Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS: This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria. RESULTS: 12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used. CONCLUSION: Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.

Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: a protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, most rectal tumours are treated open or minimally invasive, using laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision. However, insight into the total costs of these techniques is limited. Since all three techniques are currently being performed, including cost considerations in the choice of treatment technique may significantly impact future healthcare costs. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of evidence regarding costs in patients with rectal cancer following open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be conducted for papers between January 2000 and March 2022. Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases will be searched. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by four reviewers and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria list will be used for assessing risk of bias. Total costs of the different techniques, consisting of but not limited to, theatre, in-hospital and postoperative costs, will be the primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required, as there is no collection of patient data at an individual level. Findings will be disseminated widely, through peer-reviewed publication and presentation at relevant national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021261125.

A Bayesian approach for diagnostic accuracy of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST) carry a dismal prognosis and require early detection and complete resection. However, MPNSTs are prone to sampling errors and biopsies or resections are cumbersome and possibly damaging in benign peripheral nerve sheath tumor (BPNST). This study aimed to systematically review and quantify the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive tests for distinguishing MPNST from BPNST. METHODS: Studies on accuracy of MRI, FDG-PET (fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography), and liquid biopsies were identified in PubMed and Embase from 2000 to 2019. Pooled accuracies were calculated using Bayesian bivariate meta-analyses. Individual level-patient data were analyzed for ideal maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) threshold on FDG-PET. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were selected for qualitative synthesis including data on 1875 patients and 2939 lesions. Thirty-five studies were included for meta-analyses. For MRI, the absence of target sign showed highest sensitivity (0.99, 95% CI: 0.94-1.00); ill-defined margins (0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-0.98); and perilesional edema (0.95, 95% CI: 0.83-1.00) showed highest specificity. For FDG-PET, SUVmax and tumor-to-liver ratio show similar accuracy; sensitivity 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.97 and 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.97, respectively, specificity 0.81, 95% CI: 0.76-0.87 and 0.79, 95% CI: 0.70-0.86, respectively. SUVmax ≥3.5 yielded the best accuracy with a sensitivity of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.93-1.00) and specificity of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.56-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Biopsies may be omitted in the presence of a target sign and the absence of ill-defined margins or perilesional edema. Because of diverse radiological characteristics of MPNST, biopsies may still commonly be required. In neurofibromatosis type 1, FDG-PET scans may further reduce biopsies. Ideal SUVmax threshold is ≥3.5.