Cost-effectiveness of Laparoscopic vs Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Clinical Trial

A Path to High-Value Gastric Cancer Surgery Care Delivery

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of a comprehensive regional program, including the Minimally Invasive Recovery and Empowerment Care (MIREC) pathway, that can significantly reduce hospital stays after laparoscopic gastrectomy without increasing adverse events.

Background

Cost-effectiveness and improving patient outcomes are crucial in providing quality gastric cancer care worldwide.

Methods

To compare the outcomes of gastric cancer surgery using 2 different models of care within an integrated healthcare system from February 2012 to March 2023. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay. The secondary endpoints were the need for intensive care unit care, emergency room (ER) visits, readmission, reoperation, and death within 30 days after surgery.

Results

There were 553 patients, 167 in the pre-(February 2012-April 2016) and 386 in the post-MIREC period (May 2016-March 2023). Perioperative chemotherapy utilization increased from 31.7% to 76.4% (P < 0.0001). Laparoscopic gastrectomy increased from 17.4% to 97.7% (P < 0.0001). Length of hospitalization decreased from 7 to 2 days (P < 0.0001), with 32.1% and 88% of patients discharged home on postoperative day 1 and postoperative day 2, respectively. When comparing pre- and post-MIREC, intensive care unit utilization (10.8% vs. 2.9%, P < 0.0001), ER visits (34.7% vs. 19.7%, P = 0.0002), and readmission (18.6% vs. 11.1%, P = 0.019) at 30 days were also considerably lower. In addition, more patients received postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (31.4% to 63.5%, P < 0.0001), and the time between gastrectomy and starting adjuvant chemotherapy was also less (49-41 days; P = 0.002).

Conclusion

This comprehensive regional program, which encompasses regionalization care, laparoscopic approach, modern oncologic care, surgical subspecialization, and the MIREC pathway, can potentially improve gastric cancer surgery outcomes. These benefits include reduced hospital stays and lower complication rates. As such, this program can revolutionize how gastric cancer surgery is delivered, leading to a higher quality of care and increased value to patients.

Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study

BACKGROUND

Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations).

RESULTS

18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) is a well-established surgical technique in treating patients with early gastric cancer. However, the efficacy and safety of LAG versus open gastrectomy (OG) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains unclear.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in June 2023 for RCTs comparing LAG versus OG in patients with AGC. We pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary and continuous endpoints, respectively. We performed all statistical analyses using R software version 4.3.1 and a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs comprising 3827 patients were included. There were no differences in terms of intraoperative complications (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.82), number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD -0.54 lymph nodes; 95% CI -1.18 to 0.09), or mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.83). LAG was associated with a longer operative time (MD 49.28 minutes; 95% CI 30.88 to 67.69), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD -51.24 milliliters; 95% CI -81.41 to -21.06), shorter length of stay (MD -0.83 days; 95% CI -1.60 to -0.06), and higher incidence of pancreatic fistula (RR 2.44; 95% CI 1.08 to 5.50). Postoperatively, LAG was also superior to OG in reducing bleeding rates (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.86) and time to first flatus (MD -0.27 days; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.07), with comparable results in anastomotic leakage, wound healing issues, major complications, time to ambulation, or time to first liquid intake. In the long-term analyses at 3 and 5 years, there were no significant differences between LAG and OG in terms of overall survival (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03) or relapse-free survival (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that LAG may be an effective and safe alternative to OG for treating AGC; albeit, it may be associated with an increased risk for pancreatic fistula.

Distal Versus Total D2-Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Secondary Analysis of Surgical and Oncological Outcomes Including Quality of Life in the Multicenter Randomized LOGICA-Trial

BACKGROUND

Distal gastrectomy (DG) for gastric cancer can cause less morbidity than total gastrectomy (TG), but may compromise radicality. No prospective studies administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and few assessed quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

The multicenter LOGICA-trial randomized laparoscopic versus open D2-gastrectomy for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3bM0) in 10 Dutch hospitals. This secondary LOGICA-analysis compared surgical and oncological outcomes after DG versus TG. DG was performed for non-proximal tumors if R0-resection was deemed achievable, TG for other tumors. Postoperative complications, mortality, hospitalization, radicality, nodal yield, 1-year survival, and EORTC-QoL-questionnaires were analyzed using Χ2-/Fisher's exact tests and regression analyses.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2018, 211 patients underwent DG (n = 122) or TG (n = 89), and 75% of patients underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. DG-patients were older, had more comorbidities, less diffuse type tumors, and lower cT-stage than TG-patients (p < 0.05). DG-patients experienced fewer overall complications (34% versus 57%; p < 0.001), also after correcting for baseline differences, lower anastomotic leakage (3% versus 19%), pneumonia (4% versus 22%), atrial fibrillation (3% versus 14%), and Clavien-Dindo grading compared to TG-patients (p < 0.05), and demonstrated shorter median hospital stay (6 versus 8 days; p < 0.001). QoL was better after DG (statistically significant and clinically relevant) in most 1-year postoperative time points. DG-patients showed 98% R0-resections, and similar 30-/90-day mortality, nodal yield (28 versus 30 nodes; p = 0.490), and 1-year survival after correcting for baseline differences (p = 0.084) compared to TG-patients.

CONCLUSIONS

If oncologically feasible, DG should be preferred over TG due to less complications, faster postoperative recovery, and better QoL while achieving equivalent oncological effectiveness. Distal D2-gastrectomy for gastric cancer resulted in less complications, shorter hospitalization, quicker recovery and better quality of life compared to total D2-gastrectomy, whereas radicality, nodal yield and survival were similar.