Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodolfo A. Hernndez ◽  
Robyn M. de Verteuil ◽  
Cynthia M. Fraser ◽  
Luke D. Vale ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Economic Evaluations

Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 464-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn M. de Verteuil ◽  
Rodolfo A. Hernández ◽  
Luke Vale ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Short Term

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer.Methods: A Markov model was developed to model cost-effectiveness over 25 years. Data on the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Data on costs came from a systematic review of economic evaluations and from published sources. The outcomes of the model were presented as the incremental cost per life-year gained and using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to illustrate the likelihood that a treatment was cost-effective at various threshold values for society's willingness to pay for an additional life-year.Results: Laparoscopic surgery was on average £300 more costly and slightly less effective than open surgery and had a 30 percent chance of being cost-effective if society is willing to pay £30,000 for a life-year. One interpretation of the available data suggests equal survival and disease-free survival. Making this assumption, laparoscopic surgery had a greater chance of being considered cost-effective. Presenting the results as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) made no difference to the results, as utility data were poor. Evidence suggests short-term benefits after laparoscopic repair. This benefit would have to be at least 0.01 of a QALY for laparoscopic surgery to be considered cost-effective.Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is likely to be associated with short-term quality of life benefits, similar long-term outcomes, and an additional £300 per patient. A judgment is required as to whether the short-term benefits are worth this extra cost.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: safe and effective? – A systematic review

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 1146-1160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Lourenco ◽  
Alison Murray ◽  
Adrian Grant ◽  
Aileen McKinley ◽  
Zygmunt Krukowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Laparoscopic Surgery

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of RAS testing in colorectal cancer. A systematic review of economic evaluations

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (suppl_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
B Unim ◽  
E Pitini ◽  
E D'Andrea ◽  
C De Vito ◽  
C Marzuillo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Evaluations

scholarly journals Health Economic Studies of Colorectal Cancer and the Contribution of Administrative Data: a Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Lemmon ◽  
Catherine Hanna ◽  
Peter S Hall ◽  
Eva Morris
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Administrative Data ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Economic Research ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Potential Contribution ◽  
Health Economic Research

Introduction: Several forces are contributing to an increase in the number of people living with and surviving colorectal cancer (CRC). However, due to the lack of available data, little is known about those implications. In recent years, the use of administrative records to inform research has been increasing. The aim of this paper is to investigate the potential contribution that administrative data could have on the health economic research of CRC. Methods: To achieve this aim we conducted a systematic review of the health economic CRC literature published in the United Kingdom and Europe within the last decade (2009-2019). Results: Thirty-seven relevant studies were identified and divided into economic evaluations, cost of illness studies and cost consequence analyses. Conclusions: The use of administrative data, including cancer registry, screening and hospital records, within the health economic research of CRC is commonplace. However, we found that this data often comes from regional databases, which reduces the generalisability of results. Further, administrative data appear less able to contribute towards understanding the wider and indirect costs associated with the disease. We have identified several ways in which various sources of administrative data could enhance future research in this area.

Systematic review of economic evidence for the detection, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 470-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Tappenden ◽  
Jim Chilcott ◽  
Alan Brennan ◽  
Hazel Pilgrim
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Economic Evidence ◽  
Increased Risk

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the availability and consistency of economic evidence for the detection, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of colorectal cancer.Methods: A systematic review of UK economic evaluations of colorectal cancer interventions was undertaken. Searches were undertaken across ten electronic databases. Studies were critically appraised through reference to a conceptual model of UK colorectal cancer services.Results: Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. There is a substantial economic evidence base surrounding population-level colorectal screening, surgical procedures, and cytotoxic therapies for the adjuvant and palliative treatment of colorectal cancer. There is limited evidence concerning the diagnosis of suspected colorectal cancer, curative treatments for metastatic disease and follow-up regimens for nonmetastatic disease. No studies were identified relating to the economics of radiotherapy, surveillance of increased-risk groups, end-of-life care, or the management of hereditary colorectal cancer. Where evidence is available, studies are subject to important differences concerning treatment options, decision criteria, and incongruent assumptions concerning the disease and its management.Conclusions: Across many aspects of the colorectal cancer service, current practice appears to have emerged without the consideration or support of economic evidence. There is a need to develop a common understanding how colorectal cancer models should be structured and implemented.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document