Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was performed to determine the quality of life and cost-effectiveness of therapeutic options for patients with locally recurrent rectal carcinoma, determined from the perspectives of patients and health care providers. METHODS: We reviewed the records of patients (N=68) with locally recurrent rectal carcinoma evaluated from 1992 through 1995. We constructed a decision-analytic model incorporating outcomes, survival, and costs. Utilities were elicited from convenience samples of health care providers and patients using the standard gamble technique. RESULTS: The median survival for patients undergoing surgical resection (n=40) was 42 months, compared with 16.8 months for patients undergoing diagnostic or palliative surgery (n=16) and 18.3 months for patients treated nonoperatively (n=12;P<0.005). The mean cost of treatment per patient was $19,283 for the nonoperative group, $45,647 for the diagnostic or palliative surgery group, and $70,878 for the surgical resection group. The diagnostic or palliative surgical strategy was dominated by the nonoperative strategy because the former had greater costs with fewer health benefits. The incremental cost-utility ratio of surgical resection compared with nonoperative management using health care provider utilities was $109,777 per quality-adjusted life year gained; it was reduced to $56,698 using per quality-adjusted life year using mean patient utilities. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with recurrent rectal carcinoma view surgery and morbidity to be less severe than health care providers. Diagnostic or palliative surgery is expensive and affects quality-adjusted survival adversely compared with nonoperative therapy. Surgical resection may be a cost-effective use of resources, particularly when cost-effectiveness is calculated using patient preferences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Michelassi F, Vannucci L, Ayala JJ, Chappel R, Goldberg R, Block GE. Local recurrence after curative resection of colorectal adenocarcinoma. Surgery 1990;108:787–93.
Krook J, Moertel C, Gunderson L,et al. Effective surgical adjuvant therapy for high-risk rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1991;324:709–15.
Yeung RS, Moffat FL, Falk RE. Pelvic exenteration for recurrent colorectal carcinoma: a review. Cancer Invest 1994;12:176–88.
Wanebo HJ, Antoniuk P, Koness RJ,et al. Pelvic resection of recurrent rectal cancer: technical considerations and outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42:1438–48.
Lowy AM, Rich TA, Skibber JM, Dubrow RA, Curley SA. Preoperative infusional chemoradiation, selective intraoperative radiation, and resection for locally advanced pelvic recurrence of colorectal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 1996;223:177–85.
Turk PS, Wanebo HJ. Results of surgical treatment of nonhepatic recurrence of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 1993;71:4267–77.
Meterissian SH, Skibber JM, Giacco GG, el-Naggar AK, Hess KR, Rich TA. Pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal carcinoma: factors predicting improved survival. Surgery 1997;121:479–87.
Rusthoven JJ. Are quality of life, patient preferences, and costs realistic outcomes for clinical trials? Support Care Cancer 1997; 5:112–7.
Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Cost-utility analysis. In: Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW, eds. Methods for the economic evaluation of healthcare programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1987:112–47
Pauker SG, McNeil BJ. Impact of patient preferences on the selection of therapy. J Chron Dis 1981;34:77–86.
Naglie G, Krahn MD, Naimark D. Primer on medical decision analysis: part 3 in estimating probabilities and utilities. Med Decis Making 1997;17:136–41.
Cantor SB. Cost-effectiveness analysis, extended dominance and ethics: quantitative assessment. Med Decis Making 1994;14:259–65.
Kaplan E, Meier P. Non-parametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;8:423–46.
Ogunbiyi OA, McKenna K, Birnbaum EH, Fleshman JW, Kodner IJ. Aggressive surgical management of recurrent rectal cancer-is it worthwhile? Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:150–5.
Cunningham JD, Enker W, Cohen A. Salvage therapy for pelvic recurrence following curative rectal cancer resection. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:393–400.
Mehta M, Noyes W, Craig B,et al. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of radiosurgery versus resection for single-brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;39:445–54.
Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992;146:473–81.
Singer PA, Martin DK, Kelner M. Quality end-of-life care. Patients' perspectives. JAMA 1999;281:163–8.
Dominitz JA, Provenzale D. Patient preferences and quality of life associated with colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol 1997;97:2171–8.
Rothwell PM, McDowell Z, Wong CK, Dorman PJ. Doctors and patients don't agree: cross sectional study of patients' and doctors' perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. BMJ 1997;314:1580–3.
Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. JAMA 1996;276:1172–7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Miller, A.R., Cantor, S.B., Peoples, G.E. et al. Quality of life and cost effectiveness analysis of therapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 43, 1695–1701 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236852
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236852