Cost-Effectiveness of Palliation of Unresectable Esophageal Cancer

Introduction Different modalities of palliation for obstructive symptoms in patients with unresectable esophageal cancer (EC) exist. However, these therapeutic alternatives have significant differences in costs and effectiveness. Methods A Markov model was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness (CE) of self-expandable stent (SES), brachytherapy and laser in the palliation of unresectable EC. Patients were assigned to one of the strategies, and the improvement in swallowing function was compared given the treatment efficacy, probability of survival, and risks of complications associated to each strategy. Probabilities and parameters for distribution were based on a 9-month time frame. Results Under the base-case scenario, laser has the lowest CE ratio, followed by brachytherapy at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $4,400.00, and SES is a dominated strategy. In the probabilistic analysis, laser is the strategy with the highest probability of cost-effectiveness for willingness to pay (WTP) values lower than $3,201 and brachytherapy for all WTP yielding a positive net health benefit (NHB) (threshold $4,440). The highest probability of cost-effectiveness for brachytherapy is 96%, and consequently, selection of suboptimal strategies can lead to opportunity losses for the US health system, ranging from US$ 4.32 to US$ 38.09 million dollars over the next 5-20 years. Conclusion Conditional to the WTP and current US Medicare costs, palliation of unresectable esophageal cancers with brachytherapy provides the largest amount of NHB and is the strategy with the highest probability of CE. However, some level of uncertainly remains, and wrong decisions will be made until further knowledge is acquired.

Right adolescent idiopathic thoracic curve (Lenke 1 A and B): does cost of instrumentation and implant density improve radiographic and cosmetic parameters?

In adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) there has been a shift towards increasing the number of implants and pedicle screws, which has not been proven to improve cosmetic correction. To evaluate if increasing cost of instrumentation correlates with cosmetic correction using clinical photographs. 58 Lenke 1A and B cases from a multicenter AIS database with at least 3 months follow-up of clinical photographs were used for analysis. Cosmetic parameters on PA and forward bending photographs included angular measurements of trunk shift, shoulder balance, rib hump, and ratio measurements of waist line asymmetry. Pre-op and follow-up X-rays were measured for coronal and sagittal deformity parameters. Cost density was calculated by dividing the total cost of instrumentation by the number of vertebrae being fused. Linear regression and spearman`s correlation were used to correlate cost density to X-ray and photo outcomes. Three independent observers verified radiographic and cosmetic parameters for inter/interobserver variability analysis. Average pre-op Cobb angle and instrumented correction were 54A degrees (SD 12.5) and 59% (SD 25) respectively. The average number of vertebrae fused was 10 (SD 1.9). The total cost of spinal instrumentation ranged from $6,769 to $21,274 (Mean $12,662, SD $3,858). There was a weak positive and statistically significant correlation between Cobb angle correction and cost density (r = 0.33, p = 0.01), and no correlation between Cobb angle correction of the uninstrumented lumbar spine and cost density (r = 0.15, p = 0.26). There was no significant correlation between all sagittal X-ray measurements or any of the photo parameters and cost density. There was good to excellent inter/intraobserver variability of all photographic parameters based on the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 0.74-0.98). Our method used to measure cosmesis had good to excellent inter/intraobserver variability, and may be an effective tool to objectively assess cosmesis from photographs. Since increasing cost density only improves mildly the Cobb angle correction of the main thoracic curve and not the correction of the uninstrumented spine or any of the cosmetic parameters, one should consider the cost of increasing implant density in Lenke 1A and B curves. In the area of rationalization of health care expenses, this study demonstrates that increasing the number of implants does not improve any relevant cosmetic or radiographic outcomes.