• Umberto Cillo, Gaya Spolverato, Alessandro Vitale, Aslam Ejaz, Sara Lonardi, David Cosgrove, and Timothy M Pawlik.
• Unità di Chirurgia Epatobiliare e Trapianto Epatico, Azienda Ospedaliera-Università di Padova, Padua, Italy.
• World J Surg. 2015 Oct 1; 39 (10): 2500-9.

BackgroundData on cost-effectiveness and efficacy of hepatic resection (HR) for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) are lacking. We sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness of upfront HR resulting in an R1 resection (strategy A) relative to initial systemic chemotherapy (sCT) followed by possible curative HR (strategy B) for patients with advanced ICC.MethodsA Markov model was developed using data from a systematic literature review. Three base cases were considered: (1) ICC >6 cm (2) ICC with vascular invasion (3) multi-focal ICC. A Monte Carlo simulation assessed outcomes including quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsThe net health benefit (NHB) of strategy A versus strategy B was 1.4 QALMs for ICC >6 cm and 1.3 QALMs for ICC and vascular invasion; in contrast, there was a negative NHB for HR versus sCT for multi-focal ICC (-0.3 QALMs). In single nodule ICC >6 cm, the ICER of HR versus sCT was $22,482/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and the ICER of HR versus sCT was $20,953/QALY for ICC with vascular invasion. In multi-focal ICC, the ICER of HR compared with sCT was $83,604/QALY. Patients with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (coefficient 0.94), male sex (coefficient 0.43), low quality of life after sCT (coefficient -2.57) and T3 tumors (coefficient 0.53) had a better NHB for HR relative to sCT followed by potential surgery.ConclusionsFor patients with large ICC or ICC and vascular invasion, HR was more cost-effective than sCT. In contrast, HR was not associated with a positive NHB relative to sCT for patients with multi-focal ICC, and therefore these patients should be treated with sCT rather than HR.

35 keywords...

hide…