Incorporating robotic-assisted surgery for endometrial cancer staging: Analysis of morbidity and costs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how the introduction of robotic-assisted surgery affects treatment-related morbidity and cost of endometrial cancer (EC) staging. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of consecutive patients with stage I-III EC undergoing surgical staging between 2007 and 2012 at our institution. Costs (from surgery to 30days after surgery) were set based on the Medicare cost-to-charge ratio for each year and inflated to 2014 values. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to decrease the allocation bias when comparing outcomes between surgical groups. RESULTS: We focused our analysis on the 251 EC patients who had robotic-assisted surgery and the 384 who had open staging. During the study period, the use of robotic-assisted surgery increased and open staging decreased (P<0.001). Correcting group imbalances by using IPW methodology, we observed that patients undergoing robotic-assisted staging had a significantly lower postoperative complication rate, lower blood transfusion rate, longer median operating time, shorter median length of stay, and lower readmission rate than patients undergoing open staging (all P<0.001). Overall 30-day costs were similar between the 2 groups, with robotic-assisted surgery having significantly higher median operating room costs ($2820 difference; P<0.001) but lower median room and board costs ($2929 difference; P<0.001) than open surgery. Increasing experience with robotic-assisted staging was significantly associated with a decrease in median operating time (P=0.002) and length of stay (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of robotic-assisted surgery for EC staging improves patient outcomes. It provides women the benefits of minimally invasive surgery without increasing costs and potentially improves patient turnover.

A Multidimensional Analysis of Prostate Surgery Costs in the United States: Robotic-Assisted versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The economic value of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in the United States is still not well understood because of limited view analyses. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the costs and benefits of RALP versus retropubic radical prostatectomy from an expanded view, including hospital, payer, and societal perspectives. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost comparison using clinical outcomes obtained from a systematic review of the published literature. Equipment costs were obtained from the manufacturer of the robotic system; other economic model parameters were obtained from government agencies, online resources, commercially available databases, an advisory expert panel, and the literature. Clinical point estimates and care pathways based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were used to model costs out to 3 years. Hospital costs and costs incurred for the patients' postdischarge complications, adjuvant and salvage radiation treatment, incontinence and potency treatment, and lost wages during recovery were considered. Robotic system costs were modeled in two ways: as hospital overhead (hospital overhead calculation: RALP-H) and as a function of robotic case volume (robotic amortization calculation: RALP-R). All costs were adjusted to year 2014 US dollars. RESULTS: Because of more favorable clinical outcomes over 3 years, RALP provided hospital ($1094 savings with RALP-H, $341 deficit with RALP-R), payer ($1451), and societal ($1202) economic benefits relative to retropubic radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Monte-Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 38% to 99% probability that RALP provides cost savings (depending on the perspective). Higher surgical consumable costs are offset by a decreased hospital stay, lower complication rate, and faster return to work.

Stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy cost-effectiveness results.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and synthesize the current stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) cost-effectiveness research to date across several common SRS and SBRT applications. METHODS: This review was limited to comparative economic evaluations of SRS, SBRT, and alternative treatments (e.g., other radiotherapy techniques or surgery). Based on PubMed searches using the terms, "stereotactic," "SRS," "stereotactic radiotherapy," "stereotactic body radiotherapy," "SBRT," "stereotactic ablative radiotherapy," "economic evaluation," "quality adjusted life year (QALY)," "cost," "cost-effectiveness," "cost-utility," and "cost analysis," published studies of cost-effectiveness and health economics were obtained. Included were articles in peer-reviewed journals that presented a comparison of costs between treatment alternatives from January 1997 to November 2012. Papers were excluded if they did not present cost calculations, therapeutic cost comparisons, or health economic endpoints. RESULTS: Clinical outcomes and costs of SRS and SBRT were compared to other therapies for treatment of cancer in the brain, spine, lung, prostate, and pancreas. Treatment outcomes for SRS and SBRT are usually superior or comparable, and cost-effective, relative to alternative techniques. CONCLUSION: Based on the review of current SRS and SBRT clinical and health economic literature, from a patient perspective, SRS and SBRT provide patients a clinically effective treatment option, while from the payer and provider perspective, SRS and SBRT demonstrate cost savings.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated and proton radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of several external beam radiation treatment modalities for the treatment of patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: A lifetime Markov model incorporated the probabilities of experiencing treatment-related long-term toxicity or death. Toxicity probabilities were derived from published sources using meta-analytical techniques. Utilities and costs in the model were obtained from publicly available secondary sources. The model calculated quality-adjusted life expectancy and expected lifetime cost per patient, and derived ratios of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained between treatments. Analyses were conducted from both payer and societal perspectives. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was less costly and resulted in more QALYs. Sensitivity analyses showed that the conclusions in the base-case scenario were robust with respect to variations in toxicity and cost parameters consistent with available evidence. At a threshold of $50,000/QALY, SBRT was cost-effective in 75% and 94% of probabilistic simulations compared to IMRT and PT, respectively, from a payer perspective. From a societal perspective, SBRT was cost-effective in 75% and 96% of simulations compared to IMRT and PT, respectively, at a threshold of $50,000/QALY. In threshold analyses, SBRT was less expensive with better outcomes compared to IMRT at toxicity rates 23% greater than the SBRT base-case rates. CONCLUSION: Based on the assumption that each treatment modality results in equivalent long-term efficacy, SBRT is a cost-effective strategy resulting in improved quality-adjusted survival compared to IMRT and PT for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.