Abstract
Importance Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) and transoral laser micro-surgery (TLM) are two different but competing minimally invasive techniques to surgically remove operable oropharyngeal squamous cell cancers (OPSCC). As of now, no comparative analysis as to the cost-utility of these techniques exists.
Objective Recent population-level data suggest for TORS and TLM equivalent tumor control, but different total costs, need for adjuvant chemoradiation, and learning curves. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare TORS and TLM from the cost-utility (C/U) point of view using a decision-analytical model from a Swiss hospital perspective.
Design Our decision-analytical model combines decision trees and a Markov model to compare TORS and TLM strategies. Model parameters were quantified using available literature, original cost data from two Swiss university tertiary referral centers, and utilities elicited directly from a Swiss population sample using standard gamble. C/U and sensitivity analyses were used to generate results and gauge model robustness.
Setting Swiss hospital perspective
Intervention Cost-utility analysis
Main outcome measure Comparative cost-utility data from TLM and TORS
Results In the base case analysis TLM dominates TORS. This advantage remains robust, even if the costs for TORS would reduce by up to 25%. TORS begins to dominate TLM, if less than 59,7% patients require adjuvant treatment (pTorsAlone>0.407), whereby in an interval between 55%-62% (pTorsAlone 0.38-0.45) cost effectiveness of TORS is sensitive to the prescription of adjuvant CRT. Also, exceeding 29% of TLM patients requiring a re-operation for inadequate margins renders TORS more cost-effective.
Conclusion TLM is more cost-effective than TORS. However, this advantage is sensitive to various parameters i.e. the number of re-operations and adjuvant treatment.
Question Compare cost-utility of TORS versus TLM
Findings In the base case analysis TLM dominates TORS, even if the costs for TORS would reduce by up to 25%. TORS begins to dominate TLM, if less than 59,7% patients require adjuvant treatment, whereby in an interval between 55%-62% cost effectiveness of TORS is sensitive to the prescription of adjuvant CRT. Exceeding 29% of TLM patients requiring a re-operation for inadequate margins renders TORS more cost-effective.
Meaning TLM is more cost-effective than TORS. However, this advantage is sensitive to the number of re-operations and adjuvant treatment
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding was received to support the work
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
La reponse du secretariat scientifique de la commision ethique de la recherche de l etre humain Suisse du Canton de Vaud du 2.04.2019 ete la suivante: Bonjour Dans la mesure ou aucune donnee personnelle liee a la sante n est recoltee et que la population de participant.e.s n est pas recrutee sur la base d un diagnostique votre projet de recherche n entre pas dans le champ d application de la LRH et ne necessite pas une autorisation de la CER-VD pour etre mene.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data is included in the manuscript and its supplementary material
