Participatory methods used in the evaluation of medical devices: a comparison of focus groups, interviews, and a survey.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder engagement in evaluation of medical devices is crucial for aligning devices with stakeholders' views, needs, and values. Methods for these engagements have however not been compared to analyse their relative merits for medical device evaluation. Therefore, we systematically compared these three methods in terms of themes, interaction, and time-investment. METHODS: We compared focus groups, interviews, and an online survey in a case-study on minimally invasive endoscopy-guided surgery for patients with intracerebral haemorrhage. The focus groups and interviews featured two rounds, one explorative focussing on individual perspectives, and one interactive focussing on the exchange of perspectives between participants. The comparison between methods was made in terms of number and content of themes, how participants interact, and hours invested by all researchers. RESULTS: The focus groups generated 34 themes, the interviews 58, and the survey 42. Various improvements for the assessment of the surgical procedure were only discussed in the interviews. In focus groups, participants were inclined to emphasise agreement and support, whereas the interviews consisted of questions and answers. The total time investment for researchers of focus groups was 95 h, of interviews 315 h, and survey 81 h. CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of medical device evaluation, interviews appeared to be the most appropriate method for understanding stakeholder views since they provide a scope and depth of information that is not generated by other methods. Focus groups were useful to rapidly bring views together. Surveys enabled a quick exploration. Researchers should account for these methodological differences and select the method that is suitable for their research aim.

Early technology review: towards an expedited pathway.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence development for medical devices is often focused on satisfying regulatory requirements with the result that health professional and payer expectations may not be met, despite considerable investment in clinical trials. Early engagement with payers and health professionals could allow companies to understand these expectations and reflect them in clinical study design, increasing chances of positive coverage determination and adoption into clinical practice. METHODS: An example of early engagement through the EXCITE International model using an early technology review (ETR) is described which includes engagement with payers and health professionals to better inform companies to develop data that meet their expectations. ETR is based on an early evidence review, a framework of expectations that guides the process and identified gaps in evidence. The first fourteen ETRs were reviewed for examples of advice to companies that provided additional information from payers and health professionals that was thought likely to impact on downstream outcomes or strategic direction. Given that limitations were imposed by confidentiality, examples were genericized. RESULTS: Advice through early engagement can inform evidence development that coincides with expectations of payers and health professionals through a structured, objective, evidence-based approach. This could reduce the risk of business-related adverse outcomes such as failure to secure a positive coverage determination and/or acceptance by expert health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Early engagement with key stakeholders exemplified by the ETR approach offers an alternative to the current approach of focusing on regulatory expectations. This could reduce the time to reimbursement and clinical adoption and benefit patient outcomes and/or health system efficiencies.

Care Pathway Analysis to Inform the Earliest Stages of Technology Development: Scoping Oncological Indications in Need of Innovation.

OBJECTIVES: Identifying unmet needs for innovative solutions across disease contexts is challenging but important for directing funding and research efforts and informing early-stage decisions during the innovation process. Our aim was to study the merits of care pathway analysis to scope disease contexts and guide the development of innovative devices. We used oncologic surgery as a case study, for which many intraoperative imaging techniques are under development. METHODS: Care pathway analysis is a mapping process, which produces graphical maps of clinical pathways using important outcomes and subsequent consequences. We performed care pathway analyses for glioblastoma, breast, bladder, prostate, renal, pancreatic, and oral cavity cancer. Differences between a "perfect" care pathway and the current care pathway in terms of percentage of inadequate margins, associated recurrences, quality of life, and 5-year overall survival were calculated to determine unmet needs. Data from The Netherlands Cancer Registry and literature were used. RESULTS: Care pathway analysis showed that highest percentages of inadequate margins were found in oral cavity cancer (72.5%), glioblastoma (48.7%), and pancreatic cancer (43.9%). Inadequate margins showed the strongest increase in recurrences in cancer of oral cavity, and bladder (absolute increases of 43.5% and 41.2%, respectively). Impact on survival was largest for bladder and oral cavity cancer with positive margins. CONCLUSIONS: Care pathway analysis provides overviews of current clinical paths in multiple indications. Disease contexts can be compared via effectiveness gaps that show the potential need for innovative solutions. This information can be used as basis for stakeholder involvement processes to prioritize care pathways in need of innovation.

Study protocol for a multicenter randomised controlled trial on the (cost)effectiveness of biopsy combined with same-session MR-guided LITT versus biopsy alone in patients with primary irresectable glioblastoma (EMITT trial).

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary, malignant brain tumour with a 5-year survival of 5%. If possible, a glioblastoma is resected and further treated with chemoradiation therapy (CRT), but resection is not feasible in about 30% of cases. Current standard of care in these cases is a biopsy followed by CRT. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has been suggested as a minimally invasive alternative when surgery is not feasible. However, high-quality evidence directly comparing LITT with standard of care is lacking, precluding any conclusions on (cost-)effectiveness. We therefore propose a multicenter randomized controlled study to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of MR-guided LITT as compared to current standard of care (EMITT trial). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EMITT trial will be a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands. Seven Dutch hospitals will participate in this study. In total 238 patients will be randomized with 1:1 allocation to receive either biopsy combined with same-session MR-guided LITT therapy followed by CRT or the current standard of care being biopsy followed by CRT. The primary outcomes will be health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) (non-inferiority) using EORTC QLQ-C30 + BN20 scores at 5 months after randomization and overall survival (superiority). Secondary outcomes comprise cost-effectiveness (healthcare and societal perspective) and HR-QoL of life over an 18-month time horizon, progression free survival, tumour response, disease specific survival, longitudinal effects, effects on adjuvant treatment, ablation percentage and complication rates. DISCUSSION: The EMITT trial will be the first RCT on the effectiveness of LITT in patients with glioblastoma as compared with current standard of care. Together with the Dutch Brain Tumour Patient association, we hypothesize that LITT may improve overall survival without substantially affecting patients' quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05318612).

The value of reducing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in the treatment of degenerative meniscus tears: a budget impact analysis.

AIMS: Numerous studies have shown that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is not (cost-) effective in patients with symptoms attributed to a degenerative meniscus tear. We aimed to assess the budget impact of reducing APM in routine clinical practice in this population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A patient-level state transition model was developed to simulate patients recently diagnosed with a degenerative meniscus tear. Three strategies were compared: "current guideline" (i.e., postpone surgery to at least 3 months after diagnosis), "APM at any time" (i.e., APM available directly after diagnosis), and "nonsurgical" (i.e., APM no longer performed). Total societal costs over 5 years were calculated to determine the budget impact. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address uncertainty. RESULTS: The average cost per patient over 5 years were EUR 5,077, EUR 4,577, and EUR 4,218, for the "APM at any time," "current guideline," and "nonsurgical" strategy, respectively. Removing APM from the treatment mix (i.e., 30,000 patients per year) in the Netherlands, resulted in a reduction in health care expenditures of EUR 54 million (95 percent confidence interval [CI] EUR 38 million-EUR 70 million) compared to the "current guideline strategy" and EUR 129 million (95 percent CI EUR 102 million-EUR 156 million) compared to the "APM at any time" strategy. Sensitivity analyses showed that uncertainty did not alter our conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial costs can be saved when APM is no longer performed to treat symptoms attributed to degenerative meniscus tears in the Netherlands. It is therefore recommended to further reduce the use of APM to treat degenerative meniscus tears.

Dealing With Uncertainty in Early Health Technology Assessment: An Exploration of Methods for Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES: In early stages, the consequences of innovations are often unknown or deeply uncertain, which complicates early health economic modeling (EHEM). The field of decision making under deep uncertainty uses exploratory modeling (EM) in situations when the system model, input probabilities/distributions, and consequences are unknown or debated. Our aim was to evaluate the use of EM for early evaluation of health technologies. METHODS: We applied EM and EHEM to an early evaluation of minimally invasive endoscopy-guided surgery (MIS) for acute intracerebral hemorrhage and compared these models to derive differences, merits, and drawbacks of EM. RESULTS: EHEM and EM differ fundamentally in how uncertainty is handled. Where in EHEM the focus is on the value of technology, while accounting for the uncertainty, EM focuses on the uncertainty. EM aims to find robust strategies, which give relatively good outcomes over a wide range of plausible futures. This was reflected in our case study. EHEM provided cost-effectiveness thresholds for MIS effectiveness, assuming fixed MIS costs. EM showed that a policy with a population in which most patients had severe intracerebral hemorrhage was most robust, regardless of MIS effectiveness, complications, and costs. CONCLUSIONS: EHEM and EM were found to complement each other. EM seems most suited in the very early phases of innovation to explore existing uncertainty and many potential strategies. EHEM seems most useful to optimize promising strategies, yet EM methods are complex and might only add value when stakeholders are willing to consider multiple solutions to a problem and adopt flexible research and adoption strategies.

Identifying the Conditions for Cost-Effective Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery in Spontaneous Supratentorial Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

Background: In patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), open craniotomy has failed to improve a functional outcome. Innovative minimally invasive neurosurgery (MIS) may improve a health outcome and reduce healthcare costs. Aims: Before starting phase-III trials, we aim to assess conditions that need to be met to reach the potential cost-effectiveness of MIS compared to usual care in patients with spontaneous supratentorial ICH. Methods: We used a state-transition model to determine at what effectiveness and cost MIS would become cost-effective compared to usual care in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct healthcare costs. Threshold and two-way sensitivity analyses were used to determine the minimal effectiveness and maximal costs of MIS, and the most cost-effective strategy for each combination of cost and effectiveness. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed model uncertainty. Results: Given €10,000 of surgical costs, MIS would become cost-effective when at least 0.7-1.3% of patients improve to a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 compared to usual care. When 11% of patients improve to mRS 0-3, surgical costs may be up to €83,301-€164,382, depending on the population studied. The cost-effectiveness of MIS was mainly determined by its effectiveness. In lower mRS states, MIS needs to be more effective to be cost-effective compared to higher mRS states. Conclusion: MIS has the potential to be cost-effective in patients with spontaneous supratentorial ICH, even with relatively low effectiveness. These results support phase-III trials to investigate the effectiveness of MIS.

Development of a decision analytical framework to prioritise operating room capacity: lessons learnt from an empirical example on delayed elective surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic in a hospital in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a prioritisation framework to support priority setting for elective surgeries after COVID-19 based on the impact on patient well-being and cost. DESIGN: We developed decision analytical models to estimate the consequences of delayed elective surgical procedures (eg, total hip replacement, bariatric surgery or septoplasty). SETTING: The framework was applied to a large hospital in the Netherlands. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality measures impacts on quality of life and costs were taken into account and combined to calculate net monetary losses per week delay, which quantifies the total loss for society expressed in monetary terms. Net monetary losses were weighted by operating times. RESULTS: We studied 13 common elective procedures from four specialties. Highest loss in quality of life due to delayed surgery was found for total hip replacement (utility loss of 0.27, ie, 99 days lost in perfect health); the lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (utility loss of 0.05, ie, 18 days lost in perfect health). Costs of surgical delay per patient were highest for bariatric surgery (€31/pp per week) and lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (-€2/pp per week). Weighted by operating room (OR) time bariatric surgery provides most value (€1.19/pp per OR minute) and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy provides the least value (€0.34/pp per OR minute). In a large hospital the net monetary loss due to prolonged waiting times was €700 840 after the first COVID-19 wave, an increase of 506% compared with the year before. CONCLUSIONS: This surgical prioritisation framework can be tailored to specific centres and countries to support priority setting for delayed elective operations during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, both in and between surgical disciplines. In the long-term, the framework can contribute to the efficient distribution of OR time and will therefore add to the discussion on appropriate use of healthcare budgets. The online framework can be accessed via: https://stanwijn.shinyapps.io/priORitize/.

Early Health Economic Modeling of Novel Therapeutics in Age-Related Hearing Loss.

Background: Health systems face challenges to accelerate access to innovations that add value and avoid those unlikely to do so. This is very timely to the field of age-related sensorineural hearing loss (ARHL), where a significant unmet market need has been identified and sizeable investments made to promote the development of novel hearing therapeutics (NT). This study aims to apply health economic modeling to inform the development of cost-effective NT. Methods: We developed a decision-analytic model to assess the potential costs and effects of using regenerative NT in patients ≥50 with ARHL. This was compared to the current standard of care including hearing aids and cochlear implants. Input data was collected from systematic literature searches and expert opinion. A UK NHS healthcare perspective was adopted. Three different but related analyses were performed using probabilistic modeling: (1) headroom analysis, (2) scenario analyses, and (3) threshold analyses. Results: The headroom analysis shows an incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) of £20,017[£11,299-£28,737] compared to the standard of care due to quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gains and cost savings. Higher therapeutic efficacy and access for patients with all degrees of hearing loss yields higher iNMBs. Threshold analyses shows that the ceiling price of the therapeutic increases with more severe degrees of hearing loss. Conclusion: NT for ARHL are potentially cost-effective under current willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds with considerable room for improvement in the current standard of care pathway. Our model can be used to help decision makers decide which therapeutics represent value for money and are worth commissioning, thereby paving the way for urgently needed NT.

Understanding the Costs of Surgery: A Bottom-Up Cost Analysis of Both a Hybrid Operating Room and Conventional Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, many hospitals have adopted hybrid operating rooms (ORs). As resources are limited, these ORs have to prove themselves in adding value. Current estimations on standard OR costs show great variety, while cost analyses of hybrid ORs are lacking. Therefore, this study aims to identify the cost drivers of a conventional and hybrid OR and take a first step in evaluating the added value of the hybrid OR. METHODS: A comprehensive bottom-up cost analysis was conducted in five Dutch hospitals taking into account: construction, inventory, personnel and overhead costs by means of interviews and hospital specific data. The costs per minute for both ORs were calculated using the utilization rates of the ORs. Cost drivers were identified by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The costs per minute for the conventional OR and the hybrid OR were €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10- €23.07), respectively. Total personnel and total inventory costs had most impact on the conventional OR costs. For the hybrid OR the costs were mostly driven by utilization rate, total inventory and construction costs. The results were incorporated in an open access calculation model to enable adjustment of the input parameters to a specific hospital or country setting. CONCLUSION: This study estimated a cost of €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10-€23.07) for the conventional and hybrid OR, respectively. The main factors influencing the OR costs are: total inventory costs, total construction costs, utilization rate, and total personnel costs. Our analysis can be used as a basis for future research focusing on evaluating value for money of this promising innovative OR. Furthermore, our results can inform surgeons, and decision and policy-makers in hospitals on the adoption and optimal utilization of new (hybrid) ORs.

Robot-assisted Versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Bladder Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Multicentre Comparative Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: Open radical cystectomy (ORC) is regarded as the standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, but robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasingly used in practice. A recent study showed that RARC resulted in slightly fewer minor but slightly more major complications, although the difference was not statistically significant. Some differences were found in secondary outcomes favouring either RARC or ORC. RARC use is expected to increase in coming years, which fuels the debate about whether RARC provides value for money. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of RARC compared to ORC in bladder cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation was performed alongside a prospective multicentre comparative effectiveness study. We included 348 bladder cancer patients (ORC, n = 168; RARC, n = 180) from 19 Dutch hospitals. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Over 1 yr, we assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from both healthcare and societal perspectives. We used single imputation nested in the bootstrap percentile method to assess missing data and uncertainty, and inverse probability of treatment weighting to control for potential bias. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of various parameters on the cost difference. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The mean healthcare cost per patient was €17 141 (95% confidence interval [CI] €15 791-€18 720) for ORC and €21 266 (95% CI €19 163-€23 650) for RARC. The mean societal cost per patient was €18 926 (95% CI €17 431-€22 642) for ORC and €24 896 (95% CI €21 925-€31 888) for RARC. On average, RARC patients gained 0.79 QALYs (95% CI 0.74-0.85) compared to 0.81 QALYs (95% CI 0.77-0.85) for ORC patients, resulting in a mean QALY difference of -0.02 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.02). Using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €80 000, RARC was cost-effective in 0.6% and 0.2% of the replications for the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RARC shows no difference in terms of QALYs, but is more expensive than ORC. Hence, RARC does not seem to provide value for money in comparison to ORC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study assessed the relation between costs and effects of robot-assisted surgery compared to open surgery for removal of the bladder in 348 Dutch patients with bladder cancer. We found that after 1 year, the two approaches were similarly effective according to a measure called quality-adjusted life years, but robot-assisted surgery was much more expensive. This trial was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register as NTR5362 (https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5214).

Auditory brainstem response prior to MRI compared to standalone MRI in the detection of vestibular schwannoma: A modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of auditory brainstem response prior to MRI (ABR-MRI) compared to standalone MRI to diagnose vestibular schwannoma. DESIGN: A state transition model was developed to simulate costs and effects (quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) for both diagnostic strategies for patients suspected of a vestibular schwannoma. Model input was derived from literature, hospital databases and expert opinions. Scenario and sensitivity analyses addressed model uncertainty. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, ABR-MRI resulted in a limited cost-saving of €68 or €98 per patient (dependent on MRI sequence) and a health loss of 0.005 QALYs over standalone MRI. ABR-MRI, however, did miss patients with other important pathology (2% of the population) that would have been detected when using standalone MRI. In total, €14 203 or €19 550 could be saved per lost QALY if ABR-MRI was used instead of standalone MRI. The results were sensitive to the detection rate of vestibular schwannoma and health-related quality of life of missed patients. CONCLUSION: The cost-saving with ABR-MRI does not seem to outweigh the number of missed patients with VS and other important pathologies that would have been detected when using standalone MRI.

Contralateral surgical exploration during inguinal hernia repair in infants (HERNIIA trial): study protocol for a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia (MCIH) is high in infants with an inguinal hernia (5-30%), with the highest risk in infants aged 6 months or younger. MCIH is associated with the risk of incarceration and necessitates a second operation. This might be avoided by contralateral exploration during primary surgery. However, contralateral exploration may be unnecessary, leads to additional operating time and costs and may result in additional complications of surgery and anaesthesia. Thus, there is no consensus whether contralateral exploration should be performed routinely. METHODS: The Hernia-Exploration-oR-Not-In-Infants-Analysis (HERNIIA) study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation alongside to study the (cost-)effectiveness of contralateral exploration during unilateral hernia repair. Infants aged 6 months or younger who need to undergo primary unilateral hernia repair will be randomised to contralateral exploration or no contralateral exploration (n = 378 patients). Primary endpoint is the proportion of infants that need to undergo a second operation related to inguinal hernia within 1 year after primary repair. Secondary endpoints include (a) total duration of operation(s) (including anaesthesia time) and hospital admission(s); (b) complications of anaesthesia and surgery; and (c) participants' health-related quality of life and distress and anxiety of their families, all assessed within 1 year after primary hernia repair. Statistical testing will be performed two-sided with α = .05 and according to the intention-to-treat principle. Logistic regression analysis will be performed adjusted for centre and possible confounders. The economic evaluation will be performed from a societal perspective and all relevant costs will be measured, valued and analysed. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of contralateral surgical exploration during unilateral inguinal hernia repair in children younger than 6 months with a unilateral inguinal hernia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03623893 . Registered on August 9, 2018 Netherlands Trial Register NL7194. Registered on July 24, 2018 Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO) NL59817.029.18. Registered on July 3, 2018.

The Use of Decision Analytic Modeling in the Evaluation of Surgical Innovations: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this review was to map how decision analytic models are used in surgical innovation (in which research phase, with what aim) and to understand how challenges related to the assessment of surgical interventions are incorporated. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published in 2018. We included original articles using a decision analytic model to compare surgical strategies. We included modeling studies of surgical innovations. General, innovation, and modeling characteristics were extracted, as were outcomes, recommendations, and handling of challenges related to the assessment of surgical interventions (learning curve, incremental innovation, dynamic pricing, quality variation, organizational impact). RESULTS: We included 46 studies. The number of studies increased with each research phase, from 4% (n = 2) in the preclinical phase to 40% (n = 20) in phase 3 studies. Eighty-one studies were excluded because they investigated established surgical procedures, indicating that modeling is predominantly applied after the innovation process. Regardless of the research stage, the aim to determine cost-effectiveness was most frequently identified (n = 40, 87%), whereas exploratory aims (eg, exploring when a strategy becomes cost-effective) were less common (n = 9, 20%). Most challenges related to the assessment of surgical interventions were rarely incorporated in models (eg, learning curve [n = 1, 2%], organizational impact [n = 2, 4%], and incremental innovation [n = 1, 2%]), except for dynamic pricing (n = 10, 22%) and quality variation (n = 6, 13%). CONCLUSIONS: In surgical innovation, modeling is predominantly used in later research stages to assess cost-effectiveness. The exploratory use of modeling seems still largely overlooked in surgery; therefore, the opportunity to inform research and development may not be optimally used.

Novel imaging techniques for intraoperative margin assessment in surgical oncology: A systematic review.

Inadequate margins continue to occur frequently in patients who undergo surgical resection of a tumor, suggesting that current intraoperative methods are not sufficiently reliable in determining the margin status. This clinical demand has inspired the development of many novel imaging techniques that could help surgeons with intraoperative margin assessment. This systematic review provides an overview of novel imaging techniques for intraoperative margin assessment in surgical oncology, and reports on their technical properties, feasibility in clinical practice and diagnostic accuracy. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane library were systematically searched (2013-2018) for studies reporting on imaging techniques for intraoperative margin assessment. Patient and study characteristics, technical properties, feasibility characteristics and diagnostic accuracy were extracted. This systematic review identified 134 studies that investigated and developed 16 groups of techniques for intraoperative margin assessment: fluorescence, advanced microscopy, ultrasound, specimen radiography, optical coherence tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, elastic scattering spectroscopy, bio-impedance, X-ray computed tomography, mass spectrometry, Raman spectroscopy, nuclear medicine imaging, terahertz imaging, photoacoustic imaging, hyperspectral imaging and pH measurement. Most studies were in early developmental stages (IDEAL 1 or 2a, n = 98); high-quality stage 2b and 3 studies were rare. None of the techniques was found to be clearly superior in demonstrating high feasibility as well as high diagnostic accuracy. In conclusion, the field of imaging techniques for intraoperative margin assessment is highly evolving. This review provides a unique overview of the opportunities and limitations of the currently available imaging techniques.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of three approaches for lymph node assessment in patients with low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to risk factor assessment and routine full lymph node dissection for the assessment of lymph nodes in patients with low- and intermediate-risk endometrioid endometrial cancer. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was designed to compare three lymph node assessment strategies in terms of costs and effects: 1) sentinel lymph node mapping; 2) post-operative risk factor assessment (adjuvant therapy based on clinical and histological risk factors); 3) full lymph node dissection. Input data were derived from systematic literature searches and expert opinion. QALYs were used as measure of effectiveness. The model was built from a healthcare perspective and the impact of uncertainty was assessed with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Base-case analysis showed that sentinel lymph node mapping was the most effective strategy for lymph node assessment in patients with low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer. Compared to risk factor assessment it was more costly, but the incremental cost effectiveness ratio stayed below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 with a maximum of €9637/QALY. Sentinel lymph node mapping was dominant compared to lymph node dissection since it was more effective and less costly. Sensitivity analyses showed that the outcome of the model was robust to changes in input values. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 sentinel lymph node mapping remained cost-effective in at least 74.3% of the iterations. CONCLUSION: Sentinel lymph node mapping is the most cost-effective strategy to guide the need for adjuvant therapy in patients with low and intermediate risk endometrioid endometrial cancer.

How can robot-assisted surgery provide value for money?

OBJECTIVES: To develop an interactive tool that estimates what potential benefits are needed for the robot to provide value for money when compared with endoscopic or open surgical interventions. DESIGN: A generic online interactive tool was developed to analyze the (health) effects needed to compensate for the additional costs of using a surgical robotic system from a healthcare perspective. The application of the tool is illustrated with a hypothetical new surgical robotic platform. A synthesis of evidence from different sources was used combined with interviews with surgeons. SETTING: Flexible tool that can be adapted to flexible settings. PARTICIPANTS: Any hospital patient group for which robotic, endoscopic or open surgical procedures may be considered as appropriate treatment alternatives (eg, urology, gynecology, and so on). INTERVENTION: Robotically assisted surgical interventions. COMPARATOR: Endoscopic or open surgical interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Thresholds of how much (health) effect is needed for robot-assisted surgery to provide value for money and to become cost-effective. RESULTS: The utilization rate of the surgical robotic system and a reduction in complications appeared to be important aspects in determining the value for money. To become cost-effective, it was deemed important for new surgical robotic systems to have added clinical benefit and become less costly than the current system. CONCLUSIONS: This paper and its assisting interactive tool can be used by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers to gain insight in the benefit needed to provide value for money when using a (new) surgical robotic system or, when the effects are known or can be estimated, to assess the value for money for a specific indication. For robotic surgery to provide most value for money, we recommend assessing for each indication whether the necessary effects seem achievable.

Forecasting future dental health expenditures: Development of a framework using data from 32 OECD countries.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) develop a framework for forecasting future dental expenditures, using currently available information, and (2) identify relevant research and data gaps such that dental expenditure predictions can continuously be improved in the future. METHODS: Our analyses focused on 32 OECD countries. Dependent on the number of predictors, we employed dynamic univariate and multivariate modelling approaches with various model specifications. For univariate modelling, an auto-regressive (AR) dynamic model was employed to incorporate historical trends in dental expenditures. Multivariate modelling took account of historical trends, as well as of relationships between dental expenditures, dental morbidity, economic growth in terms of gross domestic product and demographic changes. RESULTS: Estimates of dental expenditures varied substantially across different model specifications. Models relying on dental morbidity as one of the predictors performed worst regardless of their specification. Using the best-fitted model specification, that is the univariate second-order autoregression [AR(2)], the forecasted dental expenditures across 32 OECD countries amounted to US$316bn (95% forecasted interval, FI: 258-387) in 2020, US$434bn (95%FI: 354-532) in 2030 and US$594bn (95%FI: 485-728) in 2040. Per capita spending in 2040 was forecasted to be highest in Germany (US$889, 95%FI: 726-1090) and lowest in Mexico (US$52, 95%FI: 42-64). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates the feasibility and challenges in predicting dental expenditures and can serve as a basis for improvement towards more sustainable and resilient health policy and resource planning. Within the limitations of available data sources, our findings suggest that dental expenditures in OECD countries could increase substantially over the next two decades and vary considerably across countries. For more accurate estimation and a better understanding of determinants of dental expenditures, more comprehensive data on dental spending and dental morbidity are urgently needed.