Search

Simple Summary: Patients with early-stage cervical cancer treated by minimally invasive surgery show shorter progression-free and overall survival compared to open surgery. This study integrated minimally invasive and open surgery survival data with surgery costs and utilities and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis, using a Markovian decision analysis model, to compare the two surgical approaches. Our results show that open radical hysterectomy is not only oncologically superior but also more cost-effective. Until new data regarding the safety of minimally invasive surgery and surgery costs are presented, open radical hysterectomy should be the preferred approach from both the oncological and financial standpoint. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of open surgery, compared to minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, using updated survival data. Costs and utilities of each surgical approach were compared using a Markovian decision analysis model. Survival data stratified by surgical approach and surgery costs were received from recently published data. Average costs were discounted at 3%. The value of health benefits for each strategy was calculated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated using the formula (average cost minimal invasive surgery—average cost open surgery)/(average QALY minimal invasive surgery—average QALY open surgery), was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted for all variables. Open radical hysterectomy was found to be cost-saving compared to minimally invasive surgery with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD −66 and USD −373 for laparoscopic and robotic surgery, respectively. The most influential parameters in the model were surgery costs, followed by the disutility involved with open surgery. Until further data are generated regarding the survival of patients with early-stage cervical cancer treated by minimally invasive surgery, at current pricing, open radical hysterectomy is cost-saving compared to minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, both laparoscopic and robotic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) is the most common type of epithelial ovarian cancer. The majority of cases are diagnosed at advanced stages, when intraperitoneal (IP) spread has already occurred. Despite significant surgical and chemotherapeutic advances in HGSOC treatment over the past decades, survival rates with HGSOC have only modestly improved. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells enable T cells to directly bind to tumor-associated antigens in a major histocompatibility complex-independent manner, thereby inducing tumor rejection. While CAR-T cell therapy shows great promise in hematological malignancies, its use in solid tumors is limited. Therefore, innovative approaches are needed to increase the specificity of CAR-modified T cells against solid tumors. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal (IP) versus intravenous (IV) CAR-T cell therapy in the treatment of HGSOC. We constructed a CAR that targets the ErbB2/HER2 protein (ErbB2CAR), which is overexpressed in HGSOC, and evaluated the functionality of ErbB2CAR on ovarian cancer cell lines (OVCAR8, SKOV3, and NAR). Our findings show that an IP injection of ErbB2CAR-T cells to tumor-bearing mice led to disease remission and increased survival compared to the IV route. Moreover, we found that IP-injected ErbB2CART cells circulate to a lesser extent, making them safer for non-tumor tissues than IV-injected cells. Further supporting our findings, we show that the effect of ErbB2CAR-T cells on primary HGSOC tumors is correlated with ErbB2 expression. Together, these data demonstrate the advantages of an IP administration of CAR-T cells over IV administration, offering not only a safer strategy but also the potential for counteracting the effect of ErbB2CAR in HGSOC. Significance: IP-injected ErbB2CAR-T cells led to disease remission and increased survival compared to the IV route. These findings demonstrate the advantages of IP administration, offering a safe treatment strategy with the potential for counteracting the effect of ErbB2CAR in HGSOC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]