Modeling the cost-effectiveness of strategies for treating esophageal adenocarcinoma and high-grade dysplasia

A cost-effectiveness modeling study of treatment interventions for stage I to III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background

Esophageal cancer causes considerable costs for health systems. Appropriate treatment options for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) can reduce medical costs and provide more improved outcomes for health systems and patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of treatment interventions for patients with ESCC according to the Iranian health system.

Material and methods

A five-state Markov model with a 15-year time horizon was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment interventions based on stage for ESCC patients. Costs ($US 2021) and outcomes were calculated from the Iranian health system, with a discount rate of 3%. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the potential effects of uncertain variables on the model results.

Results

In stage I, the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) treatment yielded the lowest total costs and highest total QALY for a total of $1473 per QALY, making it the dominant strategy compared with esophagectomy and EMR followed by ablation. In stages II and III, chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery dominated esophagectomy. CRT followed by surgery was also cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $2172.8 per QALY compared to CRT.

Conclusion

From the Iranian health system’s perspective, EMR was the dominant strategy versus esophagectomy and EMR followed by ablation for ESCC patients in stage I. The CRT followed by surgery was a cost-effective intervention compared to CRT and esophagectomy in stages II and III.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-022-00352-5.

The Use of Expert Elicitation among Computational Modeling Studies in Health Research: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Expert elicitation (EE) has been used across disciplines to estimate input parameters for computational modeling research when information is sparse or conflictual.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review to compare EE methods used to generate model input parameters in health research.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Web of Science.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY

Modeling studies that reported the use of EE as the source for model input probabilities were included if they were published in English before June 2021 and reported health outcomes.

DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Studies were classified as "formal" EE methods if they explicitly reported details of their elicitation process. Those that stated use of expert opinion but provided limited information were classified as "indeterminate" methods. In both groups, we abstracted citation details, study design, modeling methodology, a description of elicited parameters, and elicitation methods. Comparisons were made between elicitation methods.

STUDY APPRAISAL

Studies that conducted a formal EE were appraised on the reporting quality of the EE. Quality appraisal was not conducted for studies of indeterminate methods.

RESULTS

The search identified 1520 articles, of which 152 were included. Of the included studies, 40 were classified as formal EE and 112 as indeterminate methods. Most studies were cost-effectiveness analyses (77.6%). Forty-seven indeterminate method studies provided no information on methods for generating estimates. Among formal EEs, the average reporting quality score was 9 out of 16.

LIMITATIONS

Elicitations on nonhealth topics and those reported in the gray literature were not included.

CONCLUSIONS

We found poor reporting of EE methods used in modeling studies, making it difficult to discern meaningful differences in approaches. Improved quality standards for EEs would improve the validity and replicability of computational models.

HIGHLIGHTS

We find extensive use of expert elicitation for the development of model input parameters, but most studies do not provide adequate details of their elicitation methods.Lack of reporting hinders greater discussion of the merits and challenges of using expert elicitation for model input parameter development.There is a need to establish expert elicitation best practices and reporting guidelines.

[Economic aspects of oncological esophageal surgery : Centralization is essential]

The incidence of esophageal carcinoma has increased in recent years in Germany. The aim of this article is a discussion of the economic aspects of oncological esophageal surgery within the German diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system focusing on the association between minimum caseload requirements and outcome quality as well as costs. The margins for the DRG classification G03A are low and quickly exhausted if complications determine the postoperative course. A current study using nationwide German hospital discharge data proved a significant difference in hospital mortality between clinics with and without achieving the minimum caseload requirements for esophagectomy. Data from the USA clearly showed that besides patient-relevant parameters, the caseload of a surgeon is relevant for the cost of treatment. Such cost-related analyses do not exist in Germany at present. Scientific validation of reliable minimum caseload numbers for oncological esophagectomy is desirable in the future.

Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance of non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic surveillance for non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) is contentious and its cost effectiveness unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To perform an economic analysis of endoscopic surveillance strategies.

DESIGN

Cost-utility analysis by using a simulation Markov model to synthesize evidence from large epidemiologic studies and clinical data for surveillance, based on international guidelines, applied in a coordinator-managed surveillance program.

SETTING

Tertiary care hospital, South Australia.

PATIENTS

A total of 2040 patient-years of follow-up.

INTERVENTION

(1) No surveillance, (2) 2-yearly endoscopic surveillance of patients with non-dysplastic BE and 6-monthly surveillance of patients with low-grade dysplasia, (3) a hypothetical strategy of biomarker-modified surveillance.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

U.S. cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ratios.

RESULTS

Compared with no surveillance, surveillance produced an estimated incremental cost per QALY ratio of $60,858. This was reduced to $38,307 when surveillance practice was modified by a hypothetical biomarker-based strategy. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the likelihood that surveillance alone was cost-effective compared with no surveillance was 16.0% and 60.6% if a hypothetical biomarker-based strategy was added to surveillance, at an acceptability threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained.

LIMITATIONS

Treatment options for BE that overlap those for symptomatic GERD were omitted.

CONCLUSION

By using best available estimates of the malignant potential of BE, endoscopic surveillance of patients with non-dysplastic BE is unlikely to be cost-effective for the majority of patients and depends heavily on progression rates between dysplasia grades. However, strategies that modify surveillance according to cancer risk might be cost-effective, provided that high-risk individuals can be identified and prioritized for surveillance.

Cost-effectiveness of Barrett's oesophagus screening and surveillance

Endoscopic screening and surveillance of patients with Barrett's oesophagus to detect oesophageal cancer at earlier stages is contentious. As a consequence, their cost-effectiveness is also debatable. Current health economic evidence shows mixed results for demonstrating their value, mainly due to varied assumptions around progression rates to cancer, quality of life and treatment pathways. No randomized controlled trial exists to definitively support the efficacy of surveillance programs and one is unlikely to be undertaken. Contemporary treatment, cost and epidemiological data to contribute to cost-effectiveness analyses are needed. Risk assessment to stratify patients at low- or high-risk of developing cancer should improve cost-effectiveness outcomes as higher gains will be seen for those at higher risk, and medical resource use will be avoided in those at lower risk. Rapidly changing technologies for imaging, biomarker testing and less-invasive endoscopic treatments also promise to lower health system costs and avoid adverse events in patients.