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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2025 May 7;9(3):zraf061.
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraf061.

Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis after totally or hybrid minimally invasive transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the randomized ICAN trial

Eric Matthée  1 , Sander Ubels  1   2 , Bastiaan Klarenbeek  1 , Moniek H P Verstegen  1 , Gerjon Hannink  3 , Frans van Workum  2 , Camiel Rosman  1 , Janneke P C Grutters  4 ; ICAN Collaborative Research Group
Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis after totally or hybrid minimally invasive transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the randomized ICAN trial

Eric Matthée et al. BJS Open. .

Abstract

Background: There is a worldwide trend towards minimally invasive oesophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis in oesophageal cancer surgery. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis has been shown to result in fewer anastomotic leaks, but cost-effectiveness is yet to be established. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of transthoracic minimally invasive oesophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis compared with cervical anastomosis.

Methods: A prospective economic evaluation was performed alongside the ICAN trial, a randomized clinical superiority trial. Patients with mid/distal oesophageal or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer were randomly assigned to transthoracic minimally invasive oesophagectomy with either intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis. Quality-adjusted life-years, mean healthcare, and societal costs were assessed for both groups at 9 and 21 months after surgery.

Results: A total of 245 patients randomized for transthoracic minimally invasive oesophagectomy with either intrathoracic (122) or cervical (123) anastomosis were included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. After 9 months, the intrathoracic group yielded 0.58 (95% confidence interval (c.i.) 0.55 to 0.61) quality-adjusted life-years per patient, compared with 0.56 (0.52 to 0.58) quality-adjusted life-years for the cervical group. After 9 months, both mean healthcare costs (20 573 (95% c.i. 17 623 to 24 177) versus 28 039 (23 574 to 33 116) euros), and societal costs (24 590 (21 237 to 29 074) versus 33 383 (27 885 to 38 805) euros), per patient were lower in the intrathoracic anastomosis group. Similarly, at 21 months no statistically significant difference was found (mean difference 0.08 (-0.05 to 0.2) quality-adjusted life-years), whereas minimally invasive oesophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis was less costly than that with cervical anastomosis (mean difference -9930 (-16 301 to -2521) euros). The higher costs in the cervical anastomosis group were mainly due to longer lengths of stay owing to complications.

Conclusion: Transthoracic minimally invasive oesophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis was found to be cost-effective compared with transthoracic minimally invasive oesophagectomy with cervical anastomosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Cost-effectiveness plane of incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years gained for each of the bootstrap replications from a societal perspective at 9 and 21 months a 9 months and b 21 months. QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; €, euros.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cost acceptability curves illustrating the probability that minimally invasive oesophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis is more cost-effective than minimally invasive oesophagectomy with cervical anastomosis, from a societal perspective at different cost-effectiveness thresholds Insert shows magnification of the curves from 0.95 to 1.00 on the y-axis. €, euros.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209–249 - PubMed
    1. Arnold M, Laversanne M, Brown LM, Devesa SS, Bray F. Predicting the future burden of esophageal cancer by histological subtype: international trends in incidence up to 2030. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:1247–1255 - PubMed
    1. Haverkamp L, Seesing MF, Ruurda JP, Boone J, V Hillegersberg R. Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus 2017;30:1–7 - PubMed
    1. Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D, Cecconello I, Chang AC, Darling G et al. Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg 2019;269:291–298 - PubMed
    1. Kuppusamy MK, Low DE; International Esodata Study Group (IESG) . Evaluation of international contemporary operative outcomes and management trends associated with esophagectomy: a 4-year study of > 6000 patients using ECCG definitions and the online Esodata database. Ann Surg 2022;275:515–525 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms