Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost‐effectiveness analysis

Background Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LSG) for cancer is associated with good perioperative outcomes and superior quality of life compared with the open approach, albeit at higher cost. An economic evaluation was conducted to compare the two approaches. Methods A cost–effectiveness analysis...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: A. Gosselin‐Tardif, M. Abou‐Khalil, J. Mata, A. Guigui, J. Cools‐Lartigue, L. Ferri, L. Lee, C. Mueller
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Oxford University Press 2020-10-01
Series:BJS Open
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50327
id doaj-93e4a99fea974817bafb8e7532db80a3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-93e4a99fea974817bafb8e7532db80a32021-04-02T09:17:36ZengOxford University PressBJS Open2474-98422020-10-014583083910.1002/bjs5.50327Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost‐effectiveness analysisA. Gosselin‐Tardif0M. Abou‐Khalil1J. Mata2A. Guigui3J. Cools‐Lartigue4L. Ferri5L. Lee6C. Mueller7Division of General Surgery Montreal Quebec CanadaDivision of General Surgery Montreal Quebec CanadaDivision of General Surgery Montreal Quebec CanadaDivision of Finance Montreal Quebec CanadaDivision of Thoracic Surgery McGill University Health Centre Montreal Quebec CanadaDivision of Thoracic Surgery McGill University Health Centre Montreal Quebec CanadaDivision of General Surgery Montreal Quebec CanadaDivision of Thoracic Surgery McGill University Health Centre Montreal Quebec CanadaBackground Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LSG) for cancer is associated with good perioperative outcomes and superior quality of life compared with the open approach, albeit at higher cost. An economic evaluation was conducted to compare the two approaches. Methods A cost–effectiveness analysis between LSG and open subtotal gastrectomy (OSG) for gastric cancer was performed using a decision‐tree cohort model with a healthcare system perspective and a 12‐month time horizon. Model inputs were informed by a meta‐analysis of relevant literature, with costs represented in 2016 Canadian dollars (CAD) and outcomes measured in quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs). A secondary analysis was conducted using inputs extracted solely from European and North American studies. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were performed. Results In the base‐case model, costs of LSG were $935 (€565) greater than those of OSG, with an incremental gain of 0·050 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of $18 846 (€11 398) per additional QALY gained from LSG. In the DSA, results were most sensitive to changes in postoperative utility, operating theatre and equipment costs, as well as duration of surgery and hospital stay. PSA showed that the likelihood of LSG being cost‐effective at willingness‐to‐pay thresholds of $50 000 (€30 240) per QALY and $100 000 (€60 480) per QALY was 64 and 68 per cent respectively. Secondary analysis using European and North American clinical inputs resulted in LSG being dominant (cheaper and more effective) over OSG, largely due to reduced length of stay after LSG. Conclusion In this decision analysis model, LSG was cost‐effective compared with OSG for gastric cancer.https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50327
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author A. Gosselin‐Tardif
M. Abou‐Khalil
J. Mata
A. Guigui
J. Cools‐Lartigue
L. Ferri
L. Lee
C. Mueller
spellingShingle A. Gosselin‐Tardif
M. Abou‐Khalil
J. Mata
A. Guigui
J. Cools‐Lartigue
L. Ferri
L. Lee
C. Mueller
Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost‐effectiveness analysis
BJS Open
author_facet A. Gosselin‐Tardif
M. Abou‐Khalil
J. Mata
A. Guigui
J. Cools‐Lartigue
L. Ferri
L. Lee
C. Mueller
author_sort A. Gosselin‐Tardif
title Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost‐effectiveness analysis
title_short Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost‐effectiveness analysis
title_full Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost‐effectiveness analysis
title_fullStr Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost‐effectiveness analysis
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost‐effectiveness analysis
title_sort laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: cost‐effectiveness analysis
publisher Oxford University Press
series BJS Open
issn 2474-9842
publishDate 2020-10-01
description Background Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LSG) for cancer is associated with good perioperative outcomes and superior quality of life compared with the open approach, albeit at higher cost. An economic evaluation was conducted to compare the two approaches. Methods A cost–effectiveness analysis between LSG and open subtotal gastrectomy (OSG) for gastric cancer was performed using a decision‐tree cohort model with a healthcare system perspective and a 12‐month time horizon. Model inputs were informed by a meta‐analysis of relevant literature, with costs represented in 2016 Canadian dollars (CAD) and outcomes measured in quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs). A secondary analysis was conducted using inputs extracted solely from European and North American studies. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were performed. Results In the base‐case model, costs of LSG were $935 (€565) greater than those of OSG, with an incremental gain of 0·050 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of $18 846 (€11 398) per additional QALY gained from LSG. In the DSA, results were most sensitive to changes in postoperative utility, operating theatre and equipment costs, as well as duration of surgery and hospital stay. PSA showed that the likelihood of LSG being cost‐effective at willingness‐to‐pay thresholds of $50 000 (€30 240) per QALY and $100 000 (€60 480) per QALY was 64 and 68 per cent respectively. Secondary analysis using European and North American clinical inputs resulted in LSG being dominant (cheaper and more effective) over OSG, largely due to reduced length of stay after LSG. Conclusion In this decision analysis model, LSG was cost‐effective compared with OSG for gastric cancer.
url https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50327
work_keys_str_mv AT agosselintardif laparoscopicversusopensubtotalgastrectomyforgastricadenocarcinomacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT maboukhalil laparoscopicversusopensubtotalgastrectomyforgastricadenocarcinomacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT jmata laparoscopicversusopensubtotalgastrectomyforgastricadenocarcinomacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT aguigui laparoscopicversusopensubtotalgastrectomyforgastricadenocarcinomacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT jcoolslartigue laparoscopicversusopensubtotalgastrectomyforgastricadenocarcinomacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT lferri laparoscopicversusopensubtotalgastrectomyforgastricadenocarcinomacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT llee laparoscopicversusopensubtotalgastrectomyforgastricadenocarcinomacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT cmueller laparoscopicversusopensubtotalgastrectomyforgastricadenocarcinomacosteffectivenessanalysis
_version_ 1724169756668329984