Mason McCain1, Yohanis O'Neill1,2, Hernan Hernandez3, Ryan Foley4, Brian M Sadowski1,2,3, Zachary Torgersen1,2,3, Jennifer Beaty1,2,3, Ruben Rojas Payacan5, Charles A Ternent6,7,8. 1. Colon and Rectal Surgery Inc, Omaha, NE, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. 4. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. 5. School of Health and Related Research, Section of Health Economics and Decision Science, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 6. Colon and Rectal Surgery Inc, Omaha, NE, USA. ternentc@gmail.com. 7. Department of Surgery, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA. ternentc@gmail.com. 8. Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. ternentc@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy following local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma based on histopathologic and local staging risk factors. METHODS: A Markov model with 10-year follow-up was developed for cost-effectiveness analysis of high-, medium-, and low-intensity surveillance strategies after local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. Literature review and expert consensus were utilized to populate state/transition probabilities and rewards. Based on this data, 87% of T1NX patients undergoing local excision were low risk. Healthcare utilization costs were based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. The primary outcomes were costs in 2018 US dollars and effectiveness in life-years presented as net monetary benefit and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Net monetary benefit for low-, medium-, and high-intensity surveillance strategies ($393,117.00, $397,978.80, and $397,290.00) shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal. One-way sensitivity analysis shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal when the cohort is 73-94% low risk. High-intensity surveillance is preferred when less than 73% of the cohort is low risk. Low-intensity surveillance is preferred when greater than 94% is low risk. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the base-case shows medium-intensity surveillance is the optimal strategy for 51.5% of the iterations performed. CONCLUSIONS: Medium-intensity surveillance is the most cost-effective surveillance strategy for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma in a clinically representative population model.
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy following local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma based on histopathologic and local staging risk factors. METHODS: A Markov model with 10-year follow-up was developed for cost-effectiveness analysis of high-, medium-, and low-intensity surveillance strategies after local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. Literature review and expert consensus were utilized to populate state/transition probabilities and rewards. Based on this data, 87% of T1NX patients undergoing local excision were low risk. Healthcare utilization costs were based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. The primary outcomes were costs in 2018 US dollars and effectiveness in life-years presented as net monetary benefit and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Net monetary benefit for low-, medium-, and high-intensity surveillance strategies ($393,117.00, $397,978.80, and $397,290.00) shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal. One-way sensitivity analysis shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal when the cohort is 73-94% low risk. High-intensity surveillance is preferred when less than 73% of the cohort is low risk. Low-intensity surveillance is preferred when greater than 94% is low risk. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the base-case shows medium-intensity surveillance is the optimal strategy for 51.5% of the iterations performed. CONCLUSIONS: Medium-intensity surveillance is the most cost-effective surveillance strategy for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma in a clinically representative population model.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost-effectiveness; Local excision; Markov model; Rectal cancer; Rectal cancer surveillance
Authors: D Blumberg; P B Paty; A I Picon; J G Guillem; D S Klimstra; B D Minsky; S H Quan; A M Cohen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: David J Bentrem; Satoshi Okabe; W Douglas Wong; Jose G Guillem; Martin R Weiser; Larissa K Temple; Leah S Ben-Porat; Bruce D Minsky; Alfred M Cohen; Philip B Paty Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Pascal G Doornebosch; Floris T J Ferenschild; Johannes H W de Wilt; Imro Dawson; Geert W M Tetteroo; Eelco J R de Graaf Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Scott R Steele; George J Chang; Samantha Hendren; Marty Weiser; Jennifer Irani; W Donald Buie; Janice F Rafferty Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Philip B Paty; Garrett M Nash; Paul Baron; Maureen Zakowski; Bruce D Minsky; David Blumberg; Daniel R Nathanson; Jose G Guillem; Warren E Enker; Alfred M Cohen; W Douglas Wong Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.969