RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Although several studies report that the robotic approach is more costly than laparoscopy, the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is still an issue. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the RDP and LDP approaches across several Spanish centres. METHODS: This study is an observational, multicenter, national prospective study (ROBOCOSTES). For one year from 2022, all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included, and clinical, QALY, and cost data were prospectively collected. The primary aim was to analyze the cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP. RESULTS: During the study period, 80 procedures from 14 Spanish centres were analyzed. LDP had a shorter operative time than the RDP approach (192.2 min vs 241.3 min, p = 0.004). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (19.5% vs 2.5%, p = 0.006) and a lower splenectomy rate (60% vs 26.5%, p = 0.004). A statistically significant difference was reported for the Comprehensive Complication Index between the two study groups, favouring the robotic approach (12.7 vs 6.1, p = 0.022). RDP was associated with increased operative costs of 1600 euros (p < 0.031), while overall cost expenses resulted in being 1070.92 Euros higher than the LDP but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.064). The mean QALYs at 90 days after surgery for RDP (0.9534) were higher than those of LDP (0.8882) (p = 0.030). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000 euros, there was a 62.64% and 71.30% probability that RDP was more cost-effective than LDP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RDP procedure in the Spanish healthcare system appears more cost-effective than the LDP.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response (pCR) after multimodal treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is used as surrogate marker of success as it is assumed to correlate with improved oncologic outcome. However, long-term oncologic data are scarce. METHODS: This retrospective, multicentre study updated the oncologic follow-up of prospectively collected data from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project database. pCR was described as no evidence of tumour cells in the specimen. Endpoints were distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). Multivariate regression analyses were run to identify factors associated with survival. RESULTS: Overall, 32 different hospitals were involved, providing data on 815 patients with pCR. At a median follow-up of 73.4 (IQR 57.7-99.5) months, distant metastases occurred in 6.4% of patients. Abdominoperineal excision (APE) (HR 2.2, 95%CI 1.2-4.1, p = 0.008) and elevated CEA levels (HR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.7, p = 0.049) were independent risk factors for distant recurrence. Age (years) (HR 1.1; 95%-CI 1.05-41.09; p < 0.001) and ASA III-IV (HR = 2.0; 95%-CI 1.4-2.9; p < 0.001), were the only factors associated with OS. The estimated 12, 36 and 60-months DMFS rates were 96.9%, 91.3%, and 86.8%. The estimated 12, 36 and 60-months OS rates were 99.1%, 94.9% and 89.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of metachronous distant metastases is low after pCR, with high rates of both DMFS and OS. The oncologic prognosis in LARC patients that achieve pCR after neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy is excellent in the long term.