Ryan Law1, Ananya Das2, Dyanna Gregory1, Srinadh Komanduri1, Raman Muthusamy3, Amit Rastogi4, John Vargo5, Michael B Wallace6, G S Raju7, Rawad Mounzer8, Jason Klapman9, Janak Shah10, Rabindra Watson3, Robert Wilson8, Steven A Edmundowicz11, Sachin Wani8. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Arizona Digestive Health, Gilbert, Arizona, USA. 3. Division of Digestive Diseases, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, The University of Kansas Hospital, Kansas City, Kansas, USA. 5. Digestive Diseases Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 6. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. 7. Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 8. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA. 9. Gastrointestinal Oncology Department, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA. 10. Department of Gastroenterology, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA. 11. Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic resection (ER) is an efficacious treatment for complex colon polyps (CCPs). Many patients are referred for surgical resection because of concerns over procedural safety, incomplete polyp resection, and adenoma recurrence after ER. Efficacy data for both resection strategies are widely available, but a paucity of data exist on the cost-effectiveness of each modality. The aim of this study was to perform an economic analysis comparing ER and laparoscopic resection (LR) strategies in patients with CCP. METHODS: A decision analysis tree was constructed using decision analysis software. The 2 strategies (ER vs LR) were evaluated in a hypothetical cohort of patients with CCPs. A hybrid Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used. Patients entered the model after colonoscopic diagnosis at age 50. Under Strategy I, patients underwent ER followed by surveillance colonoscopy at 3 to 6 months and 12 months. Patients with failed ER and residual adenoma at 12 months were referred for LR. Under Strategy II, patients underwent LR as primary treatment. Patients with invasive cancer were excluded. Estimates regarding ER performance characteristics were obtained from a systematic review of published literature. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2012-2013) and the 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases were used to determine the costs and loss of utility. We assumed that all procedures were performed with anesthesia support, and patients with adverse events in both strategies required inpatient hospitalization. Baseline estimates and costs were varied by using a sensitivity analysis through the ranges. RESULTS: LR was found to be more costly and yielded fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with ER. The cost of ER of a CCP was $5570 per patient and yielded 9.640 QALYs. LR of a CCP cost $18,717 per patient and yielded fewer QALYs (9.577). For LR to be more cost-effective, the thresholds of 1-way sensitivity analyses were (1) technical success of ER for complete resection in <75.8% of cases, (2) adverse event rates for ER > 12%, and (3) LR cost of <$14,000. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that ER is a cost-effective strategy for removal of CCPs. The effectiveness is driven by high technical success and low adverse event rates associated with ER, in addition to the increased cost of LR.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic resection (ER) is an efficacious treatment for complex colon polyps (CCPs). Many patients are referred for surgical resection because of concerns over procedural safety, incomplete polyp resection, and adenoma recurrence after ER. Efficacy data for both resection strategies are widely available, but a paucity of data exist on the cost-effectiveness of each modality. The aim of this study was to perform an economic analysis comparing ER and laparoscopic resection (LR) strategies in patients with CCP. METHODS: A decision analysis tree was constructed using decision analysis software. The 2 strategies (ER vs LR) were evaluated in a hypothetical cohort of patients with CCPs. A hybrid Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used. Patients entered the model after colonoscopic diagnosis at age 50. Under Strategy I, patients underwent ER followed by surveillance colonoscopy at 3 to 6 months and 12 months. Patients with failed ER and residual adenoma at 12 months were referred for LR. Under Strategy II, patients underwent LR as primary treatment. Patients with invasive cancer were excluded. Estimates regarding ER performance characteristics were obtained from a systematic review of published literature. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2012-2013) and the 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases were used to determine the costs and loss of utility. We assumed that all procedures were performed with anesthesia support, and patients with adverse events in both strategies required inpatient hospitalization. Baseline estimates and costs were varied by using a sensitivity analysis through the ranges. RESULTS: LR was found to be more costly and yielded fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with ER. The cost of ER of a CCP was $5570 per patient and yielded 9.640 QALYs. LR of a CCP cost $18,717 per patient and yielded fewer QALYs (9.577). For LR to be more cost-effective, the thresholds of 1-way sensitivity analyses were (1) technical success of ER for complete resection in <75.8% of cases, (2) adverse event rates for ER > 12%, and (3) LR cost of <$14,000. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that ER is a cost-effective strategy for removal of CCPs. The effectiveness is driven by high technical success and low adverse event rates associated with ER, in addition to the increased cost of LR.
Authors: Anne F Peery; Katherine S Cools; Paula D Strassle; Sarah K McGill; Seth D Crockett; Aubrey Barker; Mark Koruda; Ian S Grimm Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Anne F Peery; Nicholas J Shaheen; Katherine S Cools; Todd H Baron; Mark Koruda; Joseph A Galanko; Ian S Grimm Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Amol Agarwal; Sidyarth Garimall; Frank I Scott; Nuzhat A Ahmad; Michael L Kochman; Gregory G Ginsberg; Vinay Chandrasekhara Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Gottumukkala S Raju; Phillip J Lum; William A Ross; Selvi Thirumurthi; Ethan Miller; Patrick M Lynch; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Mehnaz A Shafi; Brian R Weston; Mala Pande; Robert S Bresalier; Asif Rashid; Lopa Mishra; Marta L Davila; John R Stroehlein Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Douglas K Rex; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; Theodore R Levin; David Lieberman; Douglas J Robertson Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 10.864