TY - JOUR
T1 - The cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's esophagus with low-grade dysplasia
T2 - results from a randomized controlled trial (SURF trial)
AU - Phoa, K Nadine
AU - Rosmolen, Wilda D
AU - Weusten, Bas L A M
AU - Bisschops, Raf
AU - Schoon, Erik J
AU - Das, Shefali
AU - Ragunath, Krish
AU - Fullarton, G
AU - DiPietro, Massimiliano
AU - Ravi, Narayanasamy
AU - Tijssen, Jan G P
AU - Dijkgraaf, Marcel G W
AU - Bergman, Jacques J G H M
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
PY - 2017/7
Y1 - 2017/7
N2 - BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Surveillance versus Radiofrequency Ablation (SURF) trial randomized 136 patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) containing low-grade dysplasia (LGD), to receive radiofrequency ablation (ablation, n = 68) or endoscopic surveillance (control, n = 68). Ablation reduced the risk of neoplastic progression to high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) by 25% over 3 years (1.5% for ablation vs 26.5% for control). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a provider perspective alongside this trial.METHODS: Patients were followed for 3 years to quantify their use of health care services, including therapeutic and surveillance endoscopies, treatment of adverse events, and medication. Costs for treatment of progression were analyzed separately. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated by dividing the difference in costs (excluding and including the downstream costs for treatment of progression) by the difference in prevented events of progression. Bootstrap analysis (1000 samples) was used to construct 95% confidence intervals (CIs).RESULTS: Patients who underwent ablation generated mean costs of U.S.$13,503 during the trial versus $2236 for controls (difference $11,267; 95% CI, $9996-$12,378), with an ICER per prevented event of progression of $45,066. Including the costs for treatment of progression, ablation patients generated mean costs of $13,523 versus $4,930 for controls (difference $8593; 95% CI, $6881-$10,153) with an ICER of $34,373. Based on the various ICER estimates derived from the bootstrap analysis, one can be reasonably certain (>75%) that ablation is efficient at a willingness to pay of $51,664 per prevented event of progression or $40,915 including downstream costs of progression.CONCLUSIONS: Ablation for patients with confirmed BE-LGD is more effective and more expensive than endoscopic surveillance in reducing the risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia/EAC. The increase in costs of ablation can be justified to avoid a serious event such as neoplastic progression. At a willingness to pay of $40,915 per prevented event of progression, one can be reasonably certain that ablation is efficient. (www.trialregister.nl number: NTR 1198.).
AB - BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Surveillance versus Radiofrequency Ablation (SURF) trial randomized 136 patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) containing low-grade dysplasia (LGD), to receive radiofrequency ablation (ablation, n = 68) or endoscopic surveillance (control, n = 68). Ablation reduced the risk of neoplastic progression to high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) by 25% over 3 years (1.5% for ablation vs 26.5% for control). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a provider perspective alongside this trial.METHODS: Patients were followed for 3 years to quantify their use of health care services, including therapeutic and surveillance endoscopies, treatment of adverse events, and medication. Costs for treatment of progression were analyzed separately. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated by dividing the difference in costs (excluding and including the downstream costs for treatment of progression) by the difference in prevented events of progression. Bootstrap analysis (1000 samples) was used to construct 95% confidence intervals (CIs).RESULTS: Patients who underwent ablation generated mean costs of U.S.$13,503 during the trial versus $2236 for controls (difference $11,267; 95% CI, $9996-$12,378), with an ICER per prevented event of progression of $45,066. Including the costs for treatment of progression, ablation patients generated mean costs of $13,523 versus $4,930 for controls (difference $8593; 95% CI, $6881-$10,153) with an ICER of $34,373. Based on the various ICER estimates derived from the bootstrap analysis, one can be reasonably certain (>75%) that ablation is efficient at a willingness to pay of $51,664 per prevented event of progression or $40,915 including downstream costs of progression.CONCLUSIONS: Ablation for patients with confirmed BE-LGD is more effective and more expensive than endoscopic surveillance in reducing the risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia/EAC. The increase in costs of ablation can be justified to avoid a serious event such as neoplastic progression. At a willingness to pay of $40,915 per prevented event of progression, one can be reasonably certain that ablation is efficient. (www.trialregister.nl number: NTR 1198.).
KW - Adenocarcinoma/prevention & control
KW - Barrett Esophagus/economics
KW - Catheter Ablation/economics
KW - Cost-Benefit Analysis
KW - Disease Progression
KW - Esophageal Neoplasms/prevention & control
KW - Esophagoscopy/economics
KW - Female
KW - Health Care Costs/statistics & numerical data
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Prospective Studies
KW - Radiofrequency Therapy
KW - Watchful Waiting/economics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85011547334&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2016.12.001
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2016.12.001
M3 - Article
C2 - 27956164
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 86
SP - 120-129.e2
JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
IS - 1
ER -