Search

Background: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. Materials and Methods: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3–4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). Results: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870–1253 in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. Trial registration: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Integrated care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care reduced mortality compared to usual care. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this approach. Methods: Dutch primary care practices were randomised to provide integrated care for AF patients or usual care. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective with a 2-year time horizon to estimate incremental costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). A sensitivity analysis was performed, imputing missing questionnaires for a large group of usual care patients. Results: 522 patients from 15 intervention practices were compared to 425 patients from 11 usual care practices. No effect on QALYs was seen, while mean costs indicated a cost reduction between €865 (95% percentile interval (PI) –€5730 to €3641) and €1343 (95% PI –€6534 to €3109) per patient per 2 years. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged between 36% and 54%. In the sensitivity analysis, this increased to 95%-99%. Discussion: Results should be interpreted with caution due to missing information for a large proportion of usual care patients. Conclusion: The higher costs from extra primary care consultations were likely outweighed by cost reductions for other resources, yet this study doesn’t give sufficient clarity on the cost-effectiveness of integrated AF care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several studies suggest that test characteristics for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) differ by gender, triggering a debate on whether men and women should be screened differently. We used the microsimulation model MISCAN-Colon to evaluate whether screening stratified by gender is cost-effective. Methods: We estimated gender-specific FIT characteristics based on first-round positivity and detection rates observed in a FIT screening pilot (CORERO-1). Subsequently, we used the model to estimate harms, benefits, and costs of 480 gender-specific FIT screening strategies and compared them with uniform screening. Results: Biennial FIT screening from ages 50 to 75 was less effective in women than men [35.7 vs. 49.0 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, respectively] at higher costs (€42,161 vs. -€5,471, respectively). However, the incremental QALYs gained and costs of annual screening compared with biennial screening were more similar for both genders (8.7 QALYs gained and €26,394 for women vs. 6.7 QALYs gained and €20,863 for men). Considering all evaluated screening strategies, optimal gender-based screening yielded at most 7% more QALYs gained than optimal uniform screening and even resulted in equal costs and QALYs gained from a willingness-to-pay threshold of €1,300. Conclusions: FIT screening is less effective in women, but the incremental cost-effectiveness is similar in men and women. Consequently, screening stratified by gender is not more cost-effective than uniform FIT screening. Impact: Our conclusions support the current policy of uniform FIT screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Laparoscopic gastrectomy is rapidly being adopted worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer. However, laparoscopic gastrectomy might be more expensive as a result of longer operating times and more expensive surgical materials. To date, the cost-effectiveness of both procedures has not been prospectively evaluated in a randomized clinical trial., Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic compared with open gastrectomy., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing total or distal gastrectomy in 10 Dutch tertiary referral centers, cost-effectiveness data were collected alongside a multicenter randomized clinical trial on laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3bM0). A modified societal perspective and 1-year time horizon were used. Costs were calculated on the individual patient level by using hospital registry data and medical consumption and productivity loss questionnaires. The unit costs of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy were calculated bottom-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated with the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire, in which a value of 0 indicates death and 1 indicates perfect health. Missing questionnaire data were imputed with multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was performed to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness. The study was conducted from March 17, 2015, to August 20, 2018. Data analyses were performed between September 1, 2020, and November 17, 2021., Interventions: Laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy., Main Outcomes and Measures: Evaluations in this cost-effectiveness analysis included total costs and QALYs., Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 227 patients were included. Mean (SD) age was 67.5 (11.7) years, and 140 were male (61.7%). Unit costs for initial surgery were calculated to be €8124 (US $8087) for laparoscopic total gastrectomy, €7353 (US $7320) for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, €6584 (US $6554) for open total gastrectomy, and €5893 (US $5866) for open distal gastrectomy. Mean total costs after 1-year follow-up were €26 084 (US $25 965) in the laparoscopic group and €25 332 (US $25 216) in the open group (difference, €752 [US $749; 3.0%]). Mean (SD) QALY contributions during 1 year were 0.665 (0.298) in the laparoscopic group and 0.686 (0.288) in the open group (difference, -0.021). Bootstrapping showed that these differences between treatment groups were relatively small compared with the uncertainty of the analysis., Conclusions and Relevance: Although the laparoscopic gastrectomy itself was more expensive, after 1-year follow-up, results suggest that differences in both total costs and effectiveness were limited between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. These results support centers' choosing, based on their own preference, whether to (de)implement laparoscopic gastrectomy as an alternative to open gastrectomy.

Background and study aims  Low adherence to the Dutch guideline for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy led to release of a new guideline in 2013. This new guideline was risk-stratified at a more detailed level than the previous one to achieve more efficient use of colonoscopy resources. This study assessed the feasibility of the risk-stratified guideline by evaluating correct interpretation of and adherence to this guideline. Methods  Based on semi-structured interviews with 10 gastroenterologists, we developed an online survey to evaluate gastroenterologists' recommendations for surveillance in 15 example cases of patients with polyps. If recommended intervals differed from the new guideline, respondents were asked to indicate their motives for doing so. Results  Ninety-one of 592 (15.4 %) invited gastroenterologists responded to at least one case, of whom 84 (14.2 %) completed the survey. Gastroenterologists gave a correct recommendation in a median of 10 of 15 cases and adherence per case ranged from 14 % to 95 % (median case 76 %). The two cases that addressed management of serrated polyps were least often answered correctly (14 % and 28 % correct answers). Discrepancies were mainly due to misinterpretation of the guideline with respect to serrated polyps (48 %) or misreading of the questions (30 %). Conclusions  Median adherence to the updated colonoscopy surveillance guideline of 76 % seems reasonable, and is higher than adherence to the previous guideline (range: 22 %-80 %, median 59 %). This shows that detailed (more complex) risk stratification for designation of a surveillance interval is feasible. Adherence could potentially be improved by clarifying correct interpretation of serrated polyps., Competing Interests: Competing interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)