Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Sep 26:6:415-22.
doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S66247. eCollection 2014.

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection for cancer and polyps: a cost-effectiveness study

Jake Jordan  1 , Henry Dowson  2 , Heather Gage  3 , Daniel Jackson  3 , Timothy Rockall  4
Affiliations

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection for cancer and polyps: a cost-effectiveness study

Jake Jordan et al. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. .

Abstract

Background: Available evidence that compares outcomes from laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer shows no difference in disease free or survival time, or in health-related quality of life outcomes, but does not capture the short term benefits of laparoscopic methods in the early postoperative period.

Aim: To explore the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic colorectal surgery, compared to open methods, using quality of life data gathered in the first 6 weeks after surgery.

Methods: Participants were recruited in 2006-2007 in a district general hospital in the south of England; those with a diagnosis of cancer or polyps were included in the analysis. Quality of life data were collected using EQ-5D, on alternate days after surgery for 4 weeks. Costs per patient, from a National Health Service perspective (in British pounds, 2006) comprised the sum of operative, hospital, and community costs. Missing data were filled using multiple imputation methods. The difference in mean quality adjusted life years and costs between surgery groups were estimated simultaneously using a multivariate regression model applied to 20 imputed datasets. The probability that laparoscopic surgery is cost-effective compared to open surgery for a given societal willingness-to-pay threshold is illustrated using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.

Results: The sample comprised 68 laparoscopic and 27 open surgery patients. At 28 days, the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gained from laparoscopic surgery was £12,375. At a societal willingness-to-pay of £30,000, the probability that laparoscopic surgery is cost-effective, exceeds 65% (at £20,000 ≈60%). In sensitivity analyses, laparoscopic surgery remained cost-effective compared to open surgery, provided it results in a saving ≥£699 in hospital bed days and takes no more than 8 minutes longer to perform.

Conclusion: The study provides formal evidence of the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic approaches and supports current guidelines that promote use of laparoscopy where suitably trained surgeons are available.

Keywords: QALYs; colorectal cancer; cost-effectiveness; laparoscopy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean EQ-5D index scores at baseline and each follow up point. Note: Based on complete case data for patients with cancer or polyps. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; EQ-5D, EuroQol 5 Dimension, 3 Level.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cost-effectiveness plane. Notes: The CEP is made up of four quadrants: lower right is the dominant quadrant, ie, laparoscopic surgery is less costly and more effective than open; upper left, laparoscopy is totally dominated, ie, it is less effective and more costly than open; upper right (and lower left) the situation is not clear cut because laparoscopy is more costly and more effective (less costly and less effective) than open. *Threshold line through the origin based on WTP =£20,000. Abbreviations: CEP, cost-effectiveness plane; WTP, willingness-to-pay; CI, confidence interval; EQ-5D, EuroQol 5 Dimension, 3 Level; QALY, quality adjusted life year.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. Abbreviations: ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; QALY, quality adjusted life year.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [homepage on the Internet] Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer. Aug, 2006. [Accessed July 1, 2014]. (NICE technology appraisal guidance 105). revised 2009. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA105.
    1. de Verteuil RM, Hernandez RA, Vale L, Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(4):464–472. - PubMed
    1. Murray A, Lourenco T, De Verteuile R, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(45):1–141. iii–iv. - PubMed
    1. Dowson H, Cowie A, Ballard K, Gage H, Rockall T. Systematic review of quality of life following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10(8):757–768. - PubMed
    1. Bartels SA, Vlug MS, Ubbink DT, Bemelman WA. Quality of life after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: a systematic review. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(40):5035–5041. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources