RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Owing to multimodal treatment and complex surgery, locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) exerts a large healthcare burden. Watch and wait (W&W) may be cost saving by removing the need for surgery and inpatient care. This systematic review seeks to identify the economic impact of W&W, compared with standard care, in patients achieving a complete clinical response (cCR) following neoadjuvant therapy for LARC. METHODS: The PubMed, OVID Medline, OVID Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched from inception to 26 April 2024. All economic evaluations (EEs) that compared W&W with standard care were included. Reporting and methodological quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), BMJ and Philips checklists. Narrative synthesis was performed. Primary and secondary outcomes were (incremental) cost-effectiveness ratios and the net financial cost. RESULTS: Of 1548 studies identified, 27 were assessed for full-text eligibility and 12 studies from eight countries (2016-2024) were included. Seven cost-effectiveness analyses (complete EEs) and five cost analyses (partial EEs) utilized model-based (n = 7) or trial-based (n = 5) analytics with significant variations in methodological design and reporting quality. W&W showed consistent cost effectiveness (n = 7) and cost saving (n = 12) compared with surgery from third-party payer and patient perspectives. Critical parameters identified by uncertainty analysis were rates of local and distant recurrence in W&W, salvage surgery, perioperative mortality and utilities assigned to W&W and surgery. CONCLUSION: Despite heterogenous methodological design and reporting quality, W&W is likely to be cost effective and cost saving compared with standard care following cCR in LARC. Clinical Trials Registration PROSPERO CRD42024513874.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Interhospital transfers of surgical patients are an independent risk factor for mortality. The Australian and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality (ANZASM) aims to improve surgical care through assessment of all cases of surgical mortality. This study aimed to describe common clinical management issues that contributed to interhospital transfer patient mortality. METHODS: Data for all surgical patient mortality in Australia (except New South Wales) that underwent interhospital transfer between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019 were extracted from ANZASM. The surgeons' reports and assessors' evaluations were examined to identify clinical management issues. Thematic analysis was performed to develop pertinent themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Some 8679 patients were identified over the 10-year period. Of these, 2171 (25.0 per cent) had 3259 clinical management issues identified. Prominent themes were operative design (n = 466, 14.3 per cent), decision to operate (n = 425, 13.0 per cent), medical conditions (n = 344, 10.6 per cent), diagnosis (n = 326, 10 per cent), transfer (n = 293, 10.0 per cent), intraoperative issues (n = 278, 8.5 per cent), inadequate assessment (n = 238, 7.3 per cent), communication (n = 224, 6.9 per cent), delay in recognizing complications (n = 180, 5.5 per cent), coagulopathy (n = 151, 4.6 per cent), insufficient monitoring (n = 127, 3.9 per cent), infection (n = 107, 3.3 per cent), and hospital resources (n = 100, 3.1 per cent). Assessors considered 58.4 per cent of clinical management issues (n = 1903) probably or definitely preventable. CONCLUSION: This study identified 13 themes of potentially avoidable management issues present in surgical mortality following interhospital transfers. Quality-improvement initiatives targeting these areas may improve surgical patient outcomes.