Considering Value in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An Analysis of Costs and Outcomes Based on the Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approach for Proctectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare value (outcomes/costs) of proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer by 3 approaches: open, laparoscopic, and robotic. BACKGROUND: The role of minimally invasive proctectomy in rectal cancer is controversial. In the era of value-based medicine, costs must be considered along with outcomes. METHODS: Primary rectal cancer patients undergoing curative intent proctectomy at our institution between 2010 and 2014 were included. Patients were grouped by approach [open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery (RS)] on an intent-to-treat basis. Groups were compared by direct costs of hospitalization for the primary resection, 30-day readmissions, and ileostomy closure and for short-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 488 patients were evaluated; 327 were men (67%), median age was 59 (27-93) years, and restorative procedures were performed in 333 (68.2%). Groups were similar in demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment details. Significant outcome differences between groups were found in operative and anesthesia times (longer in the RS group), and in estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, length of stay, and postoperative complications (all higher in the open surgery group). No significant differences were found in short-term oncologic outcomes. Direct cost of the hospitalization for primary resection and total direct cost (including readmission/ileostomy closure hospitalizations) were significantly greater in the RS group. CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic and open approaches to proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer provide similar value. If robotic proctectomy is to be widely applied in the future, the costs of the procedure must be reduced.

Assessment of operative risk in colorectal cancer surgery: the Cleveland Clinic Foundation colorectal cancer model.

INTRODUCTION: Predictive models play a pivotal role in the provision of risk-adjusted, operative mortality rates. The purpose of the study was to describe the development of a dedicated prognostic index for quantifying operative risk in colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: Data were collected from 5,034 consecutive patients undergoing major surgery in a single center from October 1976 to July 2002. Primary end point was 30-day operative mortality. A multilevel Bayesian logistic regression model was developed to adjust for case-mix and accommodate the variability of outcomes between surgeons. The model was internally validated (split-sample) and tested using measures of discrimination, calibration, and subgroup analysis. RESULTS: The patients' median age was 66 (range, 18-98) years. Operative mortality was 2.3 percent with no significant variability between surgeons or through time. Multivariate analysis identified the following independent risk factors: age (odds ratio = 1.5 per 10-year increase), American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (odds ratio for ASA II, III, IV-V vs. I = 2.6, 4.3, 6.8), TNM staging (odds ratio for Stage IV vs. I-III = 2.6), mode of surgery (odds ratio for urgent vs. nonurgent = 2.1) no-cancer resection vs. cancer resection (odds ratio = 4.5), and hematocrit level. The model offered adequate discrimination (area under receiver operator characteristic curve = 0.801) and excellent agreement between observed and model-predicted outcomes over ten major colorectal procedures (P = 0.191). CONCLUSIONS: The colorectal cancer model provided an accurate means of estimating risk for individual patients in the preoperative setting. It has important implications in everyday practice, because it may be used as an adjunct in the process of informed consent and for monitoring surgical performance through time.