Jacqueline N Chu1, Jin Choi2, Angela Tramontano2, Christopher Morse3, David Forcione4, Norman S Nishioka4, Julian A Abrams5, Joel H Rubenstein6, Chung Yin Kong2, John M Inadomi7, Chin Hur8. 1. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York. 6. Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Barrett's Esophagus Program, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 8. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: chur@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although treatment of T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is shifting from esophagectomy to endoscopic therapy, T1b EACs are considered too high risk to be treated endoscopically. We investigated the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of esophagectomy vs endoscopic therapy for T1a and T1b EACs, and the effects of age and comorbidities, using a decision analytic Markov model. METHODS: We developed a model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of men 75 years old with Charlson comorbidity index scores of 0 and either T1aN0M0 or T1bN0M0 EAC, as a base case. We used the model to compare the effects of esophagectomy vs serial endoscopic therapy. We performed sensitivity analyses based on age at diagnosis of 60-85 years, comorbidity indices of 0-2, and utilities. Post-procedure cancer-specific mortality was derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare database. RESULTS: In the T1a base case, esophagectomy yielded more unadjusted life years than endoscopic therapy (6.97 vs 6.81), but fewer quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, 4.95 for esophagectomy vs 5.22 for endoscopic therapy). In the T1b base case, esophagectomy yielded more unadjusted life years than endoscopic therapy (5.73 vs 5.01) and QALYs (4.07 vs 3.85 for endoscopic therapy), but was not cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $156,981). Sensitivity analyses showed endoscopic therapy optimized QALYs for patients more than 80 years old with a comorbidity index of 1 or 2, or if the ratio of post-esophagectomy to post-endoscopic therapy utilities was below 0.875. CONCLUSION: In a Markov model, we showed that endoscopic therapy of T1a EAC yields more QALYs and is more cost effective than esophagectomy for patients of all ages and comorbidity indices tested. In contrast, selection of therapy for T1b EAC depends on age and comorbidities, due to surgical mortality and the competing risk of non-cancer death.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although treatment of T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is shifting from esophagectomy to endoscopic therapy, T1b EACs are considered too high risk to be treated endoscopically. We investigated the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of esophagectomy vs endoscopic therapy for T1a and T1b EACs, and the effects of age and comorbidities, using a decision analytic Markov model. METHODS: We developed a model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of men 75 years old with Charlson comorbidity index scores of 0 and either T1aN0M0 or T1bN0M0 EAC, as a base case. We used the model to compare the effects of esophagectomy vs serial endoscopic therapy. We performed sensitivity analyses based on age at diagnosis of 60-85 years, comorbidity indices of 0-2, and utilities. Post-procedure cancer-specific mortality was derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare database. RESULTS: In the T1a base case, esophagectomy yielded more unadjusted life years than endoscopic therapy (6.97 vs 6.81), but fewer quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, 4.95 for esophagectomy vs 5.22 for endoscopic therapy). In the T1b base case, esophagectomy yielded more unadjusted life years than endoscopic therapy (5.73 vs 5.01) and QALYs (4.07 vs 3.85 for endoscopic therapy), but was not cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $156,981). Sensitivity analyses showed endoscopic therapy optimized QALYs for patients more than 80 years old with a comorbidity index of 1 or 2, or if the ratio of post-esophagectomy to post-endoscopic therapy utilities was below 0.875. CONCLUSION: In a Markov model, we showed that endoscopic therapy of T1a EAC yields more QALYs and is more cost effective than esophagectomy for patients of all ages and comorbidity indices tested. In contrast, selection of therapy for T1b EAC depends on age and comorbidities, due to surgical mortality and the competing risk of non-cancer death.
Authors: Silvio Däster; Savas D Soysal; Lea Stoll; Ralph Peterli; Markus von Flüe; Christoph Ackermann Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Christianne J Buskens; Marinke Westerterp; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Jacques J G H M Bergman; Fiebo J W ten Kate; J Jan B van Lanschot Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Daniela Molena; Francisco Schlottmann; Joshua A Boys; Shanda H Blackmon; Karen J Dickinson; Christy M Dunst; Wayne L Hofstetter; Michal J Lada; Brian E Louie; Benedetto Mungo; Thomas J Watson; Steven R DeMeester Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Hendrik Manner; Andrea May; Oliver Pech; Liebwin Gossner; Thomas Rabenstein; Erwin Günter; Michael Vieth; Manfred Stolte; Christian Ell Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Ryan P Merkow; Karl Y Bilimoria; Rajesh N Keswani; Jeanette Chung; Karen L Sherman; Lawrence M Knab; Mitchell C Posner; David J Bentrem Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Fouad Otaki; Gene K Ma; Anna Krigel; Ross A Dierkhising; Jason T Lewis; Christopher H Blevins; Naveen P Gopalakrishnan; Adharsh Ravindran; Michele L Johnson; Cadman L Leggett; Denis Wigle; Kenneth K Wang; Gary W Falk; Julian A Abrams; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Anil K Rustgi; Timothy C Wang; Charles J Lightdale; Gregory G Ginsberg; Prasad G Iyer Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Chanakyaram A Reddy; Anna Tavakkoli; Vincent L Chen; Sheryl Korsnes; Aarti Oza Bedi; Philip W Carrott; Andrew C Chang; Kiran H Lagisetty; Richard S Kwon; B Joseph Elmunzer; Mark B Orringer; Cyrus Piraka; Anoop Prabhu; Rishindra M Reddy; Erik Wamsteker; Joel H Rubenstein Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 3.199