Surveillance Intensity Comparison by Risk for T1NX Locally Excised Rectal Adenocarcinoma: a Cost-Effective Analysis
- 52 Downloads
Controversy exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy following local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma based on histopathologic and local staging risk factors.
A Markov model with 10-year follow-up was developed for cost-effectiveness analysis of high-, medium-, and low-intensity surveillance strategies after local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. Literature review and expert consensus were utilized to populate state/transition probabilities and rewards. Based on this data, 87% of T1NX patients undergoing local excision were low risk. Healthcare utilization costs were based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. The primary outcomes were costs in 2018 US dollars and effectiveness in life-years presented as net monetary benefit and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
Net monetary benefit for low-, medium-, and high-intensity surveillance strategies ($393,117.00, $397,978.80, and $397,290.00) shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal. One-way sensitivity analysis shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal when the cohort is 73–94% low risk. High-intensity surveillance is preferred when less than 73% of the cohort is low risk. Low-intensity surveillance is preferred when greater than 94% is low risk. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the base-case shows medium-intensity surveillance is the optimal strategy for 51.5% of the iterations performed.
Medium-intensity surveillance is the most cost-effective surveillance strategy for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma in a clinically representative population model.
KeywordsCost-effectiveness Rectal cancer Rectal cancer surveillance Markov model Local excision
Mason McCain MA: conceptualization; data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; model creation; model revisions; drafting manuscript; revising manuscript; project administration.
Yohanis O’Neill MD, MPH: conceptualization; design; revising manuscript.
Hernan Hernandez MD: data acquisition and analysis; revising manuscript.
Ryan Foley: data acquisition and analysis; revising manuscript.
Brian Sadowski MD: conceptualization; revising manuscript.
Zachary Torgersen MD: conceptualization; data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; model revisions; drafting manuscript; revising manuscript; project administration.
Jennifer Beaty MD: conceptualization; analysis, and interpretation; revising manuscript.
Ruben Rojas Paycan MSc: conceptualization; analysis, and interpretation; revising manuscript.
Charles Ternent MD: conceptualization; data interpretation; model creation; model revisions; drafting manuscript; revising manuscript; project administration.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2019.Google Scholar
- 4.Steele GD, Herndon JE, Bleday R, et al. Sphincter-sparing treatment for distal rectal adenocarcinoma. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 1999.Google Scholar
- 5.Benson, Al B, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, Arain MA, Chen Y, Ciombor KK, Cohen S, Cooper HS, Garrido-Laguna I, Grem JL, Hoffe S, Hubbard J, Hunt S, Kamel A, Kirilcuk N, Krishnamurthi S, Messersmith WA, Meyerhardt J, Miller ED, Mulcahy MF, Murphy JD, Nurkin S, Overman MJ, Pedersen K, Saltz L, Shibata D, Skibber JM, Sofecleous CT, Stoffel EM, Stotsky-Himelfarb E, Willett CG, Gregory KM, Gurski L. Rectal cancer, version 3.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN. 2018; 3.Google Scholar
- 12.Balyasnikova S, Brown G. Imaging advances in colorectal cancer (report). 2016; 12(3):162.Google Scholar
- 21.Glynne-Jones R, Wyrwicz L, Tiret E, et al. Rectal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. . 2017.Google Scholar
- 22.Earle C, Annis R, Sussman J, Haynes AE, Vafaei A. Follow-up care, surveillance protocol, and secondary prevention measures for survivors of colorectal cancer. 2012.Google Scholar
- 24.Edlin R, McCabe C, Hulme C, Hall P, Wright J. Cost effectiveness modelling for health technology assessment. Springer; 2015.Google Scholar
- 27.Borschitz T, Heintz A, Junginger T. The influence of histopathologic criteria on the long-term prognosis of locally excised pT1 rectal carcinomas: Results of local excision (transanal endoscopic microsurgery) and immediate reoperation. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2006; 49(10):1492–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Actuarial life table. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html#fn1. Updated 2018. Accessed Nov, 2018.
- 36.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Physician fee schedule search. https://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/license-agreement.aspx. Updated 2018. Accessed Accessed Nov 1, 2018.