Randomized controlled trial comparing the costs of gastric cancer screening systems between serological risk-based upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and the existing barium photofluorography: gastric cancer screening labeled by serum examination in place of aged gastric cancer organized screening systems (GALAPAGOS study).

BACKGROUND: Although the risk of gastric cancer can be stratified according to Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) IgG antibody titer and pepsinogen levels (ABC classification), a population-based gastric cancer screening system combining serological tests and endoscopy has not been introduced. This study aimed to compare the total testing cost per participant between the ABC classification method and the existing protocol. METHODS: Using the minimization method with sex and age as allocation factors, 1206 participants were randomly assigned to the following two methods for a 5-year intervention: barium photofluorography as primary examination followed by detailed examination with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (Ba-Endo) and risk-based upper gastrointestinal endoscopy by ABC classification (ABC-Endo). The primary endpoint was the total testing cost per participant over a 5-year period. The secondary endpoint was the expense required to detect one gastric cancer. RESULTS: The total testing cost per participant was 39,711 yen in Ba-Endo (604 participants) and 45,227 yen in ABC-Endo (602 participants), with the latter being significantly higher (p < 0.001). During the intervention period, gastric cancer was found in 11 and eight participants in Ba-Endo and ABC-Endo, respectively. The expenses required to detect one gastric cancer were 2,240,931 yen in Ba-Endo and 3,486,662 yen in ABC-Endo. CONCLUSIONS: The testing cost per participant turned out to be higher in the ABC-Endo group than in the Ba-Endo group. This superiority trial, based on the hypothesis that the cost of testing is lower for ABC-Endo than for Ba-Endo, was rejected.

Comparative Cost Effectiveness of Reflux-Based and Reflux-Independent Strategies for Barrett's Esophagus Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive tests for Barrett's esophagus (BE) detection have raised the prospect of broader nonreflux-based testing. Cost-effectiveness studies have largely studied men aged 50 years with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. We evaluated the comparative cost effectiveness of BE screening tests in GERD-based and GERD-independent testing scenarios. METHODS: Markov modeling was performed in 3 scenarios in 50 years old individuals: (i) White men with chronic GERD (GERD-based); (ii) GERD-independent (all races, men and women), BE prevalence 1.6%; and (iii) GERD-independent, BE prevalence 5%. The simulation compared multiple screening strategies with no screening: sedated endoscopy (sEGD), transnasal endoscopy, swallowable esophageal cell collection devices with biomarkers, and exhaled volatile organic compounds. A hypothetical cohort of 500,000 individuals followed for 40 years using a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was simulated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing each strategy with no screening and comparing screening strategies with each other were calculated. RESULTS: In both GERD-independent scenarios, most non-sEGD BE screening tests were cost effective. Swallowable esophageal cell collection devices with biomarkers were cost effective (<$35,000/QALY) and were the optimal screening tests in all scenarios. Exhaled volatile organic compounds had the highest ICERs in all scenarios. ICERs were low (<$25,000/QALY) for all tests in the GERD-based scenario, and all non-sEGD tests dominated no screening. ICERs were sensitive to BE prevalence and test costs. DISCUSSION: Minimally invasive nonendoscopic tests may make GERD-independent BE screening cost effective. Participation rates for these strategies need to be studied.

International cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating endoscopic screening for gastric cancer for populations with low and high risk.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer remains one of the 3 most common causes of cancer death worldwide. Understanding the health and economic factors that affect screening cost-effectiveness in different countries will help address when and where it makes most sense to screen for gastric cancer. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model to compare screening and surveillance strategies for gastric cancer in Brazil, France, Japan, Nigeria, and the United States. Primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We then performed a sensitivity analysis to determine how each variable affected the overall model. RESULTS: In all countries, the most cost-effective strategies, measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio relative to no screening, were screening every 10 years, surveillance of high- and low-risk patients every 5 and 10 years, respectively, and screening every 5 years. Only Japan had at least one cost-effective screening strategy. The most important variables across different screening strategies and countries were starting age of screening, cost of endoscopy, and baseline probability of local gastric cancer at time of diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that screening for gastric cancer is cost-effective in countries with higher incidence and lower costs of screening, but screening may still be a viable option in high-risk populations within low incidence countries.

Utility of Endoscopy in Hospitalized Patients with Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage and Pulmonary Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal hemorrhage (GIH) has been reported as one of the most common GI complications in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH). There is paucity of data on the national burden of GIH in patients with PH. We aimed to assess the prevalence, trends and outcomes of endoscopic interventions in patients with PH who were admitted with GIH. METHOD: We queried National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2005 to 2014 and identified the patients hospitalized with primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of PH (ICD 9 CM Code: 416.0, 416.8, and 416.9). Using Clinical Classification Software Coding system (153) patients with concurrent diagnosis of GIH were then identified. We studied the prevalence and trends of GIH in PH, factors associated with GIH, use of endoscopy, factors associated with utilization of endoscopic interventions, endoscopy outcomes including mortality, and overall healthcare burden. RESULTS: Out of 7,586,973 PH hospitalizations 3.2% (N = 246,358) had concurrent GIH, with a rising prevalence of GIH in PH patients during the last decade. Clinical predictors for GIH in PH included older age, congestive heart failure, anticoagulation therapy and concurrent alcohol abuse. Mean length of stay (LOS) in PH patients hospitalized with GIH was significantly higher than without GIH (8.6 vs. 6.4 days, p < 0.01) along with a significant increase in hospitalization cost ($20,189 vs. $14,807, p < 0.01). Similarly, odds of in-hospital mortality increase by ~ 1.5 times in PH patients with GIH than those without it (adjusted odds ratio [aOR: 1.45, 95%CI: 1.43-1.47]). Endoscopic interventions were performed in 48.6% of patients with PH and GIH during their hospitalization. Older patients were more likely to undergo endoscopy, as well as the patients who received blood transfusion, and those with hypovolemic shock. Patients with acute respiratory failure and acute renal failure were less likely to get endoscopy. Mean LOS in patients undergoing endoscopic intervention was significantly higher than those who did not receive any intervention (8.7 vs. 8.4 days, p < 0.01), without a substantial increase in hospitalization cost ($20,344 vs. $20,041, p < 0.01). Also, there was a significant decrease in in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing endoscopic interventions. CONCLUSION: Concurrent GIH in patients with PH increases length of stay; healthcare costs and increases in-hospital mortality. Use of endoscopic interventions in these patients is associated with reduced length of stay, in-hospital mortality without significantly increasing the overall health care burden and should be considered in hospitalized patients with PH who are admitted with GIH. Future studies comparing GIH patients with and without PH should be done to assess if PH is a risk factor for worse outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: No IRB required due to use of national de-identified data.

Opportunistic upper endoscopy during colonoscopy as a screening strategy for countries with intermediate gastric cancer risk.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Screening upper endoscopy can detect esophagogastric (OG) cancers early with improved outcomes. Recent cost-utility studies suggest that opportunistic upper endoscopy at the same setting of colonoscopy might be a useful strategy for screening of OG cancers, and it may be more acceptable to the patients due to cost-saving and convenience. We aim to study the diagnostic performance of this screening strategy in a country with intermediate gastric cancer risk. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using a prospective endoscopy database from 2015 to 2017 was performed. Patients included were individuals age > 40 who underwent opportunistic upper endoscopy at the same setting of colonoscopy without any OG symptoms. Neoplastic OG lesions are defined as cancer and high-grade dysplasia. Pre-neoplastic lesions include Barrett's esophagus (BE), intestinal metaplasia (IM), and atrophic gastritis (AG). RESULTS: The study population involved 1414 patients. Neoplastic OG lesions were detected in five patients (0.35%). Pre-neoplastic lesions were identified in 174 (12.3%) patients. IM was found in 146 (10.3%) patients with 21 (1.4%) having extensive IM. The number needed to scope to detect a neoplastic OG lesion is 282.8 with an estimated cost of USD$141 400 per lesion detected. On multivariate regression, age ≥ 60 (RR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.29-2.63) and first-degree relatives with gastric cancer (RR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.06-2.55) were independent risk factors for neoplastic or pre-neoplastic OG lesion. CONCLUSION: For countries with intermediate gastric cancer risk, opportunistic upper endoscopy may be an alternative screening strategy in a selected patient population. Prospective trials are warranted to validate its performance.

Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs in Celiac Disease: A US Claims Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Celiac disease (CeD) is a lifelong immune-mediated enteropathy in which dietary gluten triggers an inflammatory reaction in the small intestine. This retrospective cohort study examines healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs between patients with CeD and matched controls. METHODS: Patients with CeD (cases) with an endoscopic biopsy and ≥2 medical encounters with a CeD diagnosis between January 1, 2010, and October 1, 2015, were identified in the MarketScan databases. The date of the first claim with a CeD diagnosis on or after the endoscopic biopsy was the index date. Cases were matched 1:1 to patients without CeD (controls) on demographic characteristics and Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index score. Clinical characteristics, all-cause, and CeD-related HRU and costs (adjusted to 2017 US dollars) were compared between cases and controls during the 12 months before (baseline) and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date. RESULTS: A total of 11,008 cases (mean age 40.6 years, 71.3% women) were matched to 11,008 controls. During the follow-up, a higher proportion of cases had all-cause and CeD-related HRU including inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, gastroenterologist visits, dietician visits, endoscopic biopsies, and gastroenterology imaging (all P ≤ 0.002). Incremental all-cause and CeD-related costs were in the first ($7,921 and $2,894) and second ($3,777 and $935) year of follow-up, driven by outpatient services costs. DISCUSSION: In this US national claims database analysis, there was evidence of an increase in both all-cause and CeD-related HRU and related costs in patients with CeD compared with matched patients without CeD, suggesting a significant economic burden associated with CeD.

Fabrication and Validation of a Cost-Effective Upper Endoscopy Simulator.

PURPOSE: Beginning with the graduating class of 2018, the American Board of Surgery (ABS) requires that residents complete the ABS Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum, Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES). This curriculum includes both didactic and simulator training. In the ideal setting residents gain proficiency using simulation prior to performing endoscopies in the clinical setting. This new requirement creates an increased demand for endoscopic simulators in all General Surgery residency programs. Due to the cost prohibitive nature of virtual reality simulators an economic alternative is needed. METHODS: A mechanical simulator was created from inexpensive items easily acquired at a hardware store and in the hospital. Total cost of the simulator was approximately $120 USD. To validate the simulator, experienced endoscopists completed a training session with the device. A seven-question Likert scale survey (1 - strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree) was completed after the session evaluated the simulated experience versus live upper endoscopies and the device's ability to meet the goals of the FES curriculum. RESULTS: Eight proficient endoscopists completed the training session and survey and agreed that the device closely replicated live colonoscopies and would meet all training requirements in the FES curriculum. Mean responses to all seven survey questions ranged from 3.8-4.4. CONCLUSION: This device is a cost-effective method for simulating live upper endoscopies and is appropriate for use in FES training.

Cost Analysis of Intravenous Propofol Monotherapy versus Intravenous Combination Sedation in Patients Undergoing Outpatient Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

In outpatient gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, for which postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stays are expected to be brief, sedative choices by anesthesia providers can affect costs. The purpose of this project was to evaluate the cost of propofol monotherapy compared with combination sedation consisting of propofol with any of the following: midazolam, fentanyl, dexmedetomidine, and/or ketamine. A total of 277 patients who underwent outpatient GI endoscopy were included in this retrospective medical record review. Patients were separated into 2 groups: propofol monotherapy (n = 233) or combination sedation (n = 44). Outcomes included PACU length of stay, episodes of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), PACU costs, and medication costs. The average PACU length of stay was 35.0 minutes for propofol monotherapy and 35.75 minutes for combination sedation (P = .918). The average PACU cost was $566.37 for propofol monotherapy and $578.44 for combination sedation (P = .918). The average cost for sedatives was $3.13 for propofol monotherapy and $3.34 for combination sedation (P = .964). There was 1 incident of nausea among all patients. There were no significant differences in PACU length of stay, PACU cost, medication costs, and episodes of PONV between propofol monotherapy and combination sedation for outpatient GI endoscopy.

Personal Protective Equipment for Endoscopy in Low-Resource Settings During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Guidance From the World Gastroenterology Organisation.

Performance of endoscopic procedures is associated with a risk of infection from COVID-19. This risk can be reduced by the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, shortage of PPE has emerged as an important issue in managing the pandemic in both traditionally high and low-resource areas. A group of clinicians and researchers from thirteen countries representing low, middle, and high-income areas has developed recommendations for optimal utilization of PPE before, during, and after gastrointestinal endoscopy with particular reference to low-resource situations. We determined that there is limited flexibility with regard to the utilization of PPE between ideal and low-resource settings. Some compromises are possible, especially with regard to PPE use, during endoscopic procedures. We have, therefore, also stressed the need to prevent transmission of COVID-19 by measures other than PPE and to conserve PPE by reduction of patient volume, limiting procedures to urgent or emergent, and reducing the number of staff and trainees involved in procedures. This guidance aims to optimize utilization of PPE and protection of health care providers.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection and its treatment alternatives in difficult-to-treat lesions of the lower gastrointestinal tract: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has shown efficacy and safety in the colorectum. The aim of this analysis was to investigate whether EFTR is cost-effective in comparison with surgical and endoscopic treatment alternatives. DESIGN: Real data from the study cohort of the prospective, single-arm WALL RESECT study were used. A simulated comparison arm was created based on a survey that included suggested treatment alternatives to EFTR of the respective lesions. Treatment costs and reimbursement were calculated in euro according to the coding rules of 2017 and 2019 (EFTR). R0 resection rate was used as a measure of effectiveness. To assess cost-effectiveness, the average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were determined. Calculations were made both from the perspective of the care provider as well as of the payer. RESULTS: The cost per case was €2852.20 for the EFTR group, €1712 for the standard endoscopic resection (SER) group, €8895 for the surgical resection group and €5828 for the pooled alternative treatment to EFTR. From the perspective of the care provider, the ACER (mean cost per R0 resection) was €3708.98 for EFTR, €3115.10 for SER, €8924.05 for surgical treatment and €7169.30 for all pooled and weighted alternatives to EFTR. The ICER (additional cost per R0 resection compared with EFTR) was €5196.47 for SER, €26 533.13 for surgical resection and €67 768.62 for the pooled rate of alternatives. Results from the perspective of the payer were similar. CONCLUSION: EFTR is cost-effective in comparison with surgical and endoscopic treatment alternatives in the colorectum.

Medical, Political, and Economic Considerations for the Use of MAC for Endoscopic Sedation: Big Price, Little Justification?

The last few decades of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy have seen phenomenal growth. In many aspects, GI endoscopy has led the field of nonsurgical interventional medicine. In many aspects, this growth is facilitated by advancements in sedation-both drugs and techniques. Unfortunately, the topic of GI endoscopy sedation is also mired in many controversies, mainly emanating from the cost of anesthesia providers. While no one debates their role in the majority of advanced endoscopic procedures, the practice of universal propofol sedation in the USA, delivered by anesthesia providers, needs a closer look. In this review, medical, political, and economic considerations of this important topic are discussed in a very frank and honest way. While such ubiquitous propofol use has increased satisfaction of both patients and gastroenterologists, there is little justification. More importantly, going by the evidence, there is even less justification for the mandated anesthesia providers use for such delivery. Unfortunately, the FDA could not be convinced otherwise. The new drug fospropofol met the same fate. Approval of SEDASYS®, the first computer-assisted personalized sedation system, was a step in the right direction, nevertheless an insufficient step that failed to takeoff. As a result, in spite of years of research and efforts of many august societies, the logjam of balancing cost and justification of propofol sedation has continued. We hope that recent approval of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, and potential approval of oliceridine, a novel short-acting opioid, might be able to contain the cost without compromising the quality of sedation.

Endoscopic papillectomy of benign papillary tumors: A single-center experience.

Endoscopic treatment of duodenal papillary tumors is well described. This study aims to provide new evidence for the treatment of benign papillary tumors through comparisons between endoscopic snare papillectomy (ESP) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).Between May 2010 and December 2017, 72 patients were enrolled. Diagnosis and treatment procedures were ESP and EMR. Endoscopic follow-up evaluation was done periodically as a surveillance measurement for recurrence.Seventy-two patients with ampullary tumors were enrolled, of which 66 had adenomas including 9 high-grade intraepithelial neoplasias and 2 carcinomas in adenoma. Complete resections with tumor-free lateral and basal margins were achieved in all patients. Postoperative complications were bleeding (9.5% in EMR vs 10% in ESP) and pancreatitis (2.4% in EMR and 3.3% in ESP), with no occurrence of perforation, cholangitis or papillary stenosis. Adenoma recurrence was found in 7 patients (14.3% in EMR vs 3.3% in ESP) at 1 year.The ESP procedure is safe and effective for benign ampullary adenoma, high-grade intraepithelial neoplasias, and noninvasive cancer without intraductal tumor growth, which has a shorter procedural duration, as well as lower complication, recurrence rates and hospitalization costs.

Theranostic Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Bringing Healing Light to the Lumen.

Current conventional endoscopes have restricted the accuracy of treatment delivery and monitoring. Over the past decade, there have been major developments in nanotechnology and light triggered therapy, potentially allowing a better detection of challenging lesions and targeted treatment of malignancies in the gastrointestinal tract. Theranostics is a developing form of personalized medicine because it combines diagnosis and targeted treatment delivered in one step using advances in nanotechnology. This review describes the light-triggered therapies (including photodynamic, photothermal, and photoimmunotherapies), nanotechnological advances with nanopowder, nanostent, nanogels, and nanoparticles, enhancements brought to endoscopic ultrasound, in addition to experimental endoscopic techniques, combining both enhanced diagnoses and therapies, including a developed prototype of a "smart" multifunctional endoscope for localized colorectal cancer, near-infrared laser endoscope targeting the gastrointestinal stromal tumors, the concept of endocapsule for obscure gastrointestinal bleed, and a proof-of-concept therapeutic capsule using ultrasound-mediated targeted drug delivery. Hence, the following term has been proposed encompassing these technologies: "Theranostic gastrointestinal endoscopy." Future efforts for integration of these technologies into clinical practice would be directed toward translational and clinical trials translating into a more personalized and interdisciplinary diagnosis and treatment, shorter procedural time, higher precision, higher cost-effectiveness, and less need for repetitive procedures.

Malignant gastric outlet obstruction: Which is the best therapeutic option?

Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) is a clinical condition characterized by the mechanical obstruction of the pylorus or the duodenum due to tumor compression/infiltration, with consequent reduction or impossibility of an adequate oral intake. MGOO is mainly secondary to advanced pancreatic or gastric cancers, and significantly impacts on patients' survival and quality of life. Patients suffering from this condition often present with intractable vomiting and severe malnutrition, which further compromise therapeutic chances. Currently, palliative strategies are based primarily on surgical gastrojejunostomy and endoscopic enteral stenting with self-expanding metal stents. Several studies have shown that surgical approach has the advantage of a more durable relief of symptoms and the need of fewer re-interventions, at the cost of higher procedure-related risks and longer hospital stay. On the other hand, enteral stenting provides rapid clinical improvement, but have the limit of higher stent dysfunction rate due to tumor ingrowth and a subsequent need of frequent re-interventions. Recently, a third way has come from interventional endoscopic ultrasound, through the development of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy technique with lumen-apposing metal stent. This new technique may ideally encompass the minimal invasiveness of an endoscopic procedure and the long-lasting effect of the surgical gastrojejunostomy, and brought encouraging results so far, even if prospective comparative trial are still lacking. In this Review, we described technical aspects and clinical outcomes of the above-cited therapeutic approaches, and discussed the open questions about the current management of MGOO.

Open colectomy vs. laparoscopic colectomy in Japan: a retrospective study using real-world data from the diagnosis procedure combination database.

PURPOSE: To compare the short-term outcomes of conventional open colectomy with those of laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer. METHODS: We retrieved data between January 2014 and March 2016 from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. A total of 69,418 patients who underwent colectomy for colon cancer were analyzed from among 15,901,766 cases of colorectal cancer. We applied a multilevel logistic regression model using a 2-level structure of individuals nested from 1065 hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 22,440 open colectomy and 46,978 laparoscopic colectomy procedures were performed. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (0.28% vs. 0.06%, odds ratio [OR] 0.40, p < 0.001). Similarly, the 30-day postoperative mortality rate (0.14% vs. 0.03%, OR 0.47, p = 0.019) and surgical morbidity rate (43.0% vs. 25.3%, OR 0.47, p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. The postoperative length of stay was significantly longer in the open group (mean difference - 5.6 days, p < 0.001) than in the open group. The admission cost was significantly greater in the open group than in the laparoscopic group (mean difference - 95,080 yen, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colectomy is safe and effective in the short term.

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of Targeted Surgical and Endoscopic Therapies for Early Colorectal Adenocarcinoma Based on Biomarker Profiles.

Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. The prognosis for patients with CRC varies widely, but new prognostic biomarkers provide the opportunity to implement a more individualized approach to treatment selection. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of 3 therapeutic strategies, namely, endoscopic therapy (ET), laparoscopic colectomy (LC), and open colectomy (OC), for patients with T1 CRC with biomarker profiles that prognosticate varying levels of tumor progression in the US payer perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation study, a Markov model was developed for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Risks of all-cause mortality and recurrent cancer after ET, LC, or OC were estimated with a 35-year time horizon. Quality of life was based on EuroQoL 5 Dimensions scores reported in the published literature. Hospital and treatment costs reflected Medicare reimbursement rates. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Data from patients with T1 CRC and 6 biomarker profiles that included adenomatous polyposis coli (APC), TP53 and/or KRAS, or BRAFV600E were used as inputs for the model. Data analyses were conducted from February 27, 2019, to May 13, 2019. Exposures: Endoscopic therapy, LC, and OC. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were unadjusted life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between competing treatment strategies. Results: Endoscopic therapy had the highest QALYs and the lowest cost and was the dominant treatment strategy for T1 CRC with the following biomarker profiles: BRAFV600E, APC(1)/KRAS/TP53, APC(2) or APC(2)/KRAS or APC(2)/TP53, or APC(1) or APC(1)/KRAS or APC(1)/TP53. The QALYs gained ranged from 16.97 to 17.22, with costs between $68 902.75 and $77 784.53 in these subgroups. For the 2 more aggressive biomarker profiles with worse prognoses (APC(2)/KRAS/TP53 and APCwt [wild type]), LC was the most effective strategy (with 16.45 and 16.61 QALYs gained, respectively) but was not cost-effective. Laparoscopic colectomy cost $65 234.87 for APC(2)/KRAS/TP53 and $71 250.56 for APCwt, resulting in ICERs of $113 290 per QALY and $178 765 per QALY, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This modeling analysis found that ET was the most effective strategy for patients with T1 CRC with less aggressive biomarker profiles. For patients with more aggressive profiles, LC was more effective but was costly, rendering ET the cost-effective option. This study highlights the potential utility of prognostic biomarkers in T1 CRC treatment selection.

Cost analysis of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: A propensity score-matching analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Although many studies have demonstrated similar perioperative outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colon cancer, few have directly compared the costs of them. We aimed to compare costs between SILS and CLS for colon cancer. METHODS: We analyzed the clinical outcomes and overall hospital costs of patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer from July 2009 to September 2014 at our institution; 288 were used for analysis after propensity score matching. The total hospital charge, including fees for the operation, anesthesia, preoperative diagnosis, and postoperative management was analyzed. RESULTS: The total hospital charges were similar in both groups ($8770.40 vs. $8352.80, P = 0.099). However, the patients' total hospital bill was higher in the SILS group than in the CLS group ($4184.82 vs. $3735.00, P < 0.001) mainly due to the difference of the cost of access devices. There was no difference in the additional costs associated with readmission due to late complications between the two groups ($2383.08 vs. $2288.33, P = 0.662). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for total incision length in 'total hospital charge' and patient's bill and government's bill in 'cost of instruments and supplies' were -$107.08/1 cm, -$109.70/1 cm, and $80.64/1 cm, respectively. CONCLUSION: SILS for colon cancer yielded similar costs as well as perioperative and long-term outcomes compared with CLS. Therefore, SILS can be considered a reasonable treatment option for colon cancer for selective patients.

Prospective cost analysis of early video capsule endoscopy versus standard of care in non-hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding: a non-inferiority study.

Background and aim: A non-inferiority cost analysis was performed to assess if the early capsule approach would incur higher costs than the standard of care approach in patients presenting with non-hematemesis gastrointestinal bleeding.Methods: A prospective non-inferiority cost analysis was performed on patients receiving either an early video capsule as the first diagnostic procedure or an endoscopic procedure as determined by gastroenterology staff that were not involved in the study. Primary outcome was total direct costs incurred in both groups.Results: Forty-five patients and 42 patients were enrolled into the early capsule and standard of care arms, respectively. There was no difference in total direct cost per inpatient case in both groups ($7,362 vs $7,148, p = 0.77 [CI = -2,285-2,315, equivalent margin = -$3,100]). Localization of a bleeding source after the first diagnostic procedure was identified more frequently in the early capsule group (69.2% vs 27.9%, p = 0.0003). If patients were discharged after their last non-diagnostic evaluation, then length of stay could be decreased by 50% in both groups (58.5 to 31.6 h, p = 0.02 in the early capsule group and 69.4 to 39.2 h in the standard of care group p = 0.001). Projections indicate the fastest a patient with non-diagnostic evaluations could be discharged is 0.88 days in the early capsule group vs 1.63 days in the standard of care group (p = 0.0005).Discussion: In patients with non-hematemesis bleeding, video capsule endoscopy may be a more efficient diagnostic approach than the standard of care approach, since it detects bleeding significantly more often without an increase in healthcare costs.