학술논문
Cost–Utility Analysis of Open Radical Hysterectomy Compared to Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.
Document Type
Article
Author
Source
Subject
*HYSTERECTOMY
*MINIMALLY invasive procedures
*SURGICAL robots
*MEDICAL care costs
*LAPAROSCOPIC surgery
*MEDICAL care use
*COST benefit analysis
*COST effectiveness
*SURVIVAL analysis (Biometry)
*DECISION making
*QUALITY of life
CERVIX uteri tumors
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Language
ISSN
2072-6694
Abstract
Simple Summary: Patients with early-stage cervical cancer treated by minimally invasive surgery show shorter progression-free and overall survival compared to open surgery. This study integrated minimally invasive and open surgery survival data with surgery costs and utilities and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis, using a Markovian decision analysis model, to compare the two surgical approaches. Our results show that open radical hysterectomy is not only oncologically superior but also more cost-effective. Until new data regarding the safety of minimally invasive surgery and surgery costs are presented, open radical hysterectomy should be the preferred approach from both the oncological and financial standpoint. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of open surgery, compared to minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, using updated survival data. Costs and utilities of each surgical approach were compared using a Markovian decision analysis model. Survival data stratified by surgical approach and surgery costs were received from recently published data. Average costs were discounted at 3%. The value of health benefits for each strategy was calculated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated using the formula (average cost minimal invasive surgery—average cost open surgery)/(average QALY minimal invasive surgery—average QALY open surgery), was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted for all variables. Open radical hysterectomy was found to be cost-saving compared to minimally invasive surgery with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD −66 and USD −373 for laparoscopic and robotic surgery, respectively. The most influential parameters in the model were surgery costs, followed by the disutility involved with open surgery. Until further data are generated regarding the survival of patients with early-stage cervical cancer treated by minimally invasive surgery, at current pricing, open radical hysterectomy is cost-saving compared to minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, both laparoscopic and robotic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]