Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Followed by Radical Resection Versus Conventional Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Surgical and short-term oncological safety of total neoadjuvant therapy in high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Management for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) conventionally comprises long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT), total mesorectal excision (TME), and adjuvant chemotherapy. However, the RAPIDO study published in 2021 showed that total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) led to better oncological outcomes without increased toxicity. We review the surgical and short-term oncological outcomes of patients with high-risk LARC who underwent TNT or LCCRT before TME.

METHODS

Patients with high-risk LARC who underwent TNT or LCCRT before TME between 2021 and 2022 were reviewed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (66%) had TNT as per RAPIDO whilst 18 underwent LCCRT. Median follow-up was 16 months (range 5-25). Of the patients who had TNT, median age was 65 years old (range 44-79), 34 (97%) had clinical Stage 3 LARC and median height FAV was 5 cm (range 0.5-14). Nine (26%) required a dose delay/reduction due to treatment toxicity. Seven (50%) showed resolution of previously enlarged lateral nodes. Three (9%) had pathological complete response. Postoperative major morbidity was 23%, of which 4 patients required a reoperation. Six (17%) patients had disease-related treatment failure, with two having disease progression during TNT, two developed local recurrence, and two developed distal metastasis following surgery. Median duration to surgery following completion of chemotherapy was significantly shorter with TNT (36 days versus 74 days) (P < 0.001). There were no other significant differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSION

TNT is clinically safe in high-risk LARC patients with no significant difference to surgical and short-term oncological outcomes compared to LCCRT, although a higher incidence of early surgical morbidity was observed.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Selective Use of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced rectal cancer has high cure rates with trimodal therapy. Studies sparing neoadjuvant chemoradiation in selected patients show comparable outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of selective use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in this population.

DESIGN

A cost-effectiveness analysis model compared selective and blanket use chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer.

SETTINGS

Literature review, expert consensus, and a prospective database populated the model. Health care utilization costs were based on information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

PATIENTS

Adult patients with stage II and III rectal cancer were selected.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Primary outcomes were cost, effectiveness in quality-adjusted disease-free life years, net monetary benefit, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in dollars per quality-adjusted disease-free life years. Base-case 5-year disease-free survival for both strategies was 65%. One-way sensitivity analysis found the probability of 5-year disease-free survival for selective ranged between 40% and 65%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed second-order variability.

RESULTS

Base-case 5-year disease-free survival demonstrated selective use is dominant with lower cost and higher quality-adjusted disease-free life years. For selective use, cost is $153,176, effectiveness is 2.71 quality-adjusted life years, and net monetary benefit is -$17,564 and for blanket use cost is $176,362, effectiveness is 2.64 quality-adjusted life years, and net monetary benefit is -$44,217. One-way sensitivity analysis shows selective use is dominant for disease-free survival above 61.25% and is preferred for disease-free survival above 53.7%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows selective use is optimal in 88% of the iterations for a population of 10,000 patients.

LIMITATIONS

Model was based on data from the literature, prospective database, and expert consensus.

CONCLUSION

In a population of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with base-case disease-free survival of 65%, selective use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation is the superior strategy as long as disease-free survival in this group remains above 53%. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C199.

ANLISIS DE COSTOEFECTIVIDAD USO SELECTIVO DE QUIMIORRADIACIN NEOADYUVANTE EN CNCER DE RECTO LOCALMENTE AVANZADO

ANTECEDENTES:El cáncer de recto localmente avanzado tiene altas tasas de curación con la terapia trimodal. Los estudios que evitan la quimiorradiación neoadyuvante en pacientes seleccionados muestran resultados comparables.OBJETIVO:Determinar la relación costo-efectividad del uso selectivo de quimiorradiación neoadyuvante en esta población.DISEÑO:Un modelo de análisis de costo-efectividad comparó la quimiorradiación selectiva y de uso general para el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado.AJUSTES:Revisión de literatura, consenso de expertos y una base de datos prospectiva poblaron el modelo. Los costos de utilización de la atención médica se basaron en los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid.PACIENTES:Se seleccionaron pacientes adultos con cáncer de recto en estadio II y III.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS:Los resultados primarios fueron el costo, efectividad en años de vida sin enfermedad ajustados por calidad, el beneficio monetario neto y la relación costo-efectividad incremental en $/años de vida sin enfermedad ajustados por calidad. La supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años del caso base para ambas estrategias fue del 65%. El análisis de sensibilidad unidireccional varió la probabilidad de supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años para uso selectivo entre 40%-65%. El análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico evaluó la variabilidad de segundo orden.RESULTADOS:El caso base de 5 años de supervivencia libre de enfermedad demostró que el uso selectivo es dominante con menor costo y años de vida libre de enfermedad ajustados de mayor calidad. El costo, la efectividad y el beneficio monetario neto para el uso selectivo y general fueron ($153 176; 2,71 QALY; -$17 564) y ($176 362; 2,64 QALY; -$44 217). El análisis de sensibilidad unidireccional demostró que el uso selectivo es dominante para la supervivencia sin enfermedad por encima del 61,25% y se prefiere para la supervivencia sin enfermedad por encima del 53,7%. El análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico demostró que el uso selectivo es óptimo en el 88% de las iteraciones para una población de 10 000 pacientes.LIMITACIONES:Modelo basado en datos de literatura, base de datos prospectiva y consenso de expertos.CONCLUSIÓN:En una población de pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado con caso base de supervivencia libre de enfermedad del 65%, el uso selectivo de quimiorradiación neoadyuvante para el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado es la estrategia superior, siempre y cuando la supervivencia libre de enfermedad en este grupo se mantenga por encima del 53%. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C199. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Cost-effectiveness of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Short-Course Radiotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Short-course radiotherapy and total neoadjuvant therapy (SCRT-TNT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) has emerged as a new treatment paradigm for patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. However, the economic implication of this treatment strategy has not been compared with that of conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) followed by TME with adjuvant chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT in conjunction with TME for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A decision analytical model with a 5-year time horizon was constructed for patients with biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma treated with SCRT-TNT or LCCRT. Markov modeling was used to model disease progression and patient survival after treatment in 3-month cycles. Data on probabilities and utilities were extracted from the literature. Costs were evaluated from the Medicare payer's perspective in 2020 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables. Data were collected from October 3, 2020, to January 20, 2021, and analyzed from November 15, 2020, to April 25, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Two treatment strategies, SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT with adjuvant chemotherapy, were compared.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefits. Effectiveness was defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50 000/QALY.

RESULTS

During the 5-year horizon, the total cost was $41 355 and QALYs were 2.21 for SCRT-TNT; for LCCRT, the total cost was $54 827 and QALYs were 2.12, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-$141 256.77). The net monetary benefit was $69 300 for SCRT-TNT and $51 060 for LCCRT. Sensitivity analyses using willingness to pay at $100 000/QALY and $150 000/QALY demonstrated the same conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that SCRT-TNT followed by TME incurs lower cost and improved QALYs compared with conventional LCCRT followed by TME and adjuvant chemotherapy. These data offer further rationale to support SCRT-TNT as a novel cost-saving treatment paradigm in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Neoadjuvant Therapy Versus Upfront Surgery for Patients With Clinical Stage 2 or 3 Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery (NT) is the standard of care for esophageal cancer in Western countries, upfront surgery (US) followed by adjuvant therapy (when indicated) still is commonly used in Asia to minimize overtreatment. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of NT versus US for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of ESCC between 2010 and 2015 were divided into NT or US according to the intention to treat. Two propensity score-matched groups of patients with clinical stage 2 (135 pairs) or stage 3 (194 pairs) disease were identified and compared in terms of overall survival (OS) and direct costs incurred within 3 years after diagnosis.

RESULTS

The esophagectomy rates after NT were 82% for stage 2 and 88% for stage 3 disease. Compared with US, surgery after NT was associated with higher R0 resection rates, a lower number of dissected lymph nodes, and similar postoperative mortality. On an intention-to-treat analysis, stage 3 patients who received NT had a significantly better 3-year OS rate (45%) than those treated with US (37%) (p = 0.029) without significant cost increases (p = 0.89). However, NT for clinical stage 2 disease neither increased costs nor improved 3-year OS rates (47% vs 47%; p = 0.88). At a willingness-to-pay level of US$50,000 per life-year, the probability of NT being cost-effective was 92% for stage 3 versus 59% for stage 2 ESCC.

CONCLUSION

Because of its higher cost-effectiveness, NT is preferable to US for patients with clinical stage 3 ESCC, but US remains a viable option for stage 2 disease.

Current status of total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus total mesorectal excision (TME) has been the standard regimen for treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), because it significantly reduces the rate of local recurrence and enables sphincter preservation. However, distant metastasis remains the major reason for treatment failure, and the value of postoperative chemotherapy is still controversial. Recent studies have examined the use of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), defined as induction and/or consolidation chemotherapy (CONCT) with radiotherapy (RT) or nCRT prior to surgery. The results indicated that TNT may increase the rates of chemotherapy compliance and pathological complete response (pCR), and probably improve the success rate of sphincter preservation surgery. TNT may also improve disease-free survival and overall survival, and even reduce the rate of relapse. Here, we critically appraise the existing literature on three different TNT schemes used for LARC patients.

The multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer

Rectal cancer treatment has evolved during the past 40 years with the use of a standardized surgical technique for tumour resection: total mesorectal excision. A dramatic reduction in local recurrence rates and improved survival outcomes have been achieved as consequences of a better understanding of the surgical oncology of rectal cancer, and the advent of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments to compliment surgery have paved the way for a multidisciplinary approach to disease management. Further improvements in imaging techniques and the ability to identify prognostic factors such as tumour regression, extramural venous invasion and threatened margins have introduced the concept of decision-making based on preoperative staging information. Modern treatment strategies are underpinned by accurate high-resolution imaging guiding both neoadjuvant therapy and precision surgery, followed by meticulous pathological scrutiny identifying the important prognostic factors for adjuvant chemotherapy. Included in these strategies are organ-sparing approaches and watch-and-wait strategies in selected patients. These pathways rely on the close working of interlinked disciplines within a multidisciplinary team. Such multidisciplinary forums are becoming standard in the treatment of rectal cancer across the UK, Europe and, more recently, the USA. This Review examines the essential components of modern-day management of rectal cancer through a multidisciplinary team approach, providing information that is essential for any practising colorectal surgeon to guide the best patient care.

Surveillance Intensity Comparison by Risk for T1NX Locally Excised Rectal Adenocarcinoma: a Cost-Effective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy following local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma based on histopathologic and local staging risk factors.

METHODS

A Markov model with 10-year follow-up was developed for cost-effectiveness analysis of high-, medium-, and low-intensity surveillance strategies after local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. Literature review and expert consensus were utilized to populate state/transition probabilities and rewards. Based on this data, 87% of T1NX patients undergoing local excision were low risk. Healthcare utilization costs were based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. The primary outcomes were costs in 2018 US dollars and effectiveness in life-years presented as net monetary benefit and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Net monetary benefit for low-, medium-, and high-intensity surveillance strategies ($393,117.00, $397,978.80, and $397,290.00) shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal. One-way sensitivity analysis shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal when the cohort is 73-94% low risk. High-intensity surveillance is preferred when less than 73% of the cohort is low risk. Low-intensity surveillance is preferred when greater than 94% is low risk. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the base-case shows medium-intensity surveillance is the optimal strategy for 51.5% of the iterations performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Medium-intensity surveillance is the most cost-effective surveillance strategy for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma in a clinically representative population model.