective abdominoperineal resection between 2009 and 2012 in the United States. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare outcomes of different surgical approaches. SETTINGS: A retrospective review according to the national inpatient sample database was designed. PATIENTS: We included patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective abdominoperineal resection between 2009 and 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes of different surgical approaches to abdominoperineal resection were investigated. RESULTS: We sampled 18,359 patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective abdominoperineal resections. Of these, 69.5% had open surgery, 25.8% had laparoscopic surgery, and 4.7% had robotic surgery. The rate of robotic procedures increased >4-fold, from 2.1% to 8.1%, from 2009 to 2012. The conversion rate in robotic surgery was significantly lower compared with laparoscopic surgery (5.7% vs 13.4%; p < 0.01). After risk adjustment, patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic approaches had lower morbidity risks compared with those who underwent the open approach (adjusted OR = 0.77 (95% CI, 0.65-0.92), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.40-0.80); p < 0. 01). There were no significant differences in the morbidity rate of patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic approaches (adjusted OR = 0.79 (95% CI, 0.55-1.14); p = 0.21). However, patients who underwent the robotic approach had significantly higher total hospital charges compared with those who underwent the laparoscopic approach (mean difference, $24,890; p < 0.01). LIMITATIONS: We could not adjust the results with some important factors, such as the tumor stage and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: The use of robotic and laparoscopic approaches to abdominoperineal resection have increased between 2009 and 2012. Both minimally invasive approaches decrease morbidity rates of patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection. The robotic approach has a significantly lower conversion rate compared with the laparoscopic approach. However, it had significantly higher total hospital charges compared with the laparoscopic approach.

Costs of colorectal cancer in different states of the disease.

OBJECTIVES: This cross-sectional study estimates the resource use and costs among prevalent colorectal cancer (CRC) patients in different states of the disease. METHODS: Altogether 508 Finnish CRC patients (aged 26-96; colon cancer 56%; female 47%) answered a questionnaire enquiring about informal care, work capacity, and demographic factors. Furthermore, data on direct medical resource use and productivity costs were obtained from registries. Patients were divided into five mutually exclusive groups based on the disease state and the time from diagnosis: primary treatments (the first six months after the diagnosis), rehabilitation, remission, metastatic disease, and palliative care. The costs were calculated for a six-month period. Multivariate modeling was performed to find the cost drivers. RESULTS: The costs were highest during the primary treatment state and the advanced disease states. The total costs for the cross-sectional six-month period were €22 200 in the primary treatment state, €2106 in the rehabilitation state, €2812 in the remission state, €20 540 in the metastatic state, and €21 146 in the palliative state. Most of the costs were direct medical costs. The informal care cost was highest per patient in the palliative care state, amounting to 33% of the total costs. The productivity costs varied between disease states, constituting 19-40% of the total costs, and were highest in the primary treatment state. CONCLUSIONS: The first six months after the diagnosis of CRC are resource intensive, but compared with the metastatic disease state, which lasts on average for 2-3 years, the costs are rather modest. Informal care constitutes a remarkable share of the total costs, especially in the palliative state. These results form a basis for the evaluation of the cost effectiveness of new treatments when allocating resources in CRC treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy in rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing trend to use laparoscopy for rectal cancer surgery. Although laparoscopic and open rectal resections appear oncologically equivalent, there is little information on the cost of different surgical approaches. With the current health care crisis and the importance of optimizing health care resources and patient outcomes, the cost of care is an important factor. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy in rectal cancer. DESIGN: This was a case-matched study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing elective rectal cancer resection between 2007 and 2012 were selected. METHODS: A review of a prospective database for elective laparoscopic rectal cancer resections was performed. Laparoscopic cases were matched to open cases based on age, BMI, operative procedure, and diagnostic-related group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the cost of care, hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, readmission, postoperative complications, and mortality rates. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-four matched cases were included in the analysis: 125 laparoscopic (49%) and 129 open (51%). The cTNM stage (p = 0.39), tumor distance from the anal verge (p = 0.07), and rate of neoadjuvant therapy received between the laparoscopic and open groups were similar (p = 0.12). Operating time (p< 0.01) and cost per operating room minute (p = 0.04) were significantly higher in the open group. The groups were oncologically equivalent, based on circumferential resection margin (p = 0.15). The laparoscopic group had a significantly shorter length of stay (p < 0.01) and lower total hospital cost (p < 0.01). Postoperative complications, 30-day readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates were similar. However, significantly more patients undergoing open resection required intensive care unit care (p = 0.03), skilled nursing (p = 0.03), or home care services (p < 0.01) at discharge. LIMITATIONS: This investigation was conducted at a single institution and it is a retrospective study with potential bias. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy is cost-effective for rectal cancer surgery, improving both health care expenditures and patient outcomes. For selected patients, laparoscopic rectal cancer resection can reduce length of stay, operating time, and resource utilization.