Are policy decisions on surgical procedures informed by robust economic evidence? A systematic review

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 381-393

  Ara, Roberta ^a   Basarir, Hasan ^a   Keetharuth, Anju D ^a   Barbieri, Marco ^b   Weatherly, Helen L A ^b   Sculpher, Mark J S ^b   Ahmed, Hashim ^c   Brown, Steven ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d NORTHERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Key words: Economic evaluation; Neoplasms; Review; Surgical procedures; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS; DISEASES; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEWS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURGERY; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; UROLOGY;

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECT; ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS; HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIVES; NEOPLASMS; PROBABILISTIC SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURGICAL INTERVENTIONS; SURGICAL PROCEDURES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS;

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COLORECTAL CANCER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; PROSTATE CANCER; QUALITY OF LIFE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; MALE; NEOPLASMS;

DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASMS; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84923567218     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462314000531     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Sorenson C, Drummond MF, Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in health care: The role of health technology assessment in the European Union. Observatory Studies Report N.11. Copenhagen: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2008
2. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits AdvisoryCommittee (version 4.3). Australian Government: Department of Health and Ageing; 2008
3. Dutch Healthcare Insurance Board. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research (updated version. Valid as from April 1st 2006). Dieman: Dutch Health Care Insurance Board; 2006
4. NICE. Guide to methods of technology appraisal. London UK; 2013. [updated January 1, 2013]. http://publications.nice.org.uk/pmg9 (accessed March 31, 2014
5. Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Jonsson L, et al. Why should economic evaluation medical innovations have a societal perspective. No 51. London: Office for Health Economic Briefings; 2009
6. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada 3rd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006
7. Lopez-Bastida J, Oliva J, Antonanzas F, et al. Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11:513-520
8. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University; 1996
9. National Audit Office. 2010. [Internet] [updated January 1, 2013]. http://www.nao.org.uk (accessed March 6, 2013
10. Harker R. House of Commons (2012). NHS funding and expenditure. Standard Note SN/SG/724. www.nhshistory.net/parlymoney.pdf (accessed February 20, 2013
11. Leal J. 2012. Pharmatimes online. [Internet] [updated January 1, 2013]. http://www.pharmatimes.com/article/12-11-08/Cancer-costing-UK- %C2%A315-8-billion-a-year.aspx (accessed March 6, 2013
12. Ara R, Barbieri M, Weatherly H, et al. A rapid review of the costeffectiveness of interventions across the cancer patient pathways: Radiotherapy and surgery. Report for the Department of Health. www.eepru.org.uk (accessed March 6, 2014
13. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programs. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005
14. Malin JL, Keeler E, Wang C, et al. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to define a breast cancer benefits package for the uninsured. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;74:143-153
15. Norum J, Olsen JA, Wist EA. Lumpectomy or mastectomy?. Is breast conserving surgery too expensive?. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1997;45:7-14
16. Polsky D, Mandelblatt JS,Weeks JC, et al. Economic evaluation of breast cancer treatment: Considering the value of patient choice. J Clin Oncol. 2003 ;21:1139-1146
17. Callejo D, Guerra M, Reza M, et al. Cost-utility analysis of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Value Health. 2011;14:A263
18. de Verteuil RM, Hernandez RA, Vale L, Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group. Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:464-472
19. Govindarajan A, Naimark D, Coburn NG, et al. Use of colonic stents in emergent malignant left colonic obstruction: A Markov chain Monte Carlo decision analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50:1811-1824
20. Hayes JL, Hansen P. Is laparoscopic colectomy for cancer cost-effective relative to open colectomy?. Anz J Surg. 2007;77:782-786
21. Jensen C, Abcarian H. Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open resection for colon and rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:E186-E187
22. Miller AR, Cantor SB, Peoples GE, et al. Quality of life and cost effectiveness analysis of therapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43:1695-1701
23. Murray A, Lourenco T, de Verteuil R, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: Systematic reviews and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:1-141
24. Calvert NW, Morgan AB, Catto JW, et al. Effectiveness and costeffectiveness of prognostic markers in prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:31-35
25. Hohwu L, Borre M, Ehlers L, et al. A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Med Econ. 2011;14:403-409
26. Jager GJ, Severens JL, Thornbury JR, et al. Prostate cancer staging: Should MR imaging be used?-A decision analytic approach. Radiology. 2000;215:445-451
27. Lyth J, Andersson SO, Andren O, et al. A decision support model for cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer. Scan J Urol Nephrol. 2012;46:19-25
28. The Guideline Development Group. Prostate cancer: Diagnosis and treatment. Clinical Guideline CG58 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/CG58 (accessed March 6, 2014
29. O'Malley SP, Jordan E, O'Malley SP, et al. Review of a decision by the Medical Services Advisory Committee based on health technology assessment of an emerging technology: The case for remotely assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23: 286-91
30. Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1-313
31. Ashby J, O'Hanlon M, Buxton MJ. The time trade-off technique: How do the valuations of breast cancer patients compare to those of other groups?. Qual Life Res. 1994:3;257-265
32. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Group. COST trial: Clinical outcomes of surgical therapy group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2050-2059
33. Hazebroek EJ; The COLOR Study Group,. COLOR: A randomized clinical trial comparing laparascopic and open resection for colon cancer. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:949-953
34. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:570-579
35. Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation of medical devices and drugs - same or different. Value Health. 2009;12:402-403
36. Sorenson C, Tarricone R, Siebert M, et al. Applying health economics for policy decision making: Do devices differ from drugs?. Eurospace. 2011;13(Suppl 2):ii54-ii58
37. nice.org.uk [Internet] [updated February 1, 2013]. http://www.nice.org.uk (accessed February 13, 2013
38. hta.ac.uk [Internet] [updated February 1, 2013]. http://www.hta.ac.uk (accessed February 13, 2013
39. The Guideline Development Group. Early and locally advanced breast cancer: Diagnosis and treatment. Clinical Guideline CG80 2009 London 2009. http://www.guidancenice.org.uk/CG80 (accessed February 13, 2013
40. NCRI Secretariat. National Cancer Research Institute. Challenges and opportunities in surgical cancer research in the UK. http://www.ncri.org.uk (accessed April 2, 2013
41. The Guideline Development Group. Colorectal cancer: The diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer. Clinical Guideline CG131 2011 London 2011. http://www.nice.org.uk/CG131 (accessed February 13, 2013
42. NICE. Laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer (review). NICE technology appraisal guidance 105 (2006). London 2006. http//www.nice.org.uk/TA105 (accessed February 13, 2013