RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic management is preferred to surgical management for large superficial colorectal lesions. However, the optimal endoscopic resection strategy (piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection [pEMR] or endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) is still debated from an economical point of view. To date, in France, there is no Health Insurance reimbursement rate for the hospital stays related to ESD. We searched to estimate the global cost of colorectal ESD and to define the most cost-effectiveness endoscopic strategy. METHODS: A model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of ESD and pEMR according to optical diagnosis (Japan NBI Expert Team [JNET], laterally spreading tumour [LST], CONECCT). We distinguished three groups from the same multicentre ESD cohort and compared the medical and economic outcomes: real-life ESD data (Universal-ESD or U-ESD) compared to modelled selective ESD (S-ESD JNET; S-ESD LST; S-ESD CONECCT) and exclusive pEMR strategies (Universal-EMR or U-EMR). RESULTS: The en-bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 97.5%, 86.5%, and 82.6%, respectively in the real life French ESD cohort of 833 colorectal lesions. U-ESD was the least-expensive strategy, with a global cost of 2,858,048.17 , i.e. 3,431.03 /patient and was also the most effective strategy because it avoided 774 surgeries, which was more than any other strategy. It outperformed S-ESD CONNECT (global cost = 2,951,411.44 , and 3,543.11 /patient, 765 surgeries avoided, S-ESD LST (global cost = 3,055,951.53 , and 3,668.61 /patient, 749 surgeries avoided), and S-ESD JNET (global cost = 3,547,426.97 and 4,258.62 /patient, 704 surgeries avoided) and U-EMR (global cost = 4,060,547.62 and 4,874.61 /patient, 620 surgeries avoided). Even though a model which optimized pEMR results (0% technical failure, 0% primary surgery), U-EMR strategy remained the most expansive strategy and the one that avoided the least surgeries. CONCLUSION: ESD for all LSTs upper than 20 mm is more cost-effective than pEMR, and S-ESD.
