scholarly journals Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy: is it a superior approach for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 963-972 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Tang ◽  
Hao Zheng ◽  
Lijie Tan ◽  
Yaxing Shen ◽  
Hao Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Resectable Esophageal ◽  
Superior Approach

PS02.014: COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 124-124
Author(s):  
Chao-Yu Liu ◽  
Chia-Chuan Liu
Keyword(s):  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Studies

Abstract Background The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) versus open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has not been established. Recent cost studies have shown that MIE is associated with a higher surgical expense, which is not consistently offset by savings through expedited post-operative recovery, therefore suggesting a questionable benefit of MIE over OE from an economic point of view. In the current study, we compared the cost-effectiveness of MIE versus OE for ESCC. Methods Between April 2000 and December 2013, a total of 251 consecutive patients undergoing MIE or OE for ESCC were enrolled. After propensity score (PS)-matching the MIE group with the OE group for clinical characteristics, 95 patients from each group were enrolled to compare the peri-operative outcomes, long-term survival, and cost. Results After PS-matching, the baseline characteristics were not significantly different between groups. Perioperative outcomes were similar in both groups. MIE was superior to OE with respect to a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay, while the complication rate (except for hoarseness) and survival were similar. Post-operative cost was significantly less in the MIE group due to a shorter ICU stay; however, reduced post-operative cost failed to offset the higher surgical expense of MIE. Conclusion MIE for ESCC failed to show cost-effectiveness regarding overall expense in our study, but costs less in the postoperative care, especially for ICU care. More cost studies on MIE in other health care systems are warranted to verify the cost-effectiveness of MIE. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document