Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Mar;16(3):392-400.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.10.024. Epub 2017 Nov 24.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although treatment of T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is shifting from esophagectomy to endoscopic therapy, T1b EACs are considered too high risk to be treated endoscopically. We investigated the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of esophagectomy vs endoscopic therapy for T1a and T1b EACs, and the effects of age and comorbidities, using a decision analytic Markov model.
We developed a model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of men 75 years old with Charlson comorbidity index scores of 0 and either T1aN0M0 or T1bN0M0 EAC, as a base case. We used the model to compare the effects of esophagectomy vs serial endoscopic therapy. We performed sensitivity analyses based on age at diagnosis of 60-85 years, comorbidity indices of 0-2, and utilities. Post-procedure cancer-specific mortality was derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare database.
In the T1a base case, esophagectomy yielded more unadjusted life years than endoscopic therapy (6.97 vs 6.81), but fewer quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, 4.95 for esophagectomy vs 5.22 for endoscopic therapy). In the T1b base case, esophagectomy yielded more unadjusted life years than endoscopic therapy (5.73 vs 5.01) and QALYs (4.07 vs 3.85 for endoscopic therapy), but was not cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $156,981). Sensitivity analyses showed endoscopic therapy optimized QALYs for patients more than 80 years old with a comorbidity index of 1 or 2, or if the ratio of post-esophagectomy to post-endoscopic therapy utilities was below 0.875.
In a Markov model, we showed that endoscopic therapy of T1a EAC yields more QALYs and is more cost effective than esophagectomy for patients of all ages and comorbidity indices tested. In contrast, selection of therapy for T1b EAC depends on age and comorbidities, due to surgical mortality and the competing risk of non-cancer death.
尽管 T1a 食管腺癌(EAC)的治疗正在从食管切除术转向内镜治疗,但 T1b EAC 被认为风险太高,不适合内镜治疗。我们使用决策分析马尔可夫模型研究了 T1a 和 T1b EAC 患者接受食管切除术与内镜治疗的效果和成本效益,以及年龄和合并症的影响。
我们建立了一个模型来模拟一个 75 岁、Charlson 合并症指数评分为 0 且患有 T1aN0M0 或 T1bN0M0 EAC 的男性假设队列。我们使用该模型比较了食管切除术与连续内镜治疗的效果。我们根据诊断时的年龄(60-85 岁)、合并症指数(0-2)和效用进行了敏感性分析。术后癌症特异性死亡率来源于 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare 数据库。
在 T1a 基础病例中,食管切除术比内镜治疗获得更多的未经调整的生命年(6.97 比 6.81),但 QALY 更少(食管切除术为 4.95,内镜治疗为 5.22)。在 T1b 基础病例中,食管切除术比内镜治疗获得更多未经调整的生命年(5.73 比 5.01)和 QALY(4.07 比 3.85),但不具有成本效益(增量成本效益比为 156981 美元)。敏感性分析表明,对于年龄大于 80 岁、合并症指数为 1 或 2 或食管切除术后与内镜治疗后效用之比低于 0.875 的患者,内镜治疗可优化 QALY。
在马尔可夫模型中,我们表明,对于所有年龄和合并症指数的患者,内镜治疗 T1a EAC 可获得更多的 QALY,并且比食管切除术更具成本效益。相比之下,T1b EAC 的治疗选择取决于年龄和合并症,因为手术死亡率和非癌症死亡的竞争风险。