Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

Robyn De Verteuil, Rodolfo Andres Hernandez, Luke David Vale, Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to model cost-effectiveness over 25 years. Data on the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Data on costs came from a systematic review of economic evaluations and from published sources. The outcomes of the model were presented as the incremental cost per life-year gained and using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to illustrate the likelihood that a treatment was cost-effective at various threshold values for society's willingness to pay for an additional life-year.

Results: Laparoscopic surgery was on average 2300 more costly and slightly less effective than open surgery and had a 30 percent chance of being cost-effective if society is willing to pay 230,000 for a life-year. One interpretation of the available data suggests equal survival and disease-free survival. Making this assumption, laparoscopic surgery had a greater chance of being considered cost-effective. Presenting the results as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) made no difference to the results, as utility data were poor. Evidence suggests short-term benefits after laparoscopic repair. This benefit would have to be at least 0.01 of a QALY for laparoscopic surgery to be considered cost-effective.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is likely to be associated with short-term quality of life benefits, similar long-term outcomes, and an additional 300 pound per patient. A judgment is required as to whether the short-term benefits are worth this extra cost.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)464-472
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Volume23
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007

Keywords

  • cost-effectiveness
  • Markov modeling
  • colorectal cancer
  • surgery
  • systematic review
  • randomized clinical-trial
  • open colectomy
  • colon-cancer
  • carcinoma
  • multicenter

Cite this

Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. / De Verteuil, Robyn; Hernandez, Rodolfo Andres; Vale, Luke David; Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group.

In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2007, p. 464-472.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

De Verteuil, Robyn ; Hernandez, Rodolfo Andres ; Vale, Luke David ; Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group. / Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2007 ; Vol. 23, No. 4. pp. 464-472.
@article{7fcaa79e12044b4e9f49b146f6869ded,
title = "Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer",
abstract = "Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer.Methods: A Markov model was developed to model cost-effectiveness over 25 years. Data on the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Data on costs came from a systematic review of economic evaluations and from published sources. The outcomes of the model were presented as the incremental cost per life-year gained and using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to illustrate the likelihood that a treatment was cost-effective at various threshold values for society's willingness to pay for an additional life-year.Results: Laparoscopic surgery was on average 2300 more costly and slightly less effective than open surgery and had a 30 percent chance of being cost-effective if society is willing to pay 230,000 for a life-year. One interpretation of the available data suggests equal survival and disease-free survival. Making this assumption, laparoscopic surgery had a greater chance of being considered cost-effective. Presenting the results as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) made no difference to the results, as utility data were poor. Evidence suggests short-term benefits after laparoscopic repair. This benefit would have to be at least 0.01 of a QALY for laparoscopic surgery to be considered cost-effective.Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is likely to be associated with short-term quality of life benefits, similar long-term outcomes, and an additional 300 pound per patient. A judgment is required as to whether the short-term benefits are worth this extra cost.",
keywords = "cost-effectiveness, Markov modeling, colorectal cancer, surgery, systematic review, randomized clinical-trial, open colectomy, colon-cancer, carcinoma, multicenter",
author = "{De Verteuil}, Robyn and Hernandez, {Rodolfo Andres} and Vale, {Luke David} and {Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group}",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1017/S0266462307070559",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "464--472",
journal = "International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care",
issn = "0266-4623",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

AU - De Verteuil, Robyn

AU - Hernandez, Rodolfo Andres

AU - Vale, Luke David

AU - Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer.Methods: A Markov model was developed to model cost-effectiveness over 25 years. Data on the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Data on costs came from a systematic review of economic evaluations and from published sources. The outcomes of the model were presented as the incremental cost per life-year gained and using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to illustrate the likelihood that a treatment was cost-effective at various threshold values for society's willingness to pay for an additional life-year.Results: Laparoscopic surgery was on average 2300 more costly and slightly less effective than open surgery and had a 30 percent chance of being cost-effective if society is willing to pay 230,000 for a life-year. One interpretation of the available data suggests equal survival and disease-free survival. Making this assumption, laparoscopic surgery had a greater chance of being considered cost-effective. Presenting the results as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) made no difference to the results, as utility data were poor. Evidence suggests short-term benefits after laparoscopic repair. This benefit would have to be at least 0.01 of a QALY for laparoscopic surgery to be considered cost-effective.Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is likely to be associated with short-term quality of life benefits, similar long-term outcomes, and an additional 300 pound per patient. A judgment is required as to whether the short-term benefits are worth this extra cost.

AB - Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer.Methods: A Markov model was developed to model cost-effectiveness over 25 years. Data on the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Data on costs came from a systematic review of economic evaluations and from published sources. The outcomes of the model were presented as the incremental cost per life-year gained and using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to illustrate the likelihood that a treatment was cost-effective at various threshold values for society's willingness to pay for an additional life-year.Results: Laparoscopic surgery was on average 2300 more costly and slightly less effective than open surgery and had a 30 percent chance of being cost-effective if society is willing to pay 230,000 for a life-year. One interpretation of the available data suggests equal survival and disease-free survival. Making this assumption, laparoscopic surgery had a greater chance of being considered cost-effective. Presenting the results as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) made no difference to the results, as utility data were poor. Evidence suggests short-term benefits after laparoscopic repair. This benefit would have to be at least 0.01 of a QALY for laparoscopic surgery to be considered cost-effective.Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is likely to be associated with short-term quality of life benefits, similar long-term outcomes, and an additional 300 pound per patient. A judgment is required as to whether the short-term benefits are worth this extra cost.

KW - cost-effectiveness

KW - Markov modeling

KW - colorectal cancer

KW - surgery

KW - systematic review

KW - randomized clinical-trial

KW - open colectomy

KW - colon-cancer

KW - carcinoma

KW - multicenter

U2 - 10.1017/S0266462307070559

DO - 10.1017/S0266462307070559

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 464

EP - 472

JO - International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

JF - International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

SN - 0266-4623

IS - 4

ER -