Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

By Rodolfo Andrés Hernández, Robyn De Verteuil, Cynthia Mary Fraser, Luke David Vale and Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group

Abstract

Objective Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the standard surgical treatment for this cancer is open resection (OS), but laparoscopic surgery (LS) may be an alternative treatment. In 2000, a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review found little evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness in comparing the two methods. The evidence base has since expanded and this study systematically reviews the economic evaluations on the subject published since 2000.\ud Method Systematic review of studies reporting costs and outcomes of LS vs OS for colorectal cancer. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) methods for abstract writing were followed. Studies were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for common outcomes were calculated.\ud Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. LS generally had higher healthcare costs. Most studies reported longer operational time and shorter length of stay and similar long-term outcomes with LS vs OS. Only one outcome, complications, was common across all studies but results lacked consistency (e.g. in two studies, OS was less costly but more effective; in another study, LS was less costly but more effective; and in the further two studies, LS could potentially be cost effective depending on the decision-makers' willingness to pay for the health gain).\ud Conclusion The evidence on cost-effectiveness is not consistent. LS was generally more costly than OS. However, the effectiveness data used in individual economic evaluation were imprecise and unreliable when compared with data from systematic reviews of effectiveness. Nevertheless, short-term benefits of LS (e.g. shorter recovery) may make LS appear less costly when productivity gains are considered.Department of Health, National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health DirectoratesPeer reviewedAuthor versio

Topics: economic evaluation, systematic review, cost effectiveness, laparoscopic surgery, colorectal cancer, RC Internal medicine
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
Year: 2008
DOI identifier: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01609.x
OAI identifier: oai:aura.abdn.ac.uk:2164/301
Journal:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2000). A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer [document on the Internet]. London: National Institute for Clincial Excellence:
  2. (2006). Clinical effectiveness and costeffectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess
  3. (2005). Common methodological flaws in economic evaluation. Med Care doi
  4. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
  5. (2007). Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. doi
  6. (2004). for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the methods of technology appraisal (reference N0515) [document on the Internet]. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence;
  7. (2001). Hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Semin Laparosc Surg doi
  8. (2000). Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with the handport system: Initial experience with 68 patients. Ann Surg doi
  9. (2001). Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery in the United States: an overview. Semin Laparosc Surg doi
  10. (2001). Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation and presenting the results. doi
  11. (2001). Improving access to cost-effectiveness information for health care decision making: the NHS Economic Evaluation Database.
  12. (2007). Is laparoscopic colectomy for cancer cost-effective relative to open colectomy? doi
  13. (2004). Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Lancet doi
  14. (2005). Laparoscopic versus open right hemicolectomy with curative intent for colon carcinoma.
  15. (2002). Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet doi
  16. (1996). Minimally invasive surgery for diseases of the colon & rectum: the legacy of an ancient tradition.
  17. (2003). Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies. Value Health doi
  18. Prospective randomized trial comparing conventional laparoscopic colectomy with hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: doi
  19. (2002). Prospective randomized trial comparing conventional laparoscopic colectomy with hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: “Lap. surg. syst. review economic eval.” applicability, immediate clinical outcome, inflammatory response, and cost. Surg Endosc doi
  20. (2006). Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme. doi
  21. (2004). Randomized clinical trial of the costs of open and laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer. doi
  22. (2002). review economic eval.” applicability, immediate clinical outcome, inflammatory response, and cost. Surg Endosc
  23. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess doi
  24. (2006). Short-term costs of conventional vs laparoscopic assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial). doi
  25. (2005). Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.