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.

Cost-effectiveness of Laparoscopic vs Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Laparoscopic gastrectomy is rapidly being adopted worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer. However, laparoscopic gastrectomy might be more expensive as a result of longer operating times and more expensive surgical materials. To date, the cost-effectiveness of both procedures has not been prospectively evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic compared with open gastrectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing total or distal gastrectomy in 10 Dutch tertiary referral centers, cost-effectiveness data were collected alongside a multicenter randomized clinical trial on laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3bM0). A modified societal perspective and 1-year time horizon were used. Costs were calculated on the individual patient level by using hospital registry data and medical consumption and productivity loss questionnaires. The unit costs of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy were calculated bottom-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated with the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire, in which a value of 0 indicates death and 1 indicates perfect health. Missing questionnaire data were imputed with multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was performed to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness. The study was conducted from March 17, 2015, to August 20, 2018. Data analyses were performed between September 1, 2020, and November 17, 2021. Interventions: Laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Evaluations in this cost-effectiveness analysis included total costs and QALYs. Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 227 patients were included. Mean (SD) age was 67.5 (11.7) years, and 140 were male (61.7%). Unit costs for initial surgery were calculated to be €8124 (US $8087) for laparoscopic total gastrectomy, €7353 (US $7320) for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, €6584 (US $6554) for open total gastrectomy, and €5893 (US $5866) for open distal gastrectomy. Mean total costs after 1-year follow-up were €26 084 (US $25 965) in the laparoscopic group and €25 332 (US $25 216) in the open group (difference, €752 [US $749; 3.0%]). Mean (SD) QALY contributions during 1 year were 0.665 (0.298) in the laparoscopic group and 0.686 (0.288) in the open group (difference, -0.021). Bootstrapping showed that these differences between treatment groups were relatively small compared with the uncertainty of the analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the laparoscopic gastrectomy itself was more expensive, after 1-year follow-up, results suggest that differences in both total costs and effectiveness were limited between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. These results support centers' choosing, based on their own preference, whether to (de)implement laparoscopic gastrectomy as an alternative to open gastrectomy.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer. METHODS: This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided α 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4-6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6-8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F-FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy. DISCUSSION: If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care.

18F-FDG PET-CT after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal Cancer Patients to Optimize Surgical Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis of esophageal cancer patients can be significantly improved by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Given the aggressive nature of esophageal tumors, it is conceivable that in a significant portion of patients treated with nCRT, dissemination already becomes manifest during the period of nCRT. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the value and diagnostic accuracy of PET-CT after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy to identify patients with metastases preoperatively in order to prevent non-curative surgery. METHODS: From January 2011 until February 2013 esophageal cancer patients deemed eligible for a curative approach with nCRT and surgical resection underwent a PET-CT after completion of nCRT. If abnormalities on PET-CT were suspected metastases, histological proof was acquired. A clinical decision model was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of this diagnostic strategy. RESULTS: 156 patients underwent a PET-CT after nCRT. In 31 patients (19.9%) PET-CT showed abnormalities suspicious for dissemination, resulting in 17 cases of proven metastases (10.9%). Of the patients without proven metastases 133 patients were operated. In 6 of these 133 cases distant metastases were detected intraoperatively, corresponding to 4.5% false-negative results. The standard introduction of a post-neoadjuvant therapy PET-CT led to a reduction of overall health care costs per patient compared to a scenario without restaging with PET-CT ($34,088 vs. $36,490). CONCLUSION: In 10.9% of esophageal cancer patients distant metastases were detected by standard PET-CT after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. To avoid non-curative resections we advocate post-neoadjuvant therapy PET-CT as a cost-effective step in the standard work-up of candidates for surgery.

Symptomatic marginal ulcer disease after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: incidence, risk factors and management.

BACKGROUND: One of the long-term complications of laparoscopic Roux-and-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is the development of marginal ulcers (MU). The aim of the present study is to assess the incidence, risk factors, symptomatology and management of patients with symptomatic MU after LRYGB surgery. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients who underwent a LRYGB from 2006 until 2011 were evaluated in this study. Signs of abdominal pain, pyrosis, nausea or other symptoms of ulcer disease were analysed. Acute symptoms of (perforated) MU such as severe abdominal pain, vomiting, melena and haematemesis were also collected. Patient baseline characteristics, medication and intoxications were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with MU. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients underwent a LRYGB. Minimal follow-up was 24 months. Twenty-three patients (6.6%) developed a symptomatic MU of which four (1.1%) presented with perforation. Smoking, the use of corticosteroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was significantly associated with the development of MU. Five out of 23 patients (22%) underwent surgery. All other patients could be treated conservatively. CONCLUSIONS: Marginal ulcers occurred in 6.6% of the patients after a LRYGB. Smoking, the use of corticosteroids and the use of NSAIDs were associated with an increased risk of MU. Most patients were managed conservatively.

Incidence and management of chyle leakage after esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative chyle leakage is a rare but well-recognized complication after esophageal surgery. The aim of this study was to identify its incidence and potentially predisposing factors and to assess the consequences and management. METHODS: A consecutive series of 536 patients who underwent esophagectomy for malignant disease of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction was reviewed. RESULTS: There were 20 patients (3.7%) with chyle leakage. After transthoracic esophagectomy the risk for the development of chyle leakage was higher than after transhiatal resection (p = 0.006). Chyle leakage was associated with more positive nodes (p = 0.041). Patients with chyle leakage had significantly more pulmonary complications (p < 0.001) and longer intensive care unit (p = 0.015) and hospital stays (p = 0.001). No patient with chyle leakage died. Conservative management, consisting of no enteral feeding and total parenteral nutrition, was instituted in all patients, but was abandoned in 4 patients (20%) because of persistence of high chyle output through the chest tube. In contrast to patients who were successfully treated with conservative measures, patients who eventually needed a reoperation had a drain output of more than 2 L on the day conservative therapy was started and 1 and 2 days later. CONCLUSIONS: Chyle leakage is seen more often in patients who undergo transthoracic esophagectomy and in patients who have more positive nodes. Patients with chyle leakage have more pulmonary complications. Conservative therapy is often successful, but operative therapy should be seriously considered in patients with a persistently high daily output of more than 2 L after 2 days of optimal conservative therapy.