Advertisement

Surveillance Intensity Comparison by Risk for T1NX Locally Excised Rectal Adenocarcinoma: a Cost-Effective Analysis

  • Mason McCain
  • Yohanis O’Neill
  • Hernan Hernandez
  • Ryan Foley
  • Brian M. Sadowski
  • Zachary Torgersen
  • Jennifer Beaty
  • Ruben Rojas Payacan
  • Charles A. Ternent
2019 SSAT Plenary Presentation
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

Medium-intensity surveillance is the most cost-effective surveillance strategy for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma in a clinically representative population model.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness Rectal cancer Rectal cancer surveillance Markov model Local excision 

Notes

Author Contributions

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2019.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maeda K, Koide Y, Katsuno H. When is local excision appropriate for “early” rectal cancer? Surg Today. 2014; 44(11):2000–2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bleday R. Local excision of rectal cancer. World J Surg. 1997; 21(7):706–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steele GD, Herndon JE, Bleday R, et al. Sphincter-sparing treatment for distal rectal adenocarcinoma. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Monson J, Weiser MR, Buie WD, et al. Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer (revised). Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2013; 56(5):535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baxter NN, Garcia-Aguilar J. Organ preservation for rectal cancer. Journal of clinical oncology. 2007; 25(8):1014–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    You YN, Baxter NN, Stewart A, Nelson H. Is the increasing rate of local excision for stage I rectal cancer in the United States justified?: A nationwide cohort study from the national cancer database. Ann Surg. 2007; 245(5):726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Landmann R, Wong W, Hoepfl J, et al. Limitations of early rectal cancer nodal staging may explain failure after local excision. Dis Colon rectum. 2007; 50(10):1520–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Junginger T, Goenner U, Hitzler M, et al. Long-term oncologic outcome after transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal carcinoma. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2016; 59(1):8–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weiser MR. AJCC 8th edition: Colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25:1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balyasnikova S, Brown G. Imaging advances in colorectal cancer (report). 2016; 12(3):162.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steele SR, Chang GJ, Hendren S, et al. Practice guideline for the surveillance of patients after curative treatment of colon and rectal cancer. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2015; 58(8):713–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bentrem DJ, Okabe S, Wong WD, et al. T1 adenocarcinoma of the rectum: Transanal excision or radical surgery? Ann Surg. 2005; 242(4):472.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blumberg D, Paty PB, Picon AI, et al. Stage I rectal cancer: Identification of high-risk patients. J Am Coll Surg. 1998; 186(5):574–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bach SP, Hill J, Monson JRT, et al. A predictive model for local recurrence after transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009; 96(3):280–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schiphorst AH, Langenhoff BS, Maring J, Pronk A, Zimmerman DD. Transanal minimally invasive surgery: Initial experience and short-term functional results. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2014; 57(8):927–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heafner TA, Glasgow SC. A critical review of the role of local excision in the treatment of early (T1 and T2) rectal tumors. Journal of gastrointestinal oncology. 2014; 5(5):345.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Im YC, Kim CW, Park S, Kim JC. Oncologic outcomes and proper surveillance after local excision of rectal cancer. Journal of the Korean Surgical Society. 2013; 84(2):94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wu Z, Zhao G, Chen Z, et al. Oncological outcomes of transanal local excision for high risk T(1) rectal cancers. World journal of gastrointestinal oncology. 2012; 4(4):84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 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
  23. 23.
    Meyerhardt JA, Mangu PB, Flynn PJ, et al. Follow-up care, surveillance protocol, and secondary prevention measures for survivors of colorectal cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(35):4465–4470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Edlin R, McCabe C, Hulme C, Hall P, Wright J. Cost effectiveness modelling for health technology assessment. Springer; 2015.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016; 316(10):1093–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marseille E, Larson B, Kazi DS, Kahn JG, Rosen S. Thresholds for the cost–effectiveness of interventions: Alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ. 2014; 93:118–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 28.
    Paty B P., Nash M G., Baron D P., et al. Long-term results of local excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2002; 236(4):522–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bikhchandani K J., Ong J G., Dozois L E., Mathis L K. Outcomes of salvage surgery for cure in patients with locally recurrent disease after local excision of rectal cancer. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2015; 58(3):283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mellgren A, Sirivongs P., Rothenberger D A., Madoff D R., García-Aguilar, Julio. Is local excision adequate therapy for early rectal cancer? Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2000; 43(8):1064–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luna-Pérez P, Rodríguez-Ramírez S, Vega J, Sandoval E, Labastida S. Morbidity and mortality following abdominoperineal resection for low rectal adenocarcinoma. Rev Invest Clin. 2001; 53(5):388–395.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Actuarial life table. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html#fn1. Updated 2018. Accessed Nov, 2018.
  33. 33.
    Secco GB, Fardelli R, Gianquinto D, et al. Efficacy and cost of risk-adapted follow-up in patients after colorectal cancer surgery: A prospective, randomized and controlled trial. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2002; 28(4):418–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ikoma N, You YN, Bednarski BK, et al. Impact of recurrence and salvage surgery on survival after multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2017; 35(23):2631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Doornebosch PG, Ferenschild FTJ, De Wilt, Johannes H, Dawson I, Tetteroo GWM, De Graaf, Eelco J. R. Treatment of recurrence after transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for T1 rectal cancer. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2010; 53(9):1234–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.
  37. 37.
    Maas M, Rutten I, Nelemans P, et al. What is the most accurate whole-body imaging modality for assessment of local and distant recurrent disease in colorectal cancer? A meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011; 38(8):1560–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Titu LV, Nicholson AA, Hartley JE, Breen DJ, Monson JR. Routine follow-up by magnetic resonance imaging does not improve detection of resectable local recurrences from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2006; 243(3):348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Valero M, Robles-Medranda C. Endoscopic ultrasound in oncology: An update of clinical applications in the gastrointestinal tract. World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2017; 9(6):243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wright ME, Beaty JS, Thorson AG, Rojas R, Ternent CA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of total neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical resection versus conventional therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2019; 62(5):568–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    You Y, Roses R, Chang G, et al. Multimodality salvage of recurrent disease after local excision for rectal cancer. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2012; 55(12):1213–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Debove C, Maggiori L, Chau A, Kanso F, Ferron M, Panis Y. What happens after R1 resection in patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer? A study in 333 consecutive patients. Colorectal Disease. 2015; 17(3):197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Andreoni B, Chiappa A, Bertani E, et al. Surgical outcomes for colon and rectal cancer over a decade: Results from a consecutive monocentric experience in 902 unselected patients. World journal of surgical oncology. 2007; 5(1):73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weiser R M., Landmann G R., Wong W D., et al. Surgical salvage of recurrent rectal cancer after transanal excision. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2005; 48(6):1169–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Renehan AG, Whynes DK. Cost effectiveness analysis of intensive versus conventional follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer. BMJ. 2004; 328(7431):81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Brenner H. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening–an overview. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology. 2010; 24(4):439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Detsky AS, Naglie IG. A clinician’s guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(2):147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mason McCain
    • 1
  • Yohanis O’Neill
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hernan Hernandez
    • 3
  • Ryan Foley
    • 4
  • Brian M. Sadowski
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Zachary Torgersen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jennifer Beaty
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ruben Rojas Payacan
    • 5
  • Charles A. Ternent
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Colon and Rectal Surgery IncOmahaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Section of Colon and Rectal SurgeryCreighton University School of MedicineOmahaUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA
  4. 4.University of KansasLawrenceUSA
  5. 5.School of Health and Related Research, Section of Health Economics and Decision ScienceThe University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations