Cost Analysis of Pelvic Exenteration Surgery for Advanced Pelvic Malignancy

A Prospective Observational Cohort Study Comparing High-Complexity Against Conventional Pelvic Exenteration Surgery

Background: Conventional pelvic exenteration (PE) comprises the removal of all or most central pelvic organs and is established in clinical practise. Previously, tumours involving bone or lateral sidewall structures were deemed inoperable due to associated morbidity, mortality, and poor oncological outcomes. Recently however high-complexity PE is increasingly described and is defined as encompassing conventional PE with the additional resection of bone or pelvic sidewall structures. This observational cohort study aimed to assess surgical outcomes, health-related quality of life (HrQoL), decision regret, and costs of high-complexity PE for more advanced tumours not treatable with conventional PE. Methods: High-complexity PE data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained quaternary database. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality, disease control, major morbidity, HrQoL, and health resource use. For cost-utility analysis, a no-PE group was extrapolated from the literature. Results: In total, 319 cases were included, with 64 conventional and 255 high-complexity PE, and the overall survival was equivalent, with medians of 10.5 and 9.8 years (p = 0.52), respectively. Local control (p = 0.30); 90-day mortality (0.0% vs. 1.2%, p = 1.00); R0-resection rate (87% vs. 83%, p = 0.08); 12-month HrQoL (p = 0.51); and decision regret (p = 0.90) were comparable. High-complexity PE significantly increased overall major morbidity (16% vs. 31%, p = 0.02); and perioperative costs (GBP 37,271 vs. GBP 45,733, p < 0.001). When modelled against no surgery, both groups appeared cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of GBP 2446 and GBP 5061. Conclusions: High-complexity PE is safe and feasible, offering comparable survival outcomes and HrQoL to conventional PE, but with greater morbidity and resource use. Despite this, it appears cost-effective when compared to no surgery and palliation.