Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the standard surgical treatment for this cancer is open resection (OS), but laparoscopic surgery (LS) may be an alternative treatment. In 2000, a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review found little evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness in comparing the two methods. The evidence base has since expanded and this study systematically reviews the economic evaluations on the subject published since 2000.

Method Systematic review of studies reporting costs and outcomes of LS vs OS for colorectal cancer. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) methods for abstract writing were followed. Studies were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for common outcomes were calculated.

Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. LS generally had higher healthcare costs. Most studies reported longer operational time and shorter length of stay and similar long-term outcomes with LS vs OS. Only one outcome, complications, was common across all studies but results lacked consistency (e.g. in two studies, OS was less costly but more effective; in another study, LS was less costly but more effective; and in the further two studies, LS could potentially be cost effective depending on the decision-makers' willingness to pay for the health gain).

Conclusion The evidence on cost-effectiveness is not consistent. LS was generally more costly than OS. However, the effectiveness data used in individual economic evaluation were imprecise and unreliable when compared with data from systematic reviews of effectiveness. Nevertheless, short-term benefits of LS (e.g. shorter recovery) may make LS appear less costly when productivity gains are considered.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)859-868
Number of pages10
JournalColorectal Disease
Volume10
Issue number9
Early online date9 Jul 2008
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2008

Keywords

  • Economic evaluation
  • cost effectiveness
  • systematic review
  • laparoscopic surgery
  • colorectal cancer
  • prospective randomized-trial
  • MRC clasicc trial
  • assisted surgery
  • clinical-trial
  • open colectomy
  • costs

Cite this

Hernandez, R. A., De Verteuil, R., Fraser, C. M., Vale, L. D., & Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group (2008). Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Disease, 10(9), 859-868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01609.x

Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. / Hernandez, Rodolfo Andres; De Verteuil, Robyn; Fraser, Cynthia Mary; Vale, Luke David; Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group.

In: Colorectal Disease, Vol. 10, No. 9, 11.2008, p. 859-868.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hernandez, RA, De Verteuil, R, Fraser, CM, Vale, LD & Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group 2008, 'Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer', Colorectal Disease, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 859-868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01609.x
Hernandez RA, De Verteuil R, Fraser CM, Vale LD, Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group. Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Disease. 2008 Nov;10(9):859-868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01609.x
Hernandez, Rodolfo Andres ; De Verteuil, Robyn ; Fraser, Cynthia Mary ; Vale, Luke David ; Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group. / Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. In: Colorectal Disease. 2008 ; Vol. 10, No. 9. pp. 859-868.
@article{0adfa2ec9eb84a5ebc5db925646da9f2,
title = "Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer",
abstract = "Objective Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the standard surgical treatment for this cancer is open resection (OS), but laparoscopic surgery (LS) may be an alternative treatment. In 2000, a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review found little evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness in comparing the two methods. The evidence base has since expanded and this study systematically reviews the economic evaluations on the subject published since 2000.Method Systematic review of studies reporting costs and outcomes of LS vs OS for colorectal cancer. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) methods for abstract writing were followed. Studies were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for common outcomes were calculated.Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. LS generally had higher healthcare costs. Most studies reported longer operational time and shorter length of stay and similar long-term outcomes with LS vs OS. Only one outcome, complications, was common across all studies but results lacked consistency (e.g. in two studies, OS was less costly but more effective; in another study, LS was less costly but more effective; and in the further two studies, LS could potentially be cost effective depending on the decision-makers' willingness to pay for the health gain).Conclusion The evidence on cost-effectiveness is not consistent. LS was generally more costly than OS. However, the effectiveness data used in individual economic evaluation were imprecise and unreliable when compared with data from systematic reviews of effectiveness. Nevertheless, short-term benefits of LS (e.g. shorter recovery) may make LS appear less costly when productivity gains are considered.",
keywords = "Economic evaluation, cost effectiveness, systematic review, laparoscopic surgery, colorectal cancer, prospective randomized-trial, MRC clasicc trial, assisted surgery, clinical-trial, open colectomy, costs",
author = "Hernandez, {Rodolfo Andres} and {De Verteuil}, Robyn and Fraser, {Cynthia Mary} and Vale, {Luke David} and {Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group}",
note = "The definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com",
year = "2008",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01609.x",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "859--868",
journal = "Colorectal Disease",
issn = "1462-8910",
publisher = "WILEY-BLACKWELL",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

AU - Hernandez, Rodolfo Andres

AU - De Verteuil, Robyn

AU - Fraser, Cynthia Mary

AU - Vale, Luke David

AU - Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group

N1 - The definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com

PY - 2008/11

Y1 - 2008/11

N2 - Objective Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the standard surgical treatment for this cancer is open resection (OS), but laparoscopic surgery (LS) may be an alternative treatment. In 2000, a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review found little evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness in comparing the two methods. The evidence base has since expanded and this study systematically reviews the economic evaluations on the subject published since 2000.Method Systematic review of studies reporting costs and outcomes of LS vs OS for colorectal cancer. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) methods for abstract writing were followed. Studies were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for common outcomes were calculated.Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. LS generally had higher healthcare costs. Most studies reported longer operational time and shorter length of stay and similar long-term outcomes with LS vs OS. Only one outcome, complications, was common across all studies but results lacked consistency (e.g. in two studies, OS was less costly but more effective; in another study, LS was less costly but more effective; and in the further two studies, LS could potentially be cost effective depending on the decision-makers' willingness to pay for the health gain).Conclusion The evidence on cost-effectiveness is not consistent. LS was generally more costly than OS. However, the effectiveness data used in individual economic evaluation were imprecise and unreliable when compared with data from systematic reviews of effectiveness. Nevertheless, short-term benefits of LS (e.g. shorter recovery) may make LS appear less costly when productivity gains are considered.

AB - Objective Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the standard surgical treatment for this cancer is open resection (OS), but laparoscopic surgery (LS) may be an alternative treatment. In 2000, a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review found little evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness in comparing the two methods. The evidence base has since expanded and this study systematically reviews the economic evaluations on the subject published since 2000.Method Systematic review of studies reporting costs and outcomes of LS vs OS for colorectal cancer. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) methods for abstract writing were followed. Studies were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for common outcomes were calculated.Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. LS generally had higher healthcare costs. Most studies reported longer operational time and shorter length of stay and similar long-term outcomes with LS vs OS. Only one outcome, complications, was common across all studies but results lacked consistency (e.g. in two studies, OS was less costly but more effective; in another study, LS was less costly but more effective; and in the further two studies, LS could potentially be cost effective depending on the decision-makers' willingness to pay for the health gain).Conclusion The evidence on cost-effectiveness is not consistent. LS was generally more costly than OS. However, the effectiveness data used in individual economic evaluation were imprecise and unreliable when compared with data from systematic reviews of effectiveness. Nevertheless, short-term benefits of LS (e.g. shorter recovery) may make LS appear less costly when productivity gains are considered.

KW - Economic evaluation

KW - cost effectiveness

KW - systematic review

KW - laparoscopic surgery

KW - colorectal cancer

KW - prospective randomized-trial

KW - MRC clasicc trial

KW - assisted surgery

KW - clinical-trial

KW - open colectomy

KW - costs

U2 - 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01609.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01609.x

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 859

EP - 868

JO - Colorectal Disease

JF - Colorectal Disease

SN - 1462-8910

IS - 9

ER -