Endoscopic resection is cost-effective compared with laparoscopic resection in the management of complex colon polyps: An economic analysis Presented at Digestive Disease Week, May 16-19, 2015, Washington, DC (Gastrointest Endosc 2015;5:AB270).

Ryan Law, Ananya Das, Dyanna Gregory, Srinadh Komanduri, Raman Muthusamy, Amit Rastogi, John Vargo, Michael B. Wallace, G. S. Raju, Rawad Mounzer, Jason Klapman, Janak Shah, Rabindra Watson, Robert Wilson, Steven A. Edmundowicz, Sachin Wani*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background and Aims Endoscopic resection (ER) is an efficacious treatment for complex colon polyps (CCPs). Many patients are referred for surgical resection because of concerns over procedural safety, incomplete polyp resection, and adenoma recurrence after ER. Efficacy data for both resection strategies are widely available, but a paucity of data exist on the cost-effectiveness of each modality. The aim of this study was to perform an economic analysis comparing ER and laparoscopic resection (LR) strategies in patients with CCP. Methods A decision analysis tree was constructed using decision analysis software. The 2 strategies (ER vs LR) were evaluated in a hypothetical cohort of patients with CCPs. A hybrid Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used. Patients entered the model after colonoscopic diagnosis at age 50. Under Strategy I, patients underwent ER followed by surveillance colonoscopy at 3 to 6 months and 12 months. Patients with failed ER and residual adenoma at 12 months were referred for LR. Under Strategy II, patients underwent LR as primary treatment. Patients with invasive cancer were excluded. Estimates regarding ER performance characteristics were obtained from a systematic review of published literature. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2012-2013) and the 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases were used to determine the costs and loss of utility. We assumed that all procedures were performed with anesthesia support, and patients with adverse events in both strategies required inpatient hospitalization. Baseline estimates and costs were varied by using a sensitivity analysis through the ranges. Results LR was found to be more costly and yielded fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with ER. The cost of ER of a CCP was $5570 per patient and yielded 9.640 QALYs. LR of a CCP cost $18,717 per patient and yielded fewer QALYs (9.577). For LR to be more cost-effective, the thresholds of 1-way sensitivity analyses were (1) technical success of ER for complete resection in <75.8% of cases, (2) adverse event rates for ER > 12%, and (3) LR cost of <$14,000. Conclusions Our data suggest that ER is a cost-effective strategy for removal of CCPs. The effectiveness is driven by high technical success and low adverse event rates associated with ER, in addition to the increased cost of LR.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1248-1257
Number of pages10
JournalGastrointestinal endoscopy
Volume83
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2016

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Gastroenterology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Endoscopic resection is cost-effective compared with laparoscopic resection in the management of complex colon polyps: An economic analysis Presented at Digestive Disease Week, May 16-19, 2015, Washington, DC (Gastrointest Endosc 2015;5:AB270).'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Law, R., Das, A., Gregory, D., Komanduri, S., Muthusamy, R., Rastogi, A., Vargo, J., Wallace, M. B., Raju, G. S., Mounzer, R., Klapman, J., Shah, J., Watson, R., Wilson, R., Edmundowicz, S. A., & Wani, S. (2016). Endoscopic resection is cost-effective compared with laparoscopic resection in the management of complex colon polyps: An economic analysis Presented at Digestive Disease Week, May 16-19, 2015, Washington, DC (Gastrointest Endosc 2015;5:AB270). Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 83(6), 1248-1257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.11.014