Safety Warning about Laparoscopic Power Morcellation in Hysterectomy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of National Impact.

complications cost-effectiveness hysterectomy laparoscopic power morcellation occult uterine cancer

Journal

Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)
ISSN: 2688-4844
Titre abrégé: Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101768931

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
accepted: 22 02 2022
entrez: 13 4 2022
pubmed: 14 4 2022
medline: 14 4 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Following a 2014 safety warning (that laparoscopic power morcellation may increase tumor dissemination if patients have occult uterine cancer), hysterectomy practice shifted from laparoscopic to abdominal approach. This avoided morcellating occult cancer, but increased perioperative complications. To inform the national impact of this practice change, we examined the cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy practice in the postwarning period, in comparison to counterfactual hysterectomy practice had there been no morcellation warning. We constructed a decision tree model to simulate relevant outcomes over the lifetime of patients in the national population undergoing hysterectomy for presumed benign indications. The model accounted for both hysterectomy- and occult cancer-related outcomes. Probability-, cost-, and utility weight-related input parameters were derived from analysis of the State Inpatient Databases, State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases, data from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System and New York State Cancer Registry, and published literature. With an estimated national sample of 353,567 adult women, base case analysis showed that changes in hysterectomy practice after the morcellation warning led to a net gain of 867.15 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), but an increase of $19.54 million in costs (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $22,537/QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the practice changes were cost-effective in 54.0% of the simulations when evaluated at a threshold of $50,000/QALY, which increased to 70.9% when evaluated at a threshold of $200,000/QALY. Hysterectomy practice changes induced by the morcellation warning are expected to be cost-effective, but uncertainty in parameter values may affect the cost-effectiveness results.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Following a 2014 safety warning (that laparoscopic power morcellation may increase tumor dissemination if patients have occult uterine cancer), hysterectomy practice shifted from laparoscopic to abdominal approach. This avoided morcellating occult cancer, but increased perioperative complications. To inform the national impact of this practice change, we examined the cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy practice in the postwarning period, in comparison to counterfactual hysterectomy practice had there been no morcellation warning.
Materials and Methods UNASSIGNED
We constructed a decision tree model to simulate relevant outcomes over the lifetime of patients in the national population undergoing hysterectomy for presumed benign indications. The model accounted for both hysterectomy- and occult cancer-related outcomes. Probability-, cost-, and utility weight-related input parameters were derived from analysis of the State Inpatient Databases, State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases, data from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System and New York State Cancer Registry, and published literature.
Results UNASSIGNED
With an estimated national sample of 353,567 adult women, base case analysis showed that changes in hysterectomy practice after the morcellation warning led to a net gain of 867.15 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), but an increase of $19.54 million in costs (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $22,537/QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the practice changes were cost-effective in 54.0% of the simulations when evaluated at a threshold of $50,000/QALY, which increased to 70.9% when evaluated at a threshold of $200,000/QALY.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Hysterectomy practice changes induced by the morcellation warning are expected to be cost-effective, but uncertainty in parameter values may affect the cost-effectiveness results.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35415718
doi: 10.1089/whr.2021.0101
pii: 10.1089/whr.2021.0101
pmc: PMC8994439
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

369-384

Informations de copyright

© Xiao Xu et al., 2022; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

V.B.D. is an employee of CooperSurgical, Inc., with an adjunct faculty appointment with Yale University. C.P.G. has received grant funding for research distinct from this project from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Foundation (Pfizer/Astra-Zeneca), Genentech, and Johnson & Johnson. J.D.W. has received research funding from Merck, as well as royalties from UpToDate, Inc. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Références

Med Care. 2015 Oct;53(10):840-9
pubmed: 26340662
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Nov;217(5):574.e1-574.e9
pubmed: 28754438
Surg Endosc. 2013 Jul;27(7):2253-7
pubmed: 23660720
J Robot Surg. 2010 Sep;4(3):167-75
pubmed: 20835393
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Dec 10;37(35):3412-3424
pubmed: 31518176
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011 Nov;159(1):1-18
pubmed: 21664034
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Mar;214(3):348.e1-9
pubmed: 26470825
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jun;224(6):589.e1-589.e13
pubmed: 33359176
JAMA. 2016 Aug 23-30;316(8):877-8
pubmed: 27552622
JAMA. 2013 Feb 20;309(7):689-98
pubmed: 23423414
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Feb;57(1):81-86
pubmed: 28251631
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017 Aug;215:41-44
pubmed: 28599164
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Apr;133(4):643-649
pubmed: 30870280
Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018 Nov;67(7):1-64
pubmed: 30707669
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Jan 3;99(1):14-23
pubmed: 17202109
N Engl J Med. 2014 Aug 28;371(9):796-7
pubmed: 25162885
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Sep;292(3):665-72
pubmed: 25820974
Qual Life Res. 2014 Mar;23(2):385-91
pubmed: 23990395
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 May;212(5):594.e1-10
pubmed: 25499259
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Apr;218(4):425.e1-425.e18
pubmed: 29288067
PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58577
pubmed: 23484038
Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Mar 1;137(3):e63-e74
pubmed: 33595252
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Oct 08;107(11):
pubmed: 26449386
Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Dec;126(6):1174-1180
pubmed: 26595561
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007 Feb;29(2):131-139
pubmed: 17346483
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jan 19;103(2):117-28
pubmed: 21228314
JAMA Surg. 2018 Jun 20;153(6):e180141
pubmed: 29641835
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Feb;197:31-5
pubmed: 26699101
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Feb 1;23(2):223-33
pubmed: 26475764
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Dec;130(6):1279-1284
pubmed: 29112658
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Apr;28(4):788-793
pubmed: 32681994
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Jun;149(3):476-483
pubmed: 29681461
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 May;208(5):368.e1-7
pubmed: 23395927
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017 May - Jun;24(4):659-664
pubmed: 28216458
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 May 7;100(9):630-41
pubmed: 18445825
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;129(6):996-1005
pubmed: 28486359
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Mar;136(3):521-8
pubmed: 25562668
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Nov;130(5):1057-1063
pubmed: 29016511
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jul;221(1):39.e1-39.e14
pubmed: 30853364
Med Care. 2000 Jun;38(6):583-637
pubmed: 10843310
BMJ Open. 2013 Apr 18;3(4):
pubmed: 23604345
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012 Mar-Apr;19(2):183-7
pubmed: 22265051
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Aug;122(2 Pt 1):233-241
pubmed: 23969789
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Mar;216(3):259.e1-259.e6
pubmed: 27890646
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Jul-Aug;22(5):820-6
pubmed: 25827327
Anesthesiology. 2018 Feb;128(2):328-337
pubmed: 29194062
Sarcoma. 2012;2012:740279
pubmed: 22550425
Med Care. 1998 Jan;36(1):8-27
pubmed: 9431328
Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Apr;121(1):76-82
pubmed: 21215439
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;214(1):98.e1-98.e13
pubmed: 26314519
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jan;152(1):133-138
pubmed: 30424895
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 May;212(5):591.e1-8
pubmed: 25817518
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Aug;134(2):227-238
pubmed: 31348209
BJOG. 2007 Nov;114(11):1352-62
pubmed: 17949377
Fam Cancer. 2011 Sep;10(3):535-43
pubmed: 21538078

Auteurs

Xiao Xu (X)

Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Vrunda B Desai (VB)

Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
CooperSurgical, Inc., Trumbull, Connecticut, USA.

Peter E Schwartz (PE)

Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Cary P Gross (CP)

Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Haiqun Lin (H)

Division of Nursing Science, Rutgers University School of Nursing, Newark, New Jersey, USA.
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Newark, New Jersey, USA.

Maria J Schymura (MJ)

New York State Cancer Registry, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York, USA.

Jason D Wright (JD)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York, USA.

Classifications MeSH