Cost Comparisons Of Endoscopic And Surgical Resection Of T1 Rectal Cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
V Arthursson ◽  
R Rosén ◽  
JM Norlin ◽  
K Gralén ◽  
E Toth ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (10) ◽  
pp. E1512-E1519
Author(s):  
Victoria Arthursson ◽  
Roberto Rosén ◽  
Jenny M. Norlin ◽  
Katarina Gralén ◽  
Ervin Toth ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims Management of T1 rectal cancer is complex and includes several resection methods, making cost comparisons challenging. The aim of this study was to compare costs of endoscopic and surgical resection and to investigate hypothetical cost scenarios for the treatment of T1 rectal cancer. Patients and methods Retrospective population-based cost minimization study on prospectively collected data on T1 rectal cancer patients treated using endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), open, laparoscopic, or robotic resection, in Skåne County, Sweden (2011–2017). The hypothetical cost scenarios were based on the distribution of high-risk features of lymph node metastases in a national cohort (2009–2017). Results Eighty-five patients with T1 RC undergoing ESD (n = 16), TEM (n = 17), open (n = 35), laparoscopic (n = 9), and robotic (n = 8) resection were included. ESD had a total 1-year cost of 5165 € and was significantly (P < 0.05) less expensive compared to TEM (14871€), open (21 453 €), laparoscopic (22 488 €) and robotic resection (26 562 €). Risk factors for lymph node metastases were seen in 68 % of 779 cases of T1 rectal cancers included in the national cohort. The hypothetical scenario of performing ESD on all T1 RC had the lowest total 1-year per patient cost compared to all other alternatives. Conclusions This is the first study analyzing total 1-year costs of endoscopic and surgical methods to resect T1 rectal cancer, which showed that the cost of ESD was significantly lower compared to TEM and surgical resection. In fact, based on hypothetical cost scenarios, ESD is still justifiable from a cost perspective even when all high-risk cases are followed by surgery in accordance to guidelines.


2013 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 26-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuichiro Yamaguchi ◽  
Kinichi Hotta ◽  
Kenichiro Imai ◽  
Naomi Kakushma ◽  
Hiroyuki Ono

2016 ◽  
Vol 82 (11) ◽  
pp. 1105-1108
Author(s):  
Kristin C. Turza ◽  
Thomas Brien ◽  
Steven Porbunderwala ◽  
Christopher M. Bell ◽  
Shauna Lorenzo-rivero ◽  
...  

The Ferguson Operating Anoscope (FOA) is a surgical instrument, which can facilitate transanal excision of appropriate rectal tumors within 15 cm of the anal verge. Previous work showed low recurrence (4.3%) for favorable T1 tumors (no lymphovascular invasion, well/moderate differentiation, negative margins). This follow-up study evaluates outcomes in rectal cancer excised with FOA at a tertiary care center. T1 rectal cancer patients were identified in a prospectively maintained database. Tumor pathology and patient characteristics were reviewed. Primary outcomes include tumor recurrence and patient and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes are quality of excision (intact specimen). Twenty-eight patients had pathologic stage T1 rectal cancer (average 8 ± 2.6 cm from the anal verge). Final path demonstrated 14 per cent to be well differentiated, 82 per cent moderately differentiated, and 93 per cent without angiolymphatic invasion. All specimens removed were intact. One patient had a true local recurrence and underwent a salvage operation 24 months after her index operation. Patient survival was 96.4 per cent (n = one death from primary lung cancer) at median follow-up 64 ± 35 months. With appropriate tumor selection and quality of initial resection, FOA has demonstrated utility in achieving optimal oncologic resection of T1 rectal tumors.


Author(s):  
Vasudha Lingareddy ◽  
Jan Rakinic ◽  
Gerald Marks ◽  
Mohammed Mohiuddin

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 884-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. A. Suttie ◽  
I. Shaikh ◽  
R Mullen ◽  
A. I. Amin ◽  
T. Daniel ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 104 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roel Bakx ◽  
Annemiek Doeksen ◽  
J Frederik M Slors ◽  
Willem A Bemelman ◽  
J Jan B van Lanschot ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document