BACKGROUND: Data on cost-effectiveness and efficacy of hepatic resection (HR) for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) are lacking. We sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness of upfront HR resulting in an R1 resection (strategy A) relative to initial systemic chemotherapy (sCT) followed by possible curative HR (strategy B) for patients with advanced ICC. METHODS: A Markov model was developed using data from a systematic literature review. Three base cases were considered: (1) ICC >6 cm (2) ICC with vascular invasion (3) multi-focal ICC. A Monte Carlo simulation assessed outcomes including quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The net health benefit (NHB) of strategy A versus strategy B was 1.4 QALMs for ICC >6 cm and 1.3 QALMs for ICC and vascular invasion; in contrast, there was a negative NHB for HR versus sCT for multi-focal ICC (-0.3 QALMs). In single nodule ICC >6 cm, the ICER of HR versus sCT was $22,482/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and the ICER of HR versus sCT was $20,953/QALY for ICC with vascular invasion. In multi-focal ICC, the ICER of HR compared with sCT was $83,604/QALY. Patients with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (coefficient 0.94), male sex (coefficient 0.43), low quality of life after sCT (coefficient -2.57) and T3 tumors (coefficient 0.53) had a better NHB for HR relative to sCT followed by potential surgery. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with large ICC or ICC and vascular invasion, HR was more cost-effective than sCT. In contrast, HR was not associated with a positive NHB relative to sCT for patients with multi-focal ICC, and therefore these patients should be treated with sCT rather than HR.
BACKGROUND: Data on cost-effectiveness and efficacy of hepatic resection (HR) for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) are lacking. We sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness of upfront HR resulting in an R1 resection (strategy A) relative to initial systemic chemotherapy (sCT) followed by possible curative HR (strategy B) for patients with advanced ICC. METHODS: A Markov model was developed using data from a systematic literature review. Three base cases were considered: (1) ICC >6 cm (2) ICC with vascular invasion (3) multi-focal ICC. A Monte Carlo simulation assessed outcomes including quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The net health benefit (NHB) of strategy A versus strategy B was 1.4 QALMs for ICC >6 cm and 1.3 QALMs for ICC and vascular invasion; in contrast, there was a negative NHB for HR versus sCT for multi-focal ICC (-0.3 QALMs). In single nodule ICC >6 cm, the ICER of HR versus sCT was $22,482/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and the ICER of HR versus sCT was $20,953/QALY for ICC with vascular invasion. In multi-focal ICC, the ICER of HR compared with sCT was $83,604/QALY. Patients with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (coefficient 0.94), male sex (coefficient 0.43), low quality of life after sCT (coefficient -2.57) and T3 tumors (coefficient 0.53) had a better NHB for HR relative to sCT followed by potential surgery. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with large ICC or ICC and vascular invasion, HR was more cost-effective than sCT. In contrast, HR was not associated with a positive NHB relative to sCT for patients with multi-focal ICC, and therefore these patients should be treated with sCT rather than HR.
Authors: Rebecca M Dodson; Matthew J Weiss; David Cosgrove; Joseph M Herman; Ihab Kamel; Robert Anders; Jean-Francois H Geschwind; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Shishir K Maithel; T Clark Gamblin; Ihab Kamel; Celia Pamela Corona-Villalobos; Melanie Thomas; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Srinevas K Reddy; Andrew S Barbas; Ryan S Turley; T Clark Gamblin; David A Geller; J Wallis Marsh; Allan Tsung; Bryan M Clary; Sandhya Lagoo-Deenadayalan Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Kheng Choon Lim; Vivian W Wang; Fahad J Siddiqui; Luming Shi; Edwin S Y Chan; Hong Choon Oh; Say Beng Tan; Pierce K H Chow Journal: Hepatology Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Gaya Spolverato; Aslam Ejaz; Yuhree Kim; Georgios C Sotiropoulos; Andreas Pau; Sorin Alexandrescu; Hugo Marques; Carlo Pulitano; Eduardo Barroso; Bryan M Clary; Luca Aldrighetti; Todd W Bauer; Dustin M Walters; Ryan Groeschl; T Clark Gamblin; Wallis Marsh; Kevin T Nguyen; Ryan Turley; Irinel Popescu; Catherine Hubert; Stephanie Meyer; Jean-Francois Gigot; Gilles Mentha; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Juan Valle; Harpreet Wasan; Daniel H Palmer; David Cunningham; Alan Anthoney; Anthony Maraveyas; Srinivasan Madhusudan; Tim Iveson; Sharon Hughes; Stephen P Pereira; Michael Roughton; John Bridgewater Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hashem B El-Serag; Eric A Engels; Ola Landgren; Elizabeth Chiao; Louise Henderson; Harshinie C Amaratunge; Thomas P Giordano Journal: Hepatology Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: J W Valle; H Wasan; P Johnson; E Jones; L Dixon; R Swindell; S Baka; A Maraveyas; P Corrie; S Falk; S Gollins; F Lofts; L Evans; T Meyer; A Anthoney; T Iveson; M Highley; R Osborne; J Bridgewater Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jay J Idrees; Charles W Kimbrough; Brad F Rosinski; Carl Schmidt; Mary E Dillhoff; Eliza W Beal; Fabio Bagante; Katiuscha Merath; Qinyu Chen; Jordan M Cloyd; E Christopher Ellison; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Stefan Buettner; David W G Ten Cate; Fabio Bagante; Sorin Alexandrescu; Hugo P Marques; Jorge Lamelas; Luca Aldrighetti; T Clark Gamblin; Shishir K Maithel; Carlo Pulitano; Georgios Antonios Margonis; Matthew Weiss; Todd W Bauer; Feng Shen; George A Poultsides; J Wallis Marsh; Jan N M IJzermans; Timothy M Pawlik; Bas Groot Koerkamp Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 3.452